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,

    I wish you had been there. Others were.

    Then you wouldn't be quite so snarky and dismissive.

    Regards,

    Simon
    Oh heavens Simon, sarky maybe but not snarky.

    Dare I ask if you feel like delivering the point of the post anytime soon?
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
      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."
      As a counterpoint again, the Yorkshire Ripper had previously come to the attention of police for previous violent offences, Peter Sutcliffe came up in the police investigation no less than seven times, each time being dismissed from the investigation before being caught red-handed. This coming at a time when forensic evidence and detective work had advanced considerably since the Whitechapel crimes.

      So, even if the police had in 1888 questioned known offenders and come up empty, it doesn't mean they were correct in these conclusions. They may have questioned and dismissed the very man they were looking for.

      Which means I can still look at the list of suspects we have, with the opinion the perpetrator *probably* had some history of violence (not definitely), and we can see that the list is weighted heavily towards those with no record of violence at the time of the murders and in some cases the years afterwards. The list is weighted what, some 80 / 20, 90 / 10 towards suspects which can be described that way.
      So, it seems like we're saying the Ripper was over-whelming likely to have had no recorded history of violence. Forgetting the actual perpetrator for a second and considering the suggested suspects as a whole, because only one or at least a very few of them would have committed the crimes, the over-whelming slant towards suspects with no history violence, would seem to be evidence of bias in our selection criteria. Unless we really do believe the Ripper probably didn't have a history of violence.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        But you are forgetting all the other evidence in support of Feigenbaum, which is far greater than that you seek to rely on to prop up Druitt

        In the legal profession there is such a thing as client confidentiality. I will explain that because you seem a bit slow on the uptake .

        What is said between a lawyer and his client is in confidence, and the lawyer is not allowed to disclose conversations or admission without the consent of the client. After Feigenbaums execution he would be free to do just that which he did.


        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        There is no other evidence!

        He killed a single woman under completely different circumstances to the ripper murders.
        He cannot be connected to any other murders.
        It cannot be shown that he was even in the country at the time of the ripper murders.
        His candidature is based on an uncorroborated statement which was never used in his lifetime.
        And even if he did say something to Lawton you yourself say that Feigenbaum was a compulsive liar (or perhaps he was only a compulsive liar at certain times?)

        Non-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


        • Originally posted by seanr View Post


          If you believe that either Martha Tabram or Alice Mackenzie were Ripper victims, you must dismiss Druitt.
          As far back as the archives can take you I have always believed two soldiers were responsible for the Tabram murder.
          McKenzie & Coles were by others, in my opinion. In fact I have considered that there was more similarity between Stride & Mckenzie/Coles than those of Nichols, Chapman Eddowes & Kelly.

          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • What is said between a lawyer and his client is in confidence, and the lawyer is not allowed to disclose conversations or admission without the consent of the client. After Feigenbaums execution he would be free to do just that which he did.
            So why, in your book, do you say “”So what made Lawton break his client confidentiality”” ?
            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 have explained it several times, but you appear to be incapable of understanding it. Without going into any detail, Druitt was a real person who had no known connection with the Whitechapel murders, so there is no reason why anyone should ever have linked his name with the crimes.
              And if Macnaghten just chose him because of his suicide to add to his “””better suspect than Cutbush””” list why didn’t he simply choose any recently incarcerated lunatic or violent criminal that died sometime after Kelly? It wouldn’t have been a problem with the resources Mac had at his disposal. Instead he chooses someone with no record of violence or criminality from the professional upper classes who would be far easier to trace and possibly exonerate should someone look into it.
              Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 04-29-2019, 12:20 AM.
              Regards

              Herlock






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

              Comment


              • If you believe that either Martha Tabram or Alice Mackenzie were Ripper victims, you must dismiss Druitt.
                True. But as we cannot be anything like certain of either it so counts for very little as you cannot use an unknown to prove an unknown.
                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 Jon,

                  I am merely establishing a fact, a strange entity in Ripperology.

