Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by seanr View Post
    When Alice MacKenzie was murdered, the investigating officers considered seriously that the perpetrator was same killer as the previous Whitechapel murders. Whether you think they were right to do so, is by the by, it is clear at the time the investigation did not seriously believe the Ripper was dead.
    When you say "the investigation", it seems you think there was some consensus among the police?.
    Yet, both Dr. Phillips & Andersen were not convinced it was a Ripper killing. Dr. Bond thought it was.

    McKenzie was murdered just over 6 months after Druitt's body was found, but Druitt was not suspected in 1889, not even in 1890, the first clue, an article in the press about a "suicide" being the "son of a surgeon", came in early 1891, but no name was given. The press article just came out 3? days before the murder of Francis Coles.
    So it isn't a case of Druitt being suspected at the time the series was being played out, or even shortly after, that only came years later.


    In the absence of serious consideration of police and detective capabilities in the 1880s and 1890s, what do we see from the senior police at the time. In the MM, two examples of the reasons giving are 'those tricky Jews closed ranks and stopped us getting him (Kosminski)' and with Druitt we have 'the outrage at 13 Miller's Court finally sent the perpetrator so mad he destroyed himself' (this is a psychologically implausible proposition in the first place).
    That the Ripper died after murdering Mary Kelly is a post-rationalisation resting on the canonical five post-rationalisation.
    I'd agree that Mac. saying the killer's brain gave way after Millers Court is merely his conclusion, putting 2 & 2 together himself. I don't think there was any overwhelming evidence for a serial killer to do away with himself out of remorse, or self guilt.

    The senior officers had every reason to mislead their superiors, to save their careers and reputations and also every reason to mislead themselves, to save their own egos. That their given opinions are treated as so sacrosanct and their dubious suspects are treated as the only plausible perpetrators, is a deep flaw in the way this case discussed and approached by historians/ Ripperologists.
    I can't agree with this. when Mac. wrote his Memorandum the Whitechapel murders were long over (3-5 yrs?), and he hadn't even been on the force at the time so had no cause for excuses, or to mislead his superiors.

    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      Exactly Wick. If we relied heavily on the ‘‘there is no evidence that he was violent’ argument’ we would have to eliminate Lechmere, Hutchinson, Tumblety, Sickert and a host of others that people still consider as viable suspects.
      I have to respectfully disagree with what so many are concluding here.

      How likely is that the attack on Emma Smith/ Martha Tabram/ Polly Nichols (delete as appropriate as to what you consider to be the first in the series) was the first offence by the offender? - I'd consider it pretty unlikely.
      In the perpetrator of these crimes we have a serial sadistic killer, carrying weapons in the street in a known tough area of London. Repeating these crimes shows a nature capable of returning to violence.

      Personally, I'd consider it about 80 / 20 the offender had committed violent offences prior to the first in the series. I'd consider it a minimum 60 / 40 that he'd come to police attention for violence in some form prior to this series of murders.
      I note for example, the Yorkshire Ripper not being suspected by neighbours prior to being uncovered is one example of the 'normal bloke' hypothesis, yet this is example of an offender he did have a history of violence, which had previously come to the attention of the police and simply the 'shocked' neighbours didn't know.
      The 'shocked neighbour' makes for a good tabloid angle, and we should be careful about interpreting it too literally.

      That, as noted, the majority of the 'serious' suspects do not have any history of violent offending and given that only one or at most a few of them could possibly have committed the offences, tells us far more about the process of identifying a suspect than it does about the perpetrator.

      That a given suspect does not have a known history of violence does not help make a case against them.

      But that a given suspect does not have a history of violence is circumstantial evidence against their probability of being the offender, albeit weak. The observation being made is a valid one. We know Feigenbaum was capable of murder, we have no evidence to make a case that Druitt was.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

        I can't agree with this. when Mac. wrote his Memorandum the Whitechapel murders were long over (3-5 yrs?), and he hadn't even been on the force at the time so had no cause for excuses, or to mislead his superiors.
        The last case in the Whitechapel murders file was 1891. The memorandum was 1894 so three years since the last included murder in the series.

