What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[caz]

HI Pat,

Yes I have to agree with your statement, however, and there seems to always be an however with me, the gap of 9 months cannot rule out it was the same killer again.
The gap can have many explanations, he got ill, went away, was either in prison on another charge or temporarily in an asylum.

steve

I agree with that, Steve.

The problem I have with McKenzie being a one-off is that such murders were and are in general far easier to solve, especially if domestic or personal in nature (neither of which would appear to apply in this case). It would therefore be a high risk strategy for a one-off killer to attempt to mimic the murderer of several women, particularly one who had not been active for many months and was therefore thought to be dead or in some way incapacitated. The aim would be to make the job look like the same killer was back on the streets again, but that could seriously backfire if the killer had a known association with the victim, which would make him an obvious suspect to eliminate first. Instead of McKenzie's murder being put down to the unidentified - arguably unidentifiable - ripper from 1888, the end result could be McKenzie's killer being suspected of the lot. Would he have been able to supply firm alibis for the others?

This would also be a problem for anyone with a violent history/criminal record killing their live-in partner in such a way as to get the murder attributed to a recently active, extremely hard to catch serial killer, who may have no such history. How do you get yourself an alibi for any murder committed in the small hours, if you've just done away with the one person who could have given you one?

In 1888, the police were far more used to dealing with domestic violence ending in murder than a series of senseless killings by one individual. They would not have been satisfied that Joe Barnett was innocent, to use the most obvious example, unless he had made a very good fist of it during his lengthy questioning and could account for his whereabouts between the last accepted sighting of Kelly and when her body was discovered. After all, it could not have escaped police notice that Kelly was considerably younger than the previous victims; was murdered in the bed she had up until recently shared with Barnett; and rather than producing a pale imitation of Chapman and Eddowes, the killer really went to town on her, which could have suggested an overdone attempt to live up to the ripper hype, as opposed to the ripper himself going beyond public expectations now he had more time and privacy.

Sorry if this is veering off topic, but McKenzie does stand in my way when considering the viability of Druitt (and Maybrick etc) as a ripper suspect.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hello everyone.

I believe one has to go a stretch to consider Druitt a very serious candidate, for a number of reasons.
Many put a lot of emphasis on Macnaghten. 'He must have had good reason, given the senior policeman he was,' he had a source, and the source stated that even Druitt's family believed that he was the perpetrator. Well, then...
First of all, with all this time between us and Macnaghten, without knowing the man personally we just don't know a lot: about the man, about the specific details that in the end made him believe, about his general views on a lot of subjects. One thing we might suggest with some confidence is that prejudice grows with travels back in time.
If Macnaghten's position and personality was enough of a solid argument, we'd inevitably discount a number of other policemen, some much closer to the ground, right with it. A lot has been said about respective policemen, and for each there's someone disagreeing about the personality assessment in question. Perhaps if we could all go back there and meet the gentlemen, opinions would shift radically, supporters of Anderson now shaking their heads at him, people with a hitherto low opinion of Littlechild becoming quite endeared.
Which leaves us with timing, Druitt's own words, the suicide and the family.
As for the timing, this is predominantly why one cannot count him out, because in principle he could have made it to his games on the days when it was tight. In itself this is not truly condemning, as this certainly goes for a high number of others as well. Incredulity in regards to the resulting time-table aside, it'd be quite a cautious includer. And only if we settle for Mary Kelly as the last victim.
Then the family, and Druitt's affliction. It's tough enough to swallow a source quoting a source. And what do we have from the family? We have someone stating that members of the family believed that he'd been or that he might have been the murderer. We don't even have the exact statement of those family members. And why are they said to have believed this? For the family the murders roughly coinciding with Druitt's personal problems counted more than time tables, one might boldly assume. Druitt's own words expressed his fear to end up like grandma. To become insane. First of all, was she? I might remember wrongly, please correct me, but I believe it was said she suffered from depression (other family members as well). Depression is not usually what we mean with insane. 'Insane' is a pretty strong word, and translates more often, when we're sticking to the clinical sense', into psychotic. 'Depression', meanwhile, is as often generalized. If we're talking clinical depression, then we mean something quite serious. We're talking a potential, and often potent, killer – of the Self, mind you.
While there's certainly merit to the implosion-idea, the notion that a killer like this might self-destruct at some point, with all we don't know we can hardly sink our trust into it. How many serial killers really do? Not to mention that this would still not positively link the self-slaughterer Druitt. If he suffered from a clinical depression it'd be quite enough to account for his suicide – anyone who's dealt with depression, directly or though a close one, knows this. A full-fledged clinical depression would in the end weigh in against Druitt's candidacy. A clinical depression is a disabling disorder. The verdict isn't ultimate, of course, since a depression can and often does accompany a number of other conditions. But from all we have the more likely scenario is a depression as the heart-piece of Druitt's condition. Particularly because it's at one point expressed it doesn't really sit well for me in connection with these murders, but yes, that's a personal view only.
Finally, there are more reasons to be sceptical about family suggesting you for a murderer than not, save for the discovery of a document authored by the family member in question that includes good detailing for good reasons, as well as being of satisfying provenance; and it would still not be enough for me – I'd stress that even a handwritten confession of Druitt himself wouldn't be the end of it, see false confessions.
What could be the motivation for such a suspicion, followed by an actual indictment?
It could be malignant as well as genuinely concerned, given again that we're not acquainted with any member of Druitt's family, as well as the suspicion holding after Druitt's death, I'm inclined to meet the family with the benefit of the doubt and root for the latter. The former is still possible, deep personal ill feelings we don't know about. Worse things have been committed, only remember the incarcerations of family members in mental institutions on wrongful accusations just to get rid of them. But the genuinely believed is not much more credible where no convincing arguments accompany it. Mental distress wasn't that well understood. In my opinion, it's still not all too well understood. Even plain idiosyncrasy is seldom met with good comprehension. If I could only count the occasions on which my family wanted to declare me insane. Many people seem to believe that family is by definition the closest to one of its members, I'd strongly contest this view. Misunderstanding is often abundant, and there's no chance for us to successfully assess Druitt's family in this respect.
In short, don't give me family.
All this said, while none of this can positively serve to discount Druitt as a suspect, together it diminishes likelihood. The holes time created aside, all the above summed up does not strengthen his case, but weakens it.