                  Regards,

                  Simon
                  Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seanr View Post

                    If you believe that either Martha Tabram or Alice Mackenzie were Ripper victims, you must dismiss Druitt.

                    Hi Sean. Your statement has an internal logic, but that doesn't mean that it is particularly meaningful. It represents a sort of false choice.

                    From a legal standpoint, the 'identity of Jack the Ripper' has never made much sense. Despite a statement recently made by a certain author in the Whitechapel Society Journal, you can't charge someone with being Jack the Ripper, or with being the Whitechapel Murderer; you can only charge them with individual, specific crimes.

                    Granted there was sufficient evidence, you could charge Jack Doe with the Tabram murder, the Kelly murder, and the Francis Coles murder, and nothing else; or--again with sufficient evidence--you could charge him for the murder of Annie Chapman and the Pinchin Street Torso, but decide there was not sufficient evidence to warrant pursuing him for any other case.

                    It is theoretically possible that, had they sufficient evidence, Kosminski could have been charged for the Eddowes murder, but left it at that. And, if the evidence was strong, the Treasury wouldn't have so much as blinked if AK had an alibi for the Tabram murder or the McKenzie murder.

                    If you, along with "The Baron," strongly believe the murderer of Alice Mackenzie was guilty of other crimes in the file, then by all means go for it. If you can prove someone guilty of that specific murder, maybe you'll get lucky and be able to link the same person to others. But if he turns out to have an iron clad alibi for the Tabram and Nichols murder, who am I to say you have identified the wrong man?

                    Like it or not, we all have to climb the ladder one rung at a time.

                    The police had no problem with charging Tom Sadler with the Francis Coles murder, even though he had an alibi for Annie Chapman, Liz Stride, and Kate Eddowes.

                    Which clearly proves that they did not insist that all the Whitechapel Murders that eventually ended up in "The File" were the work of one man.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post

                      I am merely establishing a fact, a strange entity in Ripperology.
                      Hi Simon. Damn it's raining a lot here lately. If I looked skyward for too long, I would drown deader than Druitt. Half the South Pacific would be down my nostrils in minutes.

                      So, I have a slight confession to make. On rainy days I become a closet fan of British crime shows, and, as an American, I can't help but notice a reoccurring theme.

                      Whether it's Inspector Morse, Inspector Frost, or Chief Inspector Tennyson, or that long-haired bloke up in Newcastle that speaks with marbles in his cheeks and I can't understand, every show depicts the "upper brass" of the Met (or the local equivalent) as stuffed shirts. They are not only imbecilic, they are in the pocket of the local MP, they spend more time at the club than at their desks, they are deathly afraid of the press, and they constantly place hurdles in the way of their detectives. They're arrogant, pompous, dull-witted, and, at the same time, slightly corrupt. Their main concern is the crime statistics they have to turn in at the end of the quarter; that, and avoiding any hint of a ****-up. And, of course, every once in awhile, one of them turns out to be a prominent member of the local pedophile ring.

                      Is this a British thing?

                      Having lived on both sides of the pond, do you find this depiction a cliché, or an accurate representation? If it is true now, was it true in 1888? Does this perception rightly or wrongly affect our view of Macnaghten, Anderson, Smith, etc?

                      How many parking tickets did you get in your youth, and why do you mistrust the police? Were you smoking reefers in the 60s and getting your head bashed in up in Chelsea?

                      These are the questions that keep me up at night. That and the rain pounding down on my tin roof.

                      In the American crime shows, we seldom see the upper brass. I'm not even sure there IS an upper brass. We live by the cliché of the Lone Ranger and Dirty Harry; our crime stoppers answers to no one.

                      All the best. RP



                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                        In fact I have considered that there was more similarity between Stride & Mckenzie/Coles than those of Nichols, Chapman Eddowes & Kelly.
                        What a fair statement, that shows how your bias to support Druitt blurred your judgment!

