Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    A perfectly logical, calmly reasonable, sensible and utterly fair post. Ever feel like you’re flogging a dead horse though Paul?
    Thanks. Yes, I think the horse is just whitening bones now though. Trevor is impervious to reasoned argument.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

      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.



      True, but the Whitechapel Murders are not synonymous with the Jack the Ripper murders.
      Yes, but what is our source as the basis for us doing so. The Macnaghten memoranda! - I put it to you we are indulging with circular reasoning by setting a 'canonical five' and sticking so rigorously to it as though it were an established fact. It isn't.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seanr View Post

        Yes, but what is our source as the basis for us doing so. The Macnaghten memoranda! - I put it to you we are indulging with circular reasoning by setting a 'canonical five' and sticking so rigorously to it as though it were an established fact. It isn't.
        The Whitechapel murders range from Emma Smith to Francis Coles, and include Rose Mylett & Pinchin St., in total 11. Whether you believe 4, 5, 6 or 7 were committed by the same hand is entirely up to you, but I fail to see how you can say Jack was responsible for all 11 cases.
        This is why there is a distinction.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • It was Mac who proposed the Canonical Five and also proposed Druitt as the killer. So the whole sordid business was rather conveniently done and dusted before he joined the Met.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
            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 naďve 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.
            Hi rjpalmer,

            I'm not intending to play the gay card, though I can see how it appears I'm following suit. What I'm sort of talking around, I think, is that I think the gay card is just one of many that could be in the deck. I could see the police using "sexually insane" to refer to just about anything considered sexually away from the norm. I don't think, however, that they presumed that JtR was homosexual at the exclusion of others (i.e. "years of solitary vices" are referred to with respect to Kosminski as part of his justification for being on the list - but I also don't think they were specifically seeking a chronic masturbator). Rather, I think any suspect for whom they found any sort of sexual deviation would, as a result, be considered a better suspect because of it.


            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?
            I've always read the bit "Personally, after much careful & deliberate consideration, I am inclined to exonerate the last 2, but I have always held strong opinions regarding no. 1, and the more I think the matter over, the stronger do these opinions become." as an indication that upon receiving whatever information he may have concerning MJD, his opinion then was less than it was when writing the MM. And that his view grew over time, which sounds to me like over a long period, not just whilst writing the MM. Hence, I think there is an indication that his suspicions did grow over time.

            I do, however, agree that one could read that differently, but that's the case for almost everything.

            I accept that his "more I think the matter over..." could be referring to the time he's spent writing the MM. But if that's the case, given the errors of fact concerning MJD, then his increased confidence in MJD is on shaky grounds. He's increased his confidence after his memory for the details decreased.


            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 naďve.

            Isn't that, in a nut-shell, what you are implying? Or do you mean something else?
            I agree, and didn't mean to imply the police were specifically looking for homosexuals. I don't even think MJD was homosexual as there is nothing to really suggest it (any more than there is to suggest he had a collection of pornography, again, that suggestion was just trying to show that we can make up anything). All we know is that the MM either alleges or states that MJD was "sexually insane", and I think that is a wide open umbrella term (particularly when being used outside of the context of a medical report). As I mention above, I do think anybody who was looked at during the investigation who was found to have some sort of sexual quirk would then rise in the police suspicions, regardless of what that quirk was. So no, I don't think they were targeting homosexuals per se, but if a Person Of Interest was found to be homosexual, I do think that would raise interest in that POI. And again, to stress, I don't see any actual evidence that MJD was homosexual, but I can't rule it out either.


            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.
            I see what you mean, but actually, that last bit is what I mean,"sexually insane" can mean a wide range of things. I do think the police would be interested in any suspect who could have that umbrella term applied, but the specifics of one instance of a suspect wouldn't mean that was the only specific they would be interested in. I think people have presumed MJD to be homosexual only because that is something they can argue he might have been able to keep hidden from common knowledge so that conveniently explains the lack of any supporting evidence that he was sexually insane in any way.

            And given he wasn't a doctor either, etc, we can't even be sure he was under any part of the umbrella in the first place.

            Not sure if I'm getting myself across all that well. But I suspect we're closer to agreement than not.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              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 !

              Ive told you that I’ve read this before. Why should we believe Lawton? Where’s the corroboration? It’s worthless.

              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

              Thank you for illustrating my point. Do you really not get it?

              Why is it that a statement made by a Lawyer, with no corroboration or proof of genuineness, made about a man that was dead at the time sufficient to make Feigenbaum a likely suspect (despite the fact that this statement could have been a complete work of fiction) and yet a statement by one of the most senior police officers in the country (a man for whom there is zero evidence that he was corrupt or an idiot) isn’t worth the paper it was written on! Can anyone else see a problem here?

              And how do you show that this suspect, proposed by Lawton, might have been in London at the time of the murders......you use Lawton himself!!! That’s like me saying “I know that Druitt was the ripper because I said so.”

