Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Jon,

    If you're suggesting that the Aberconway version preceded the 1894 memorandum, you may like to take note of a certain progression within Macnaghten's jottings.

    24th February 1894 Memorandum—

    "The last murder is the only one that took place in a room, and the murderer must have been at least 2 hours engaged."

    Aberconway Version [date unknown]—

    "The last murder is the only one which took place in a room, and the murderer must have been at least 2 hours over his hellish job."

    Days of My Years [1914]—

    ". . . the doctors who were called in to examine the remains, averred that the operator must have been at least two hours over his hellish job."

    Regards,

    Simon
    Hi Simon.

    While I'm taking my first coffee of the day I'm reading your point over and over. I'll tell you what those lines say to me.

    What I see is that the Memorandum was filed at Scotland Yard in 1894.
    Mac. then retires in 1913, and writes his memoirs for 1914, and consults the Aberconway version for his recollections as this is the only version available to him.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      Don’t think so. For some reason I place more weight in the word of Sir Melville Macnaghten that some dodgy American lawyer and his uncorroborated ‘confession.’
      But again your eyesight fails you because there is corroboration.

      Spec savers are doing a special offer for those in need of assiatnec with their sight !

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        The only police officers I would put any faith in with regards to honesty and integrity is Inspector Reid and Insp Abberline, they were front line officers directly involved and if anyone knew anything it would likley have been them.....
        On his retirement, speaking in 1896, Reid asserted:
        "As I have explained, we never in one single instance found a person who had seen a man with any of the murdered women on the evenings they were murdered, so we never had a description of him."

        "Every one of the murders was committed after the public-houses closed at night, most of them within an hour afterwards"

        "I have always believed, that the murderer lived somewhere in the neighbourhood of Berner-street, the first of the murders was in that district...."


        You really believe all that?

        Also, in the same article published on 15 April 1896, Reid told a reporter: "I should say Jack the Ripper is dead".
        Wow, that was close wasn't it Trevor. Your suspect was put to death on 27th April 1896.
        Close, but still wrong! (from your point of view).

        Do we really need to go over all the inaccuracies stated by Abberline after he left the Met.?

        What really matters Trevor, is what all these experienced officers wrote & said WHILE they served on the force, NOT years later.
        From what I recall, Macnaghten is the only one (after Warren) who listed any suspects while he WAS still on the force.
        That fact alone should place his writings head & shoulders above all the rest.
        That is not to say everything Mac. wrote was correct, of course not. Though what you & Simon conveniently choose to ignore are all the statements within the Memorandum which ARE correct.
        those facts alone demonstrate the value of keeping the Memorandum as a viable historical document.



        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


          Agree completely.


          Thank you.


          The Baron
          Then you have a great deal of reading to do
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

            I agree, there's nothing in the evidence to suggest that Druitt was homosexual. That's what I was sort of trying to exemplify with presenting the idea of pornographic post-card collection too. There's no evidence for that either, but I could spin a tale if I wanted to, and if my tale includes a large collection, scattered about the room when his suicide note was found, maybe a few in his desk at school (hence his firing) and some of the more disturbing shown to McNaughton (and so being part of the "private information" he received, and was able to later destroy as he says he did), then it's just as good a tale as him being homosexual, or a pedophile, etc. Anything that one can make up could fill that gap.
            Duly noted, yes. And, let us not forget the private school at Blackheath employed several females, some young ladies and a female cook.
            Any 'serious offense' may well have involved Druitt with one of the female servants, but this possibility is never explored.


            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • we have to rely on the accuracy of the reporters and we know they didnt always get it down verbatum and you are nitpicking to prove you are right

              Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

              On his retirement, speaking in 1896, Reid asserted:
              "As I have explained, we never in one single instance found a person who had seen a man with any of the murdered women on the evenings they were murdered, so we never had a description of him."

              He clearly means killer ,man is wrong

              "Every one of the murders was committed after the public-houses closed at night, most of them within an hour afterwards"

              Depends on what time the public houses closed.

              "I have always believed, that the murderer lived somewhere in the neighbourhood of Berner-street, the first of the murders was in that district...."


              You really believe all that?

              He is entitled to his opinion, do we have anything to disprove that, no we dont !

              Also, in the same article published on 15 April 1896, Reid told a reporter: "I should say Jack the Ripper is dead".
              Wow, that was close wasn't it Trevor. Your suspect was put to death on 27th April 1896.
              Close, but still wrong! (from your point of view).