                        Dr. Bond:

                        I see in this murder evidence of similar design to the former Whitechapel murders, viz. sudden onslaught on the prostrate woman, the throat skillfully and resolutely cut with subsequent mutilation, each mutilation indicating sexual thoughts and a desire to mutilate the abdomen and sexual organs. I am of opinion that the murder was performed by the same person who committed the former series of Whitechapel murder

                        Sure you can see sexual mutilation in Stride and Cole's murders too, can you not Jon ?!

                        Outstanding indeed!


                        The Baron


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          True. But as we cannot be anything like certain of either it so counts for very little as you cannot use an unknown to prove an unknown.
                          You can add Chapman to the list, it is as if Druitt choosing the terribly full schedule and go out all the nights searching for victims, carrying his long knife, mutilating and eating women in Whitchapel, a place we don't know if he ever set a foot there!


                          Very likely Druitt, no doubt!


                          The Baron

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seanr View Post

                            I have a tendency to disagree with this, sure Macnaghten considered it reliable but he didn't consider it conclusive otherwise he would have discussed one suspect in the memoranda and not three.
                            All that he admits is that he is convinced Druitt's family believed Druitt to be the Ripper. This isn't the same thing as proof Druitt was the Ripper.

                            It seems reasonable to consider it likely that the 'private information' confirms someone's belief in Druitt's guilt and not Druitt's guilt itself.
                            I'm new here, I joined just to reply to this. I've read this thread from the beginning, and I agree with this, I had wondered why no one else here addressed this. My understanding is he did not say he had evidence that Druitt was Jack, he said he had little doubt that the family thought he was the murderer. He didn't even say that he knew the family thought that he was the murderer. IMO there is a difference.



                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                              Trevor,
                              I have explained it several times, but you appear to be incapable of understanding it. Without going into any detail, Druitt was a real person who had no known connection with the Whitechapel murders, so there is no reason why anyone should ever have linked his name with the crimes. And yet somebody did. Why? Well, of course we don't know, but whatever the reason was (or the reasons were), Macnaghten found them persuasive. Macnaghten wasn't a fool and he was perfectly capable of distinguishing good from bad evidence, so his belief suggests that the evidence was pretty solid, and this conclusion appears to be supported by the fact that Macnaghten was happy to endorse Druitt as Jack the Ripper in a memoranda that was apparently intended for distribution among his superiors and senior members of the government. Why does this matter? It matters because Macnaghten was putting his reputation and credibility on the line, and possibly his prospects of promotion, if he'd been asked for clarification and been forced to admit it was because some bloke fdown the pub had told him.

                              In short, if Macnaghten accepted that Druitt was the Ripper on nothing more than "someone probably saying in passing over a glass of sherry. "Oh the drowned doctor could have been the killer" then Macnaghten was not a perspicacious policeman, and, as far as I know, that doesn't accord with what we know of him. You would therefore have to prove that Macnaghten was a fool, and you haven't done that. Your passing remark over a glass of sherry suggestion therefore isn't plausible.

                              In ripperology anything is plausible.

                              MM was only a senior police officer in rank only, he had no practical police experience, resulting in him being vulnerable to believing without question anything he was told.

                              The memo was formulated to passify those senior to him who no doubt would have been asked questions from those others in high places following the sun article.

                              It is the same system even in today's police service

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                                When Lawton allegedly questioned Feigenbaum, Feigenbaum described a serious mental instability. Lawton tried to save Feigenbaum from execution by pleading insanity, but he did not use Feigenbaum's admission. He may not have been able to because of client confidentiality, but why would Feigenbaum have withheld his permission for it to be used?

                                Lawton states that there was no money to engage an expert to go down the insanity route. So they had no choice other than to plead not guilty to the one murder and take their chance with the jury. To have mentioned other murders during that trial would not have been in the interests of the client without expert evidence to try to prove insanity.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X