        There are documents in the Whitechapel murder file dating from 1896. It was the case was still open in 1894.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
          I presume that this is Derman Junior's son, and that Derman Junior was the vicar of Plumstead referred to in the second sentence below:

          "Sir Derman Guy Christopherson, OBE FRS FREng (6 September 1915 – 7 November 2000) was a British engineering science academic. He was born the son of a clergyman, Derman Christopherson, the vicar of Plumstead in southeast London, and Edith Frances Christopherson."

          More at Wikipedia, here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derman_Christopherson

          If I've got my timelines right, "Derman Junior Junior" would have been a pupil at Sherborne School the same time as Alan Turing, albeit Turing was a couple of years younger. </trivia>
          Hello Gareth

          Yes, I believe you are correct in your timelines.
          Thank you for paying attention to the details.

          One part I found fascinating with the whole exercise was the inclusion of other known names (E. H. Ruggles-Brise, twice, for example)

          Another thing that struck me, was the variable amount of games Druitt was actually used, either as bowler or batsman.
          It suggests to me that he was chosen as a fill in player. Otherwise his reputation as bowler or batsman would have been known.


          Phil
          Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


          Justice for the 96 = achieved
          Accountability? ....

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seanr View Post

            Personally, I'd consider it about 80 / 20 the offender had committed violent offences prior to the first in the series. I'd consider it a minimum 60 / 40 that he'd come to police attention for violence in some form prior to this series of murders.
            I note for example, the Yorkshire Ripper not being suspected by neighbours prior to being uncovered is one example of the 'normal bloke' hypothesis, yet this is example of an offender he did have a history of violence, which had previously come to the attention of the police and simply the 'shocked' neighbours didn't know.
            The 'shocked neighbour' makes for a good tabloid angle, and we should be careful about interpreting it too literally.

            That, as noted, the majority of the 'serious' suspects do not have any history of violent offending and given that only one or at most a few of them could possibly have committed the offences, tells us far more about the process of identifying a suspect than it does about the perpetrator.

            That a given suspect does not have a known history of violence does not help make a case against them.

            But that a given suspect does not have a history of violence is circumstantial evidence against their probability of being the offender, albeit weak. The observation being made is a valid one. We know Feigenbaum was capable of murder, we have no evidence to make a case that Druitt was.



            Although I have some sympathy with your observation, Seanr, what you're up against is the "successfully sinister." (Or the merely lucky). Those who have committed violent acts in the past, but successfully stayed 'beneath the radar.' Using your methodology, you are confining yourself strictly to "known offenders." There are indications that Scotland Yard raked the oceans bare, seeking out and investigating the movements of known offenders--and came up empty.

            I think what Wick and others are ultimately arguing is that there are examples of men who murdered and assaulted people before ever being unmasked. Your argument, on some level is valid, but it might also be a dead-end if the Ripper had managed to avoid previous police suspicion. It is not difficult to find modern cases where the police compile vast catalogues of registered sex-offenders, jail birds, known violent offenders, etc., and still came up empty...or ended up charging some bloke who had little or no "form."

            And if you don't believe the Ripper is among the known police suspects, then it is hard to turn around and argue that he didn't have the ability to avoid police suspicion--multiple times.

            In other words, the 60/40 percentage you quote, isn't very good odds. I wouldn't place a bet.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seanr View Post

              That a given suspect does not have a known history of violence does not help make a case against them.

              But that a given suspect does not have a history of violence is circumstantial evidence against their probability of being the offender, albeit weak. The observation being made is a valid one. We know Feigenbaum was capable of murder, we have no evidence to make a case that Druitt was.
              It almost seems like you believe there can never be a new killer.
              Every single year, or month, when a new killer surfaces, your theory is exploded.
              I'm sorry, I do not understand such logic.