              But if all the victims were not killed by the same killer, he could be correct ! and dont forget the Met did not get involved with Feigenbaum and there is no evidence to show they were even told about him.

              Do we really need to go over all the inaccuracies stated by Abberline after he left the Met.?

              Why not ?

              What really matters Trevor, is what all these experienced officers wrote & said WHILE they served on the force, NOT years later.

              When events were fresh in their minds

              From what I recall, Macnaghten is the only one (after Warren) who listed any suspects while he WAS still on the force.

              Yes but we know how innacurate he was

              That fact alone should place his writings head & shoulders above all the rest.

              If you are a fan of Druitt yes

              That is not to say everything Mac. wrote was correct, of course not. Though what you & Simon conveniently choose to ignore are all the statements within the Memorandum which ARE correct. those facts alone demonstrate the value of keeping the Memorandum as a viable historical document.

              But the errors far outweigh the accuracies


              Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 04-27-2019, 02:40 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                But again your eyesight fails you because there is corroboration.

                Spec savers are doing a special offer for those in need of assiatnec with their sight !

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                And maybe they’d supply you with a new set of blinkers.
                Regards

                Herlock






                "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                Comment


                • Hi Jon,

                  I very much doubt that the Macnaghten memorandum was filed at Scotland Yard in 1894.

                  It's not the sort of document you'd want floating around in the wake of Ostrog proving that he was in a French jail and being paid £10 compensation for false imprisonment.

                  Also, it has been well argued that the two handwritten pages of the Aberconway version were penned by Lady Aberconway.

                  She must have had a document to go from. Or fantastic memory recall.

                  Regards,

                  Simon
                  Last edited by Simon Wood; 04-27-2019, 03:48 PM.
                  Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                  Comment


                  • Trevor.

                    When you make your replies within the quote it makes it impossible to reply without a lot of labour. You've been here long enough to know how to reply

                    - However, several victims (Eddowes?, Stride, Kelly) were seen with a man within the hour when they were murdered.

                    - The closing times for all public houses within a 4 mile radius of Charing Cross station was 12:30 am five days a week. Sat night close at midnight, Sun night close at 11:00pm.

                    - The first murder (Reid assumes nine victims) was not in the vicinity of Berner Street, which was in St Georges parish.

                    - It isn't necessary to be a fan of Druitt, just more concerned about historical records and their importance. Logically, anything written at the time an officer is still in a position to access factual records requires more attention than the recollected memories written decades later.


                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                      Hi Jon,

                      I very much doubt that the Macnaghten memorandum was filed at Scotland Yard in 1894.

                      It's not the sort of document you'd want floating around in the wake of Ostrog proving that he was in a French jail and being paid £10 compensation for false imprisonment.

                      Regards,

                      Simon
                      Hello Simon.

                      You have a theory how the MM found itself in the Scotland Yard files, other than the normal procedure?
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Hi Jon,

                        I would suggest that Lady Aberconway sent it to Scotland Yard.

                        Regards,

                        Simon
                        Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                          On his retirement, speaking in 1896, Reid asserted:
                          "As I have explained, we never in one single instance found a person who had seen a man with any of the murdered women on the evenings they were murdered, so we never had a description of him."

                          "Every one of the murders was committed after the public-houses closed at night, most of them within an hour afterwards"

                          "I have always believed, that the murderer lived somewhere in the neighbourhood of Berner-street, the first of the murders was in that district...."


                          You really believe all that?

                          Also, in the same article published on 15 April 1896, Reid told a reporter: "I should say Jack the Ripper is dead".
                          Wow, that was close wasn't it Trevor. Your suspect was put to death on 27th April 1896.
                          Close, but still wrong! (from your point of view).

                          Do we really need to go over all the inaccuracies stated by Abberline after he left the Met.?

                          What really matters Trevor, is what all these experienced officers wrote & said WHILE they served on the force, NOT years later.
                          From what I recall, Macnaghten is the only one (after Warren) who listed any suspects while he WAS still on the force.
                          That fact alone should place his writings head & shoulders above all the rest.
                          That is not to say everything Mac. wrote was correct, of course not. Though what you & Simon conveniently choose to ignore are all the statements within the Memorandum which ARE correct.
                          those facts alone demonstrate the value of keeping the Memorandum as a viable historical document.