              I don’t want to waste time discussing Feigenbaum on here but I’m mentioning him only to point out hypocrisy. The only one fighting a lost cause is you, by blatantly applying different standards and requirements to your own suspect than you do when discussing Macnaghten and Druitt.
              Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 04-28-2019, 08:38 PM.
              Regards

              Herlock




              “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
              “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
              “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
              “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
              “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                But all your replies are negative in as much that you wont accept the errors in the memo are errors that shouldn't be there if MM was as informed as is rank determined he should have been. There is no evidence he was wrong about Druitt because there is no real evidence other than someone probably saying in passing over a glass of sherry. "Oh the drowned doctor could have been the killer"

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Trevor,
                I'm not sure if I have ever read such a load of twaddle as you've just written in reply to my post. If you really believe that Macnaghten would have written a document for his informed superiors in which he endorsed Druitt as Jack the Ripper because somebody casually told him it was Druitt over a glass of sherry, then you have clearly passed the point where rational discussion with you is impossible. I have better things to do with my time.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                  Trevor,
                  I'm not sure if I have ever read such a load of twaddle as you've just written in reply to my post. If you really believe that Macnaghten would have written a document for his informed superiors in which he endorsed Druitt as Jack the Ripper because somebody casually told him it was Druitt over a glass of sherry, then you have clearly passed the point where rational discussion with you is impossible. I have better things to do with my time.
                  Maybe someone told him down the Nag’s Head during a game of dominoes and a pint of brown ale?
                  Regards

                  Herlock




                  “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                  “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                  “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                  “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                  “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Maybe someone told him down the Nag’s Head during a game of dominoes and a pint of brown ale?
                    That would be exactly what happened, since he told him that Druitt was a doctor, 41 years old, who killed himself right away after the Kelly murder.


                    The Baron

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Thank you for illustrating my point. Do you really not get it?

                      Why is it that a statement made by a Lawyer, with no corroboration or proof of genuineness, made about a man that was dead at the time sufficient to make Feigenbaum a likely suspect (despite the fact that this statement could have been a complete work of fiction) and yet a statement by one of the most senior police officers in the country (a man for whom there is zero evidence that he was corrupt or an idiot) isn’t worth the paper it was written on! Can anyone else see a problem here?

                      And how do you show that this suspect, proposed by Lawton, might have been in London at the time of the murders......you use Lawton himself!!! That’s like me saying “I know that Druitt was the ripper because I said so.”

                      I don’t want to waste time discussing Feigenbaum on here but I’m mentioning him only to point out hypocrisy. The only one fighting a lost cause is you, by blatantly applying different standards and requirements to your own suspect than you do when discussing Macnaghten and Druitt.
                      As best I recall, the only evidence against Feigenbaum was provided by Lawton after Feigenbaum had been executed in the United States. Lawton never made use of Feigenbaum's alleged statement during Feigenbaum's lifetime, not even when he tried to save him from execution by claiming he was insane, and Lawton's business partner, Hugh Owen Pentecost, disassociated himself from Lawton's story. Lawton shot himself a year later. Beyond Lawton's story, there is no evidence that Feigenbaum was in England in 1888.

                      There is no evidence that Feigenbaum was in England in 1888, there's no corroboration of any sort that Feigenbaum confessed to the crimes to Lawton, Lawton never told his story when Feigenbaum was alive, not even when he tried to claimed Lawton was insane, Lawton's partner disassociated himself from the story, and Lawton committed suicide within the year. Apparently these don't constitute good reasons for doubting Lawton's story.



                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Baron View Post

                        That would be exactly what happened, since he told him that Druitt was a doctor, 41 years old, who killed himself right away after the Kelly murder.


                        The Baron
                        And how do you know what he told Macnaghten about the profession, age, and time of Druitt's suicide?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Maybe someone told him down the Nag’s Head during a game of dominoes and a pint of brown ale?
                          I bet he was told it by Feigenbaum! It's as likely as the rest of the nonsense.

                          Comment


                          • Apropos Druitt, I've been reading in the A-Z and Ripperologist 124 the rocky history of the Macnaghten Memorandum and its siblings. Once again I ran into a blizzard of conjecture and opinion.

                            The subject was previously discussed in 2008—

                            https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...ing-memorandum

                            As I ventured along the memorandum's rocky road, my eye was caught by reference to a framed "Dear Boss" letter which in 1950 was gracing the walls of Gerald Melville Donner's house in Madras.

                            “Copy be damned,” Gerald said to his Christmas visitor, Philip Loftus, “that’s the original!”

                            One of Donner's daughters saw several framed letters at his Madras house in 1954. This is believed to be the last time Donner’s Ripper material was seen for certain. Donner died in India in 1968.

                            Time marched on.

                            Ripperologist 124—

                            "In November 1987 an anonymous package was sent to New Scotland Yard in an envelope postmarked ‘Croydon, Surrey’. It contained various official Ripper-related documents including ‘Dear Boss’, believed to be the letter written in red ink seen by Philip Loftus on Gerald Donner’s wall in 1950 . . ."

                            Apparently, during those thirty-three years, "Dear Boss" had travelled five thousand miles from Madras to Croydon.

                            I mention all this because, in 1987, prior to its return to Scotland Yard, I held the original "Dear Boss" letter in my hands.
                            Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                              Trevor,
                              I'm not sure if I have ever read such a load of twaddle as you've just written in reply to my post. If you really believe that Macnaghten would have written a document for his informed superiors in which he endorsed Druitt as Jack the Ripper because somebody casually told him it was Druitt over a glass of sherry, then you have clearly passed the point where rational discussion with you is impossible. I have better things to do with my time.
                              Before you go and waste somebody elses time, perhaps you can prove that did not happen in the way I described. Because it is just as plausible an explantion, because there is nothing to show how MM came by his information or what the strength of it was.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                                And how do you know what he told Macnaghten about the profession, age, and time of Druitt's suicide?
                                Yah right, he just told him there was a man named Druitt, his familly suspected him being the ripper.

                                Macnaghten thanked him very much for the valuable informations, they shaked hands and went away.

                                And then Macnaghten make his investigations, and found that Druitt was a doctor, 41 years old, committed suicide directly after the Kelly murder.



                                The Baron

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X