Great post sepiae!

Love,

Caz
X

[ChrisGeorge]

I agree with that, Steve.

The problem I have with McKenzie being a one-off is that such murders were and are in general far easier to solve, especially if domestic or personal in nature (neither of which would appear to apply in this case). It would therefore be a high risk strategy for a one-off killer to attempt to mimic the murderer of several women, particularly one who had not been active for many months and was therefore thought to be dead or in some way incapacitated. The aim would be to make the job look like the same killer was back on the streets again, but that could seriously backfire if the killer had a known association with the victim, which would make him an obvious suspect to eliminate first. Instead of McKenzie's murder being put down to the unidentified - arguably unidentifiable - ripper from 1888, the end result could be McKenzie's killer being suspected of the lot. Would he have been able to supply firm alibis for the others?

This would also be a problem for anyone with a violent history/criminal record killing their live-in partner in such a way as to get the murder attributed to a recently active, extremely hard to catch, serial killer, who may have no such history. How do you get yourself an alibi for any murder committed in the small hours, if you've just done away with the one person who could have given you one?

In 1888, the police were far more used to dealing with domestic violence ending in murder than a series of senseless killings by one individual. They would not have been satisfied that Joe Barnett was innocent, to use the most obvious example, unless he had made a very good fist of it during his lengthy questioning and could account for his whereabouts between the last accepted sighting of Kelly and when her body was discovered. After all, it could not have escaped police notice that Kelly was considerably younger than the previous victims; was murdered in the bed she had up until recently shared with Barnett; and rather than producing a pale imitation of Chapman and Eddowes, the killer really went to town on her, which could have suggested an overdone attempt to live up to the ripper hype, as opposed to the ripper himself going beyond public expectations now he had more time and privacy.

Sorry if this is veering off topic, but McKenzie does stand in my way when considering the viability of Druitt (and Maybrick etc) as a ripper suspect.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz et al.

Of course, as you know, many exclude Stride because there were no abdominal or other mutilations beyond the cut neck -- although I argue that the deepness of the wounds to the neck, clear to the backbone, makes the murder in Dutfield's Yard a crime done by the same killer. A case could be made for Rose Mylett in Stepney at the end of 1888 being a Ripper murder but her corpse showed no mutilations -- the cause of Mylett's death appears to have been strangulation. So was it more that she was killed in the East End that makes her killing seem a possible Ripper killing. I would argue that at least deep deep neck cuts that we know was our man's signature makes the five canonical murders crimes that were done by the same man. On the basis of the lack of the signature deep cut neck cuts and lack of significant other mutilations, I would exclude "Clay Pipe" Alice McKenzie.

Best regards

Chris



Illustration of Jack the Ripper neck cuts. © Karyo Magellan

[Jon Guy]

On the basis of the lack of the signature deep cut neck cuts and lack of significant other mutilations, I would exclude "Clay Pipe" Alice McKenzie.

Hi Chris

McKenzie had her throat cut down to the vertebrae.
That`s a pretty deep neck cut.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Chris

McKenzie had her throat cut down to the vertebrae.
That`s a pretty deep neck cut.

Hi Jon

Sorry, Jon, you are not correct. Quoting from http://www.casebook.org/victims/mckenzie.html:

[McKenzie] Injuries:

• Cause of death from severance of the left carotid artery.
• Two stabs in the left side of the neck 'carried forward in the same skin wound.'
• Some bruising on chest.
• Five bruises or marks on left side of abdomen.
• Cut was made from left to right, apparently while McKenzie was on the ground.
• A long (seven-inch) 'but not unduly deep' wound from the bottom of the left breast to the navel.
• Seven or eight scratches beginning at the navel and pointing toward the genitalia.
• Small cut across the mons veneris.

