What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Herlock,

Let's assume that all senior policemen were not liars; that all were truthful in their utterances regarding the identity of JtR.

If any one of them was right, all the others had to be wrong.

Why were they wrong? Why was there no consensus?

Regards,

Simon

[Paddy Goose]

What I don’t get is this very convenient outlook that all senior policemen were de facto liars.

I don't get it either, Herlock. And I don't get why the Null Set feels it necessary to argue all police are liars on a Druitt thread. Then all over again argue that all police are liars on a Kosminski thread. And yet all over again on a Tumblety thread. And also ... well, you get the idea. Why don't the Null Set simply publish their All Police were Liars Manifesto and be done with it. Put your money where your mouth is.

Paddy

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,



Let's assume that all senior policemen were not liars; that all were truthful in their utterances regarding the identity of JtR.

If any one of them was right, all the others had to be wrong.

Why were they wrong? Why was there no consensus?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

We could just assume that they were human. They, like us, can read of events (or different versions of events) and come to different conclusions. Not everyone makes the same interpretation. Not everything has a sinister connotation.

[Abby Normal]

That makes it sound like there are lots of suspects advanced by lots of policemen.

Hi Paul
well at least four who named suspects and several others who didn't and or said they had no clue who it was.
now that being said, unless further evidence arises that exonerates them like Ostrog, then all four must still be considered valid suspects and I favor in order-Chapman, koz, druitt and tumblety.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't get it either, Herlock. And I don't get why the Null Set feels it necessary to argue all police are liars on a Druitt thread. Then all over again argue that all police are liars on a Kosminski thread. And yet all over again on a Tumblety thread. And also ... well, you get the idea. Why don't the Null Set simply publish their All Police were Liars Manifesto and be done with it. Put your money where your mouth is.

Paddy

Hello Paddy.

Ive no doubt at all that, like all organisations, the police were capable of lying - especially to try and cover there own backs when they’ve made an error or when they’ve blurred the lines between the legal and the illegal. I certainly don’t think that we can operate under that kind of assumption though. If we head in that direction we’d just get lost in the fog of conspiracy theorist thinking.

[Wickerman]

I know this has been posted before but it is relevant to this topic so I have posted it yet again

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What I find interesting is the part where he mentions the mutilations and the characterizations,

Trevor, I'm at a loss to figure out what is to be gained by you contesting inaccurate police opinion with a cutting of another inaccurate police opinion?

What is Reid trying to say here:
"I think it wonderful that the mans body should have been found in the Thames before the first of the murders had been committed"?

This does not even look like a typographical error due to the fact both "before" & "first" must be changed (to "after" & "last"). Which then makes it appear to mean "what a wonderful solution" ('wonderful', meaning 'convenient'). Yet, when comparing this criticism with others in that paragraph, it does not seem to be what he meant.
Therefore, Reid doesn't appear to have an argument against 'the body in the Thames' solution.

As for your last point (mutilations, etc.), I think Reid is referring to what was perceived as surgical expertise, not that no organs were removed.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Simon,

We could just assume that they were human. They, like us, can read of events (or different versions of events) and come to different conclusions. Not everyone makes the same interpretation. Not everything has a sinister connotation.

Hello Herlock

I refer you to my posting a few pages back about MM and his conclusions about Cutbush, the sources of the information and his damning comment upon 2 sources.
You see, we can't have it both ways. Either the information received is correct, and therefore the sources are reliable, or, if the information is incorrect, the sources are unreliable. If you would care to read the information rec'd re Cutbush, MM implies the info is be factual, but the sources unreliable. The sources? Cutbush's own mother and Aunt. Talk about pick n mix!
Blinking odd then that someone has informed MM that Cutbush the copper was Cutbush the Criminals uncle. You would have thought the family would know it to be true or not. It seems to me that MM is choosing his 'other' informants over Cutbush's own family! Hence his comment about the mother and aunt.

Now, that's Cutbush. He then states that from private information rec'd, from Druitts family. Please note that Druitt came from upper middle class stock. Those family members are regarded as reliable. Therefore their 'private information' is believed, it appears.

Then, from gawd knows where, the man is unaware that Ostrog is in prison in France during the Whitechapel Murders, 6 years previously, and to boot, he label's the man murderous(homicidal maniac) when he absolutely is not!

Right. Put that lot together and you have inept informants giving false information leading MM to write seriously false facts and tell complete lies to boot. (Ostrog. and probably Cutbush's female relatives)

Now. Given that, the memoranda's information isn't just on shaky ground. It Is unreliable. Period. And I've left out more info from both the 1894 "official version" and the "Aberconway version, which is an even greater flight of misleading 'facts'

Having then put BOTH those pieces of written 'history' (I use the word most advisedly), it is very clear that MM doesn't know s*d all factually. So. Is HE the unreliable one? Or is he lying too?
Seems to me both.
Seems to me his informants are unreliable too.

Which, re Druitt, places all comments under severe critique.

Which leads me to this.

If, for example, a paid police informant fed a policeman falsities, on a scale of the memoranda, the police view of that informant would be 'unreliable'.
They would note what was claimed, and pay little attention to it, and the informant, thereafter.

But we should believe MM? Because he us a top policeman of rank?

Blimey. Don't tell the Hillsborough 96 dead Liverpool family and supporters that. Lying didn't start with the police in 1989 you know. Ever heard of the turf frauds of 1872 ish?

Some policemen are as bent as a 9/- note. A load more tell lies to protect their own and the reputation of the force. And make no bones about it, the Met Police anno 1888 were useless in this case.


Phil

[Wickerman]

And why were they not all singing from the song sheet at the time or thereafter ?