                          Not that Trevor ever listens, but Macnaghten wrote in a document intended for internal distribution among senior policemen and possibly politicians (as far as we know) who would have known about the 'private information' and Druitt as a suspect, or who would have probably made inquiries about them if they didn't. It therefore seems safe to say that Macnaghten was putting himself on the line if the information didn't exist or was less than it needed to be to justify Macnaghten's conclusion. So Macnaghten wasn't only a serviving police officer, and a senior one in a position to know if information had been received, he was also stating his opinion in an official document over which he could have been quizzed, not giving a newspaper interview from retirement years later.

                          As said, though, none of it will matter to Trevor.

                          Comment


                          • Hi Jeff - Although I think your heart is in the right place, I couldn't agree less, and I think your line of reasoning might very likely lead us into chasing red-herrings.

                            In effect, you are "playing the gay card," and it is the same gay card I see the anti-Tumbletyists playing. In not so many words, they are hinting, suggesting, implying, that the Victorian police --Macnaghten, Littlechild, Swanson, Abberline,-- were so sexually backwards and naïve that the suspicions against Dr T should not be taken seriously, because, after all, he was gay and that, in itself, was enough for these old backward Victorians to have (wrongly) suspected him. Or, in your example, for Macnaghten's suspicions against Druitt to have grown over time.

                            What is the evidence for this? And what if you're wrong?

                            In reality, there is nothing in the surviving MEPO or Home Office files to show that the Victorian police specifically targeted homosexuals in the Ripper murders, and I don't think there is any legitimate reason for me to conclude that the suspicions against either man (Druitt or Tumilty) was originally based on their sexual orientation. Rightly or wrongly, I think police suspicion was based on circumstantial evidence of an entirely different sort, and now, after-the-fact, we modern theorists are trying to exonerate both men by painting the Victorians as sexually naïve.

                            Isn't that, in a nut-shell, what you are implying? Or do you mean something else?

                            As I say, it is very likely to be a red-herring, a politically-correct explanation, but one that may be leading us up a blind-alley. If one of the suspects was black (and perhaps one should be; I speak of Emanuel Delbast Violina) would it be accurate to point out Victorian-era prejudice against blacks, and imply that their suspicions were simply based on racial prejudice? How would I know this to be true? How would I not know that their grounds of suspicion weren't legitimate, and his race was simply incidental? Violina, after all, was simply discredited as a false witness and told to take a hike.

                            By the way, I have found many examples of the usage of "sexually insane" in the late Victorian era and in only one instance did the writer associate it with homosexuality. Almost all of the examples had to do with sexual obsession, such as nymphomania or its male counterpart. People who were obsessed with sex were "sexually insane."

                            All the best.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                              Hi Jon,

                              I very much doubt that the Macnaghten memorandum was filed at Scotland Yard in 1894.

                              It's not the sort of document you'd want floating around in the wake of Ostrog proving that he was in a French jail and being paid £10 compensation for false imprisonment.
                              Why, Simon? There's no reason to suppose that Macnaghten had anything to do with Ostrog's name being a suspect, so why would he be remotely concerned by Ostrog's name on the memoranda?

                              Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                              Also, it has been well argued that the two handwritten pages of the Aberconway version were penned by Lady Aberconway.

                              She must have had a document to go from. Or fantastic memory recall.

                              Regards,

                              Simon
                              The 'Aberconway Version' is a copy of an original that was owned by Julia Donner and passed from her to Gerald Melville Donner and was lost following his death. It was copied by Lady Aberconway's secretary, expect for the 'suspect' material which Lady Aberconway copied by hand.

                              Comment


                              • Hi Casebook, this is my first post on CB.
                                I've been on JTRForums for a while. I am member of Whitechapel Soc. 1888.
                                I have my own candidate which I have been researching since mid 2016.
                                I've been lurking on here on CB and the other place since 2010.

                                ++

                                "What makes Druitt a viable suspect?".

                                No evidence of any involvement.
                                Apart from MM memo. No detail given, no evidence of MJD's guilt.
                                Alleged destruction of records of which there is no evidence they existed.

                                No matching description, partial or otherwise.

                                No known motive.

                                No known history of violence.

                                No known evidence of any other misbehaviour.

                                Fully functioning person on multiple fronts:
                                Legal career, teaching, sporting/social.

                                No known history of previous mental history.

                                No concurrence from any other source other Sims/Griffiths who are merely repeating MM.

                                Contradicted by other 'authorities' eg Anderson, Abberline.

                                Am I missing something about Druitt's candidacy for JTR that I should know about?

                                Martyn









                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X