              To the best of my knowledge, no-one is asserting that Druitt had to be the Ripper. All of us who give the theory some credit are saying he cannot be dismissed as a suspect, especially because he has no 'form' or no criminal record.
              Every time a new criminal surfaces that line of thinking is proven wrong.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seanr View Post

                The last case in the Whitechapel murders file was 1891. The memorandum was 1894 so three years since the last included murder in the series.

                There are documents in the Whitechapel murder file dating from 1896. It was the case was still open in 1894.
                In July 1889 in Whitechapel there was still a compliment of three sergeants and thirty-nine constables from other divisions outside Whitechapel, that decreased slightly in January 1890 to three sergeants and twenty-six constables and in March 1890 it was reduced even more to two sergeants and eleven constables which may indicate that they clearly suspected the murder of Alice McKenzie in July 1889 as being the work of the Ripper.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                  It almost seems like you believe there can never be a new killer.
                  Every single year, or month, when a new killer surfaces, your theory is exploded.
                  I'm sorry, I do not understand such logic.

                  To the best of my knowledge, no-one is asserting that Druitt had to be the Ripper. All of us who give the theory some credit are saying he cannot be dismissed as a suspect, especially because he has no 'form' or no criminal record.
                  Every time a new criminal surfaces that line of thinking is proven wrong.
                  And before we can accept Druitt as being a suspect, we have to have some evidence, third hand hearsay is simply not good enough and he must remain at best a person of interest and not a suspect.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seanr View Post

                    The last case in the Whitechapel murders file was 1891. The memorandum was 1894 so three years since the last included murder in the series.
                    I'm aware of that, this is why I put 3-5 yrs, meaning Mary Kelly or Francis Coles, but most take the final murder to have been Kelly.

                    There are documents in the Whitechapel murder file dating from 1896. It was the case was still open in 1894.
                    True, but the Whitechapel Murders are not synonymous with the Jack the Ripper murders.

                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      And before we can accept Druitt as being a suspect, we have to have some evidence, third hand hearsay is simply not good enough and he must remain at best a person of interest and not a suspect.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      So ditch Feigenbaum.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        And before we can accept Druitt as being a suspect, we have to have some evidence, third hand hearsay is simply not good enough and he must remain at best a person of interest and not a suspect.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        You're talking 'after-the-fact', that horse has long gone.
                        Mac. admitted he had no proof, the evidence he obtained was circumstantial. Which on the surface does not seem convincing yet, most police will admit, and have admitted here on Casebook, that incriminating evidence often is circumstantial.

                        It is not always necessary for a witness to see a murder take place, for someone to be charged and found guilty.
                        If every case required 'proof', there would be no need for a jury.
                        Last edited by Wickerman; 04-28-2019, 04:21 PM.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seanr View Post

                          I have to respectfully disagree with what so many are concluding here.

                          How likely is that the attack on Emma Smith/ Martha Tabram/ Polly Nichols (delete as appropriate as to what you consider to be the first in the series) was the first offence by the offender? - I'd consider it pretty unlikely.
                          In the perpetrator of these crimes we have a serial sadistic killer, carrying weapons in the street in a known tough area of London. Repeating these crimes shows a nature capable of returning to violence.

                          Personally, I'd consider it about 80 / 20 the offender had committed violent offences prior to the first in the series. I'd consider it a minimum 60 / 40 that he'd come to police attention for violence in some form prior to this series of murders.
                          I note for example, the Yorkshire Ripper not being suspected by neighbours prior to being uncovered is one example of the 'normal bloke' hypothesis, yet this is example of an offender he did have a history of violence, which had previously come to the attention of the police and simply the 'shocked' neighbours didn't know.
                          The 'shocked neighbour' makes for a good tabloid angle, and we should be careful about interpreting it too literally.

                          That, as noted, the majority of the 'serious' suspects do not have any history of violent offending and given that only one or at most a few of them could possibly have committed the offences, tells us far more about the process of identifying a suspect than it does about the perpetrator.

                          That a given suspect does not have a known history of violence does not help make a case against them.