I think they all were, at the time of the murders. All of them had no clue.

It's only after they leave the force and reflect on their actions that they spin these "I knew who the Ripper was" stories.

Apart from Warren who listed three suspects early on (Isenschmidt and a couple of others) on official paperwork. There is only Mac. who wrote about Ripper suspects while he was still on the force. While he still had connections, while he still had the authority to investigate.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Herlock,

Mine was a perfectly reasonable question with no sinister connotations.

Of course they're all human, but they are also police officers, constrained by rules, regulations and the law.

All they did was contradict one another.

In 1903, Abberline said "how strongly [he] was impressed with the opinion that ‘Chapman’ was also the author of the Whitechapel murders."

Macnaghten countered with—

“The theory is reasonable enough, but I have every proof—of a circumstantial and private character, of course—in my possession that Klosowski and Jack the Ripper are not identical personages.”

And—

"Meanwhile it is pretty safe to affirm that a report circulated at the time, that they were committed by a student of surgery suffering from a peculiar form of murder-mania, was the true one. It has even been definitely reported that the student—long since dead—has been identified to the satisfaction of the police as the guilty man."

Macnaghten's proof was "of a circumstantial and private character."

Circumstantial: "Pointing indirectly toward someone's guilt but not conclusively proving it."

His proof was basically worthless.

To arrive at different interpretations of a situation, you have to proceed from the same set of facts.

It is obvious that Abberline and Macnaghten did not.

Why was there no consensus?

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

The police code states "A constable is also justified in arresting on reasonable suspicion that a felony has been committed." With that in mind why no arrests?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

When we read in most London papers a variety of respectably dressed men were taken to the station and questioned, then set at liberty.
Arn't these the "arrests"? There were lots of them.

[Wickerman]

Hi Herlock,

Let's assume that all senior policemen were not liars; that all were truthful in their utterances regarding the identity of JtR.

If any one of them was right, all the others had to be wrong.

Why were they wrong? Why was there no consensus?

Regards,

Simon

Anderson wrote the truth in October 1888, that paragraph about 'never before in the annals of crime, etc.' when he said "without leaving the slightest clue".
As there were no clue's, equally there can be no theories. This is why we read nothing from all these police officials while the murders were being played out.

There was no consensus, because there were no clue's.

[PaulB]

And why were they not all singing from the song sheet at the time or thereafter ? This was a high profile case of which at the the time the police were on a hiding to nothing from the public. Are we expected to believe that they all sat on this information about these various suspects, and each never told the other of their suspicions or any evidence they may have had to point to a real suspect when they were all working in the same building on a daily basis.

You have to stop placing all this belief in the accuracy and truthfulness of these opinions.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Was the 'private information' real or not? You have to make a good case for it not being real, and you haven't done that, or, if it's real, you have the impossible job of determining whether Macnaghten's assessment of that evidence was good or bad - not whether Druitt was Jack the Ripper or not, just whether the evidence was good or bad. The trouble is, you don't know what the evidence was, so you can't assess whether Macnaghten was right or not.

Now, I neither believe nor disbelieve the accuracy and truthfulness Macnaghten. I am simply trying to treat a potentially valuable historical source fairly, trying to assess what the sources tell me, and trying to decide whether it's trustyworthy or not. And if you care to read what I wrote about the memoranda back in the 1990s you'll see that I'm not believing anything. You, on the other hand, have decided on no evidence that the memoranda 'isn't worth the paper it's written on' you advocate that it be dumped in the trash. Why? Because Macnaghten wrote that Druitt was doctor instead of a schoolmaster and because Scotland Yard isn't singing Druitt with the combined ghusto of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir! And the thing other people must ask themselves is whether you really believe that the errors and different hymn sheets really constitute evidence that the 'private information' didn't exist of whether you desperately don't want it to exist so that you can appear to be an iconoclast slaughtering Ripperology's sacred cows.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

And if there were no clues, nobody could have reached a conclusion.

Regards,

Simon

[PaulB]

There are, and they cant all have been the killer ! considering it was such a high profile case, and none of the suspects they named were ever arrested in connection with the murders, and never interviewed regarding the murders. That in itself speaks volumes for these opinions being nothing more than that opinions with nothing to back them up.

The police code states "A constable is also justified in arresting on reasonable suspicion that a felony has been committed." With that in mind why no arrests?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The small amount of thought you put into your arguments is probably very well illustrated by the above, Trevor. None of the suspects were arrested or questioned, you say. Well, Druitt was dead, Kosminski was certified and unfit to plead, Tumblety managed to flee abroad, Ostrog was shown to be innocent of the murders by dint of being prison abroad. Even Chapman was arrested, charged with other murders and executed. So, who else were you thinking of, Trevor? I doubt that I am the only one who sees the irony in you talking about opinions with nothing to back them up.

But who says that the policemen were offering opinions with nothing to back them up? Macnaghten said he was privvy to 'private information' that implicated Druitt. You don't know what it was. You don't know whether it was good or bad. You don't know whether Macnaghten's opinion was well-founded or not. Yet you are prepared to state that Macnaghten had nothing to back up his opinion.

And everyone knows that Macnaghten and Co are offering opinions, and we all know they could all be wrong, but what if one of them was right? It wouldn't matter is all the policement were singing from different song sheets, just as long one of them was singing from the right song sheet would it?

[PaulB]

Hi Paul
well at least four who named suspects and several others who didn't and or said they had no clue who it was.
now that being said, unless further evidence arises that exonerates them like Ostrog, then all four must still be considered valid suspects and I favor in order-Chapman, koz, druitt and tumblety.

I have absolutely no argument with that.