Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hi Paul,

    Your post #927 can be turned on its head.

    Was the 'private information' real or not? You have to make a good case for it being real, and you haven't done that.

    Now, I neither believe nor disbelieve the accuracy and truthfulness of Macnaghten. I am simply trying to treat a potentially valuable historical source fairly, trying to assess what the source tells me, and trying to decide whether it's trustworthy or not.

    You, on the other hand, have decided on no evidence whatsoever that the 'private information' was real. Why? Because you desperately want it to be real so you can keep one of Ripperology's sacred cows from the slaughterhouse.

    Regards,

    Simon
    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

      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.
      Yes, but none of these were included which is very strange because there are supposed to be the band of police prime suspects

      A person accompanying a police officer to a police station under these circumstances would not be under arrest, and might be asked to accompany a police officer to simply prove his details.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
        Hi Paul,

        Your post #927 can be turned on its head.

        Was the 'private information' real or not? You have to make a good case for it being real, and you haven't done that.

        Now, I neither believe nor disbelieve the accuracy and truthfulness of Macnaghten. I am simply trying to treat a potentially valuable historical source fairly, trying to assess what the source tells me, and trying to decide whether it's trustworthy or not.

        You, on the other hand, have decided on no evidence whatsoever that the 'private information' was real. Why? Because you desperately want it to be real so you can keep one of Ripperology's sacred cows from the slaughterhouse.

        Regards,

        Simon
        Spot on couldnt agree more !

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          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.
          There you go again speculating on what you think the interpretation is, which you are wrong about

          He is pointing out that Druitts body was found in the thames before the murders that took place after the body was found,

          and I dont remember referring to the organ removal issue in my post, your being paranoid !

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            Yes, but none of these were included which is very strange because there are supposed to be the band of police prime suspects

            A person accompanying a police officer to a police station under these circumstances would not be under arrest, and might be asked to accompany a police officer to simply prove his details.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            What I was getting at Trevor was, we do not know the identity of the men who were arrested. Any one of them could have been Druitt, or Tumblety, Kozminski, etc. The police do not identify the suspect until they are charged, you know that.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

              What I was getting at Trevor was, we do not know the identity of the men who were arrested. Any one of them could have been Druitt, or Tumblety, Kozminski, etc. The police do not identify the suspect until they are charged, you know that.
              Well the well dressed gent with the black bag who was arrested by PC Spicer could not have been Druitt Wick.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                A person accompanying a police officer to a police station under these circumstances would not be under arrest, and might be asked to accompany a police officer to simply prove his details.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                "The police at Commercial-street station made another arrest this morning at three o'clock in Dorset street......the man was acting very suspiciously....."
                Globe, 12 Nov. 1888.

                "A man was arrested at Market Harborough......on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer.....the account he has given of himself is not satisfactory...."
                The People, 18 Nov. 1888.

                Arrests were continuing daily - arrests Trevor, not invitations to come to the station for tea and biscuits.

                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • "During the week several arrests have been made, but as the result of inquiries into their antecendents the prisoners have invariably been discharged"
                  People 18 Nov.

                  "No arrests of importance has been made by the police, although several persons were temporarily detained, their actions having excited suspicion - one man indeed was discharged within a few minutes of his arrest, and another is kept in custody until his statements are investigated."
                  Morning Post. 12 Nov.

                  "On being brought before the inspector on duty, he excitedly protested against being arrested in the public streets, alleging that in the present state of public feeling he might have been lynched. The man had been arrested at Shadwell on Saturday by a police constable who considered his behaviour suspicious....."
                  Morning Post, 12 Nov.

                  Even in the press, dozens weekly were being arrested, those are only the ones we know of.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Observer View Post

                    Well the well dressed gent with the black bag who was arrested by PC Spicer could not have been Druitt Wick.
                    All we know is who he claimed to be, not who he was.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                      All we know is who he claimed to be, not who he was.
                      So you believe he could have been Druitt?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post

                        Was the 'private information' real or not? You have to make a good case for it being real, and you haven't done that.
                        Simon, the case has already been made by Mac. it is part of the historical record.

                        If you are the one making the charge that this info. never existed, the burden is on you to prove your case.
                        No-one here is suggesting that Mac must have had some private information, if that were our suggestion then the burden of proof would lie with us.
                        However, as the claim was made by Mac. and the information can be reasonably said to no longer exist then anyone today contesting what he wrote must provide evidence in support of their contention.


                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                          What I was getting at Trevor was, we do not know the identity of the men who were arrested. Any one of them could have been Druitt, or Tumblety, Kozminski, etc. The police do not identify the suspect until they are charged, you know that.
                          But surely the police would need proof of identity before those men were released?

                          From your post above

                          " one man indeed was discharged within a few minutes of his arrest, and another is kept in custody until his statements are investigated."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Observer View Post

                            So you believe he could have been Druitt?
                            Obs. I'm not wholly convinced about anything in this case. Some possibilities are more likely than others, thats all.
                            One of the dilemma's I have is I am still not 100% convinced Stride was a Ripper victim, yet one of the best descriptions for Druitt being the Ripper was given in the Stride case - hence my dilemma.

                            However, as to Spicer's story, if it is true, all I was pointing out is the normal assumption that the killer had to be heading for home on the night of the double murder may not be correct. He could have been looking for victim number three.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Hi Jon,

                              "No-one here is suggesting that Mac must have had some private information, if that were our suggestion then the burden of proof would lie with us."

                              Really? He didn't?

                              I'm glad you've finally owned up to the burden of proof being on you.

                              I won't be holding my breath.

                              Regards,

                              Simon
                              Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Observer View Post

                                But surely the police would need proof of identity before those men were released?

                                From your post above

                                " one man indeed was discharged within a few minutes of his arrest, and another is kept in custody until his statements are investigated."
                                Yes, absolutely.
                                And often verification was merely by an officer being sent to the address given and someone living there confirmed the name of the man in custody did live there.
                                Hardly foolproof, right?
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X