". . . . The severing of the left carotid artery is consistent with previous Ripper murders, although the canonical five were murdered with much deeper and longer injuries which cut down to the spinal column. McKenzie suffered only two jagged wounds on the left side which were no longer than four inches a piece and had left the air passages untouched."

The described neck cuts to McKenzie, not to the vertebrae, and the minor mutilations and injuries elsewhere on the victim's corpse tell me this was not the same man who did the canonical murders, who by the time of the McKenzie murder in July 1889 may have been dead, was incarcerated, or had chosen to move to another possible hunting ground.

Best regards

Chris

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jon

Sorry, Jon, you are not correct. Quoting from http://www.casebook.org/victims/mckenzie.html:

[McKenzie] Injuries:

• Cause of death from severance of the left carotid artery.
• Two stabs in the left side of the neck 'carried forward in the same skin wound.'
• Some bruising on chest.
• Five bruises or marks on left side of abdomen.
• Cut was made from left to right, apparently while McKenzie was on the ground.
• A long (seven-inch) 'but not unduly deep' wound from the bottom of the left breast to the navel.
• Seven or eight scratches beginning at the navel and pointing toward the genitalia.
• Small cut across the mons veneris.

". . . . The severing of the left carotid artery is consistent with previous Ripper murders, although the canonical five were murdered with much deeper and longer injuries which cut down to the spinal column. McKenzie suffered only two jagged wounds on the left side which were no longer than four inches a piece and had left the air passages untouched."

The described neck cuts to McKenzie, not to the vertebrae, and the minor mutilations and injuries elsewhere on the victim's corpse tell me this was not the same man who did the canonical murders, who by the time of the McKenzie murder in July 1889 may have been dead, was incarcerated, or had chosen to move to another possible hunting ground.

Hi Chris

Sorry, Chris, you are not correct:

Dr Phillips at the inquest: "This second incision joined the former incision in it`s deepest part, which was immediately over the carotid vessels, which were entirely severed down to the vertebrae of the spinal column"
Reynolds Newspaper
Sunday July 21st 1889

[wigngown]

Sepiae,
A well thought out post,
Best regards.

[martin wilson]

I'm a rubbish researcher, but if anyone is interested in MJD may I humbly suggest the following research areas.

The Gatty v Farguarson libel case. You can decide for yourself Farquarson's credibility as a source.

The use of Winchester notions (slang) or New College slang in the ripper letters.

The 'Tunding Row' of 1872.

Mrs Crayshaw's 1873 letter to Queen magazine entitled 'Woman And Her Master'.

Toynbee Hall. Thanks to Bruce Robinson for its proximity to George Yard.

All the best.
Will.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Chris

Sorry, Chris, you are not correct:

Dr Phillips at the inquest: "This second incision joined the former incision in it`s deepest part, which was immediately over the carotid vessels, which were entirely severed down to the vertebrae of the spinal column"
Reynolds Newspaper
Sunday July 21st 1889

yup. and abdominal mutilations, including a cut to the private parts.
clincher-skirt pushed up to expose lower abdomen-like the rest.
same MO. same sig.

any argument that the wounds weren't severe, excessive or complete enough could be due to any number of factors-possible police interruption, inebriation, weakness due to health, etc.

Mckenzie was more than likely a ripper victim.

[Harry D]

Mckenzie was more than likely a ripper victim.

Most likely, Abby.

Motiveless crime, throat wound, abdominal mutilations, and don't forget the clincher... Robert Anderson was absent when it happened.

[Pierre]

yup. and abdominal mutilations, including a cut to the private parts.
clincher-skirt pushed up to expose lower abdomen-like the rest.
same MO. same sig.

any argument that the wounds weren't severe, excessive or complete enough could be due to any number of factors-possible police interruption, inebriation, weakness due to health, etc.

Mckenzie was more than likely a ripper victim.

I agree and we should add to all this the ambivalence in the interpretations of the doctors as to how the killer had used the left or right hand.

[Abby Normal]

Most likely, Abby.

Motiveless crime, throat wound, abdominal mutilations, and don't forget the clincher... Robert Anderson was absent when it happened.

lol. now that's funny

[John G]

Mackenzie was also subjected to a double neck cut, as were Polly and Annie.

[Fisherman]

I was listening to John McGinness, a California police bigwig earlier today. He spoke about the Golden State killer, Joseph DeAngelo, saying that he had had 21 tips about people who could have been the killer over the years since he became involved in looking at cold cases.
Out of these tips, a number were people tipping the police off about how they thought a family member or close relative was probably the killer, for various reasons.

It made me think of how it was said that Druitts own family suspected him to have been the Ripper.
Maybe it is a common thing in cases like these?

PS. On a separate note, since I have been battling it out with Gareth Williams whether the Ripper victims could have been said to have had their necks cut - Gareth says that we may only say that they had their THROATS cut - I would like to point to the post preceding mine on this thread.

It seems the necks are here to stay. But that is for a different thread.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I have seen a similar thing in other unsolved cases - Black Dahlia and The Zodiac. My Stepfather was The killer etc