                          But that a given suspect does not have a history of violence is circumstantial evidence against their probability of being the offender, albeit weak. The observation being made is a valid one. We know Feigenbaum was capable of murder, we have no evidence to make a case that Druitt was.
                          Isn’t it simply possible that the onset of a mental illness might have resulted in these murders? And that prior to that onset the subject lived a normal life?

                          Maybe Druitt did have the odd incident of violence in the past but his well-to-do family managed to have them hushed up (especially if they occurred in Dorset?)

                          The fact that Druitt has no history of violence doesn’t reduce the possibility that he could have been the ripper one jot. It’s simply an unknown.

                          This isn’t a Feigenbaum thread so I hope this is the last time I’ll mention him but, yes he was capable of a single murder of a women under completely different circumstances to any of the ripper murders. He cannot be linked to any other murders and his ‘candidature’ is based solely on the word of an alleged ‘confession’ to a dodgy Lawyer who only mentioned this after Feigenbaum was dead. There is not a jot of evidence that he was even in the country at the time of the murders. It beats me how anyone can have the nerve to say that Druitt is no more than a ‘person of interest’ and yet Feigenbaum is a likely suspect! It beggars belief.

                          Druitt is one of the very few worthwhile suspects. Most of the named ones are just people who were drawing breath at the time of the murders and have been fitted up by writers seeking to claim that they’ve solved the case. In recent years for example we had Robert Mann. The name Mann and suspect shouldn’t even be mentioned in the same breath! It’s like a grotesque game of ‘pin the tail on the donkey.’ Yet here we have someone named by Macnaghten who tells us that evidence existed that showed that the suspects own family believed him to have been guilty yet we have people trying to write him off because by implying that Mac must have been either a liar or an idiot or, as Paul has stated, he was too gullible to be able to evaluate whether a source was dodgy or not.

                          I just understand the ‘offended’ tone by those dismissing Druitt.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






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

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            You're talking 'after-the-fact', that horse has long gone.
                            Mac. admitted he had no proof, the evidence he obtained was circumstantial. Which on the surface does not seem convincing yet, most police will admit, and have admitted here on Casebook, that incriminating evidence often is circumstantial.

                            It is not always necessary for a witness to see a murder take place, for someone to be charged and found guilty.
                            If every case required 'proof', there would be no need for a jury.
                            There has to be reasonable proof to bring someone to trial !!!!!!!!!!

                            So what is the circumstantial evidence you see in the case against Druitt?

                            here is but one example of the use of circumstantial evidence

                            If John testifies that he saw Tom raise a gun and fire it at Ann and that Ann then fell to the ground, John's testimony is direct evidence that Tom shot Ann. If the jury believes John's testimony, then it must conclude that Tom did in fact shoot Ann. If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John's testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Tom shot Ann. The jury must determine whether John's testimony is credible.


                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


                              This isn’t a Feigenbaum thread so I hope this is the last time I’ll mention him but, yes he was capable of a single murder of a women under completely different circumstances to any of the ripper murders. He cannot be linked to any other murders and his ‘candidature’ is based solely on the word of an alleged ‘confession’ to a dodgy Lawyer who only mentioned this after Feigenbaum was dead. There is not a jot of evidence that he was even in the country at the time of the murders. It beats me how anyone can have the nerve to say that Druitt is no more than a ‘person of interest’ and yet Feigenbaum is a likely suspect! It beggars belief.
                              What is it with you and Feigenabaum as a suspect ?

                              You have been told many times that there is enough both circumstantial and hearsay evidence to suggest Feigenbaum could be the killer of one some or all of the Whitechapel victims, and as to him not being in London

                              "On my next visit to the Tombs I asked him whether he had not been in London at various times during the whole period covered by the Whitechapel murders. 'Yes, I was,' he answered.

                              Happy Now !

                              Perhaps your time might be better spent trying to find evidence to show Druitt was the killer of women in Whitechapel, instead of fighting a lost cause

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                              Comment


                              • Oh god, now you gone revved the Trev!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X