Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    You stick to the evidence and the facts and remove the wild speculation that is rife in ripperolgy

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Just an observation, but speculation is often difficult to avoid. Very of often a statement of fact doesn't mean anything without interpretation and is engaged in without it being realised.

    'There is no record of him telling any other persons about his suspect information'.

    That is a statement of fact, but it doesn't mean very much until you add your speculation that this could mean that the suspect information didn't exist or wasn't good enough to tell anybody about.

    Equally, it is a statement of fact is that the bulk of the case papers, including all the suspect files, no longer exist, so anything Macnaghten wrote about Druitt could be among them.

    Who is speculating?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by AndrewL View Post

      Hi Jeff,

      I think your scenario is well imagined and perfectly possible. It might have been enough to alarm Druitt's family and make them jump to disturbing conclusions. But personally, if I was Macnaghten I'd want something much, much stronger to convince me that this man was Jack the Ripper. For me, the "private information" must have contained something more direct - a history of violence against women, bloodstained clothing, spotted hanging around the East End, something like that. According to Macnaghten's own account, it was also evidence that gained greater significance over time - but what that might have been, I struggle to imagine.
      hi Andrew
      could the private information be simply what he said it was? that the family suspected him of being the ripper-with no further details why?
      "Is all that we see or seem
      but a dream within a dream?"

      -Edgar Allan Poe


      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

      -Frederick G. Abberline

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        You stick to the evidence and the facts and remove the wild speculation that is rife in ripperolgy

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Like wildly speculating on a suspect that you can’t even prove was in the country at the time of the murders? Is that the kind of speculation that you’re talking about Trevor or a different kind?
        Regards

        Herlock






        "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

        Comment


        • I've never "bought in" to the notion that the Victorians were so sexually naïve as to believe that mere homosexuality could be equated with the hatred of women, let alone with someone capable of hacking women to pieces. Hell, Macnaghten went to Eton...an all boy's school. He and his contemporaries would have known better.

          It's a modern notion, and not a very good one. Darryl K is quite right to return to the source material for a definition of sexual mania: Macnaghten himself.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Like wildly speculating on a suspect that you can’t even prove was in the country at the time of the murders? Is that the kind of speculation that you’re talking about Trevor or a different kind?
            How many times do you have to be told that there is read the book to see. Your repetitive comments are becoming boring now change the record and stick to the topic of the thread

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              How many times do you have to be told that there is read the book to see. Your repetitive comments are becoming boring now change the record and stick to the topic of the thread

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              Ive just re-read the Feigenbaum section of your book again but I keep missing the evidence that he was even in the country at the time.

              The only thing that’s becoming ‘boring’ Trevor are your fruitless, biased and desperate efforts to dismiss Druitt as a suspect. And the only reason that I’ve gone off topic is because you apparently demand an immeasurably higher standard of evidence for the veracity of anything that Macnaghten said or for the possibility that Druitt might have been guilty than you do for your own suspect.
              Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 04-26-2019, 08:03 PM.
              Regards

              Herlock






              "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

              Comment


              • Both Druitt and Feigenbaum are terrible suspects.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seanr View Post
                  Both Druitt and Feigenbaum are terrible suspects.
                  Only one of them is a suspect.
                  Regards

                  Herlock






                  "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                  Comment


                  • Hi Herlock,

                    At best, Macnaghten's case against Druitt was nothing but conjecture and shifting opinion.

                    1894 memorandum—

                    "A much more rational theory is that the murderer's brain gave way altogether after his awful glut in Miller's Court, and that he immediately committed suicide, or, as a possible alternative, was found to be so hopelessly mad by his relations, that he was by them confined in some asylum."

                    "He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer."

                    Aberconway—

                    "A much more rational and workable theory, to may way of thinking, is that the 'rippers' brain gave way altogether after his awful glut in Millers Court and that he then committed suicide, or, as a less likely alternative, was found to be so helplessly insane by his relatives, that they, suspecting the worst, had him confined in some lunatic asylum."

                    "From private information I have little doubt but that his own family suspected this man of being the Whitechapel murderer; it was alleged that he was sexually insane."

                    Macnaghten goes from Druitt being sexually insane, to it being alleged that he was sexually insane. Alleged by whom? He goes from committal to an asylum being a possible alternative, to it being a less likely alternative.

                    As Druitt was pulled from the Thames, why bother offering committal to an asylum as an alternative fate?

                    It's all horsefeathers.

                    Regards,

                    Simon
                    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                      Now, sexual insanity seems like it might have been a term that would be applied to anything considered deviant at the time. Hence the usual speculations about whether or not MJD was homosexual, or a pedophile, etc as a reason for losing his teaching job.
                      Hi Jeff.

                      If you notice the first & second post in the second link, Andy Spallek located a few near contemporary sources where the term "Sexually Insane" was used.
                      - The Medico-pharmaceutical critic and guide, 1911.
                      - How to Help One's Self, 1914.
                      -
                      The Medical Herald, 1895.

                      In all cases the term was used in a heterosexual context.
                      And, in the first source you'll notice Spallek wrote:

                      "Sexually insane" here clearly does not mean "homosexual." It appears to refer to someone with an overactive hetero-sexual appetite. In fact, this meaning would make perfect sense in Macnaghten's report re: Druitt."

                      There has never been any cause to think of Druitt as homosexual. The whole idea sprouted from the fact he taught at a boys school, not unusual for the 19th century. Yet modern theorists suggest "what if" Druitt was homosexual?......and the notion has taken on a life of its own.
                      It's a "what if", and was nothing more than a suggestion. It takes up too much space for something that originated from nothing.
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Ive just re-read the Feigenbaum section of your book again but I keep missing the evidence that he was even in the country at the time.

                        The only thing that’s becoming ‘boring’ Trevor are your fruitless, biased and desperate efforts to dismiss Druitt as a suspect. And the only reason that I’ve gone off topic is because you apparently demand an immeasurably higher standard of evidence for the veracity of anything that Macnaghten said or for the possibility that Druitt might have been guilty than you do for your own suspect.
                        You eyesight is as bad as your belief in Druitt as a suspect

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                          hi Andrew
                          could the private information be simply what he said it was? that the family suspected him of being the ripper-with no further details why?
                          Hi Abby,

                          I doubt that very much to be honest, because Macnaghten would hardly have been impressed by family suspicion in itself. If the history of other high-profile murder cases is anything to go by, there were many Londoners in 1888 who worried that their brother/husband/son might be Jack the Ripper. It's quite likely that at least a few of them conveyed their fears to the police. In other words, there must have been some intriguing details in Macnaghten's "private information" that elevated Druitt into his number one suspect - we just don't know what they were.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by AndrewL View Post

                            I doubt that very much to be honest, because Macnaghten would hardly have been impressed by family suspicion in itself. If the history of other high-profile murder cases is anything to go by, there were many Londoners in 1888 who worried that their brother/husband/son might be Jack the Ripper. It's quite likely that at least a few of them conveyed their fears to the police. In other words, there must have been some intriguing details in Macnaghten's "private information" that elevated Druitt into his number one suspect - we just don't know what they were.
                            Druitt's family lived in Dorset, at Wimborne. We don't have much by way of information of Montie having any contact with his siblings at Wimborne. The only family contact we know of is with his brother William with whom he stayed one day in late October. William lived at Bournemouth, so no where near Wimborne.
                            Their mother was in a home at Clapton, so it is unlikely she had any suspicions.

                            From what we have, it would appear that the only family Montie had any real contact with was William. So, if any family member held any suspicions, it would have to be via contact, and the only one who qualifies is William.
                            By a meagre process of elimination it seems Mac. was talking about William having suspicions about Montie, and their only known contact was in late October.

                            Whether these suspicions originated from something Montie said, or from something William saw among Montie's possessions, we can only guess.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              Druitt's family lived in Dorset, at Wimborne. We don't have much by way of information of Montie having any contact with his siblings at Wimborne. The only family contact we know of is with his brother William with whom he stayed one day in late October. William lived at Bournemouth, so no where near Wimborne.
                              Their mother was in a home at Clapton, so it is unlikely she had any suspicions.

                              From what we have, it would appear that the only family Montie had any real contact with was William. So, if any family member held any suspicions, it would have to be via contact, and the only one who qualifies is William.
                              By a meagre process of elimination it seems Mac. was talking about William having suspicions about Montie, and their only known contact was in late October.

                              Whether these suspicions originated from something Montie said, or from something William saw among Montie's possessions, we can only guess.
                              but to be fair, im not sure how much contact people would think I had with my siblings if they looked back in even 20 years from now, let alone 130.
                              G U T

                              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                              Comment


                              • Hi Simon.

                                Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                                Hi Jon,

                                Macnaghten claimed to be privy to 'private information'. That is his claim and nobody else's.
                                Correct, so no-one here on Casebook is required to present evidence of this private information. That ship sailed over a century ago.
                                We must deal with the aftermath of whatever exchange took place.
                                Mac. makes the claim so we must deal with the claim. We can speculate what that claim could have been. We can speculate what Mac's source was for that claim. But the claim is a matter of historical record, if you choose to question it then the onus is on you to present a case.


                                Druittists unquestioningly cleave to Macnaghten's claim. He is not here to defend his corner. But Druittists are. They are Macnaghten's apologists, and must, therefore, be able to justify what he said.
                                On what grounds?

                                We are not dealing with a crime here, this is history. I'd be interested to know if you think the average historian is required to prove every statement ever made by any historical figure down through time. Generally, their word is taken at face value unless there is evidence to the contrary, or a valid reason why what they said may be wrong.
                                No witness at an inquest is required to prove their story, history is treated much the same.

                                I have not seen you present any evidence to the contrary, nor present a valid reason why what he said may be untrue, or wrong.


                                Yet so far the best anyone has come up with is that Macnaghten must have had this 'private information' or he wouldn't have mentioned it.
                                You might not like it but that is close to how history works. Now, maybe you could demonstrate Montie had no contact with his family throughout the span of the murders - if that was the case then you would have a justifiable reason to question Mac's claim.


                                It's not my task to prove that Macnaghten did not say something which he may not have originally said.
                                So if you claim the US didn't land on the Moon, you think it's my job to prove they did?
                                That's not how it works Simon.

                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X