What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Trevor Marriott]

So why, in your book, do you say “”So what made Lawton break his client confidentiality”” ?

I have no idea that is why I asked the question.

Feigenbaum was now dead to he had no need to keep that confidentiality.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

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

The same rules apply to Ripper studies as any other part or period of history, and 'anything is plausible' is no more the case in Ripperology than it is anywhere else. If you want to make a suggestion, it has to be plausible.

Macnaghten's role as a senior police officer is important insofar as it gave him access to information, material and discussions that lower ranks may not have had. Being able to distinguish good evidence from bad was not and is not the sole province of those with practical police experience. Macnaghten was educated, intelligent, had business knowledge and experience, and had a life-long interest in police work. The evidence as we have it doesn't suggest that he was gullible, but if you think otherwise, go ahead and prove it. Support your suggestion with good examples.

And if those in high places had said, "What the hell is all this about received information and Macnaghten nailing his colours to the Druitt mast?", Macnaghten would still have looked an idiot if he admitted that it was something he'd been told in passing over a glass of sherry. On top of which, he'd look doubly stupid if he'd placed a passing remark above the 'many circs' that made 'Kosminski' a good suspect.

[PaulB]

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

Feigenbaum was fighting for his life and his last hope was an insanity plea. If admitting to the Whitechapel murders would have helped prove that plea, Feigenbaum had nothing to lose by making such an admission. But there was no necessity for Lawton to have mentioned the other murders, he just had to reveal Feigenbaum's admission that he suffered from an overwhelming urge to kill women. That is what made him insane. Admitting to it, even if there was no expert evidence to back it up, would have lost him nothing. It was a high-stakes game and Lawton had to play every card at his disposal.

[PaulB]

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.

You are quite right, in the memorandum Macnaghten refers to the 'secret information' only in connection with what he feels sure (or has little doubt) Druitt's family believed.

But in 1913 he gave an interview to the Daily Mail in which he said: "...I have a very clear idea who he [Jack the Ripper] was and how he committed suicide, but that, with other secrets, will never be revealed by me. I have destroyed all my documents and there is now no record of the secret information which came into my possession at one time or another.’

The following year in Days of My Years he wrote: "Although the Whitechapel Murderer, in all probability, put an end to himself soon after the Dorset Street affair in November 1888, certain facts, pointing to this conclusion, were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer." And he added his belief "that he committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888."

From this it seems clear that Macnaghten believed Druitt was most likely the Ripper and that suspicions were aroused following the receipt of private or secret information.

[Trevor Marriott]

Feigenbaum was fighting for his life and his last hope was an insanity plea. If admitting to the Whitechapel murders would have helped prove that plea, Feigenbaum had nothing to lose by making such an admission. But there was no necessity for Lawton to have mentioned the other murders, he just had to reveal Feigenbaum's admission that he suffered from an overwhelming urge to kill women. That is what made him insane. Admitting to it, even if there was no expert evidence to back it up, would have lost him nothing. It was a high-stakes game and Lawton had to play every card at his disposal.

Admitting to the WM would have given him no chance in relation to his account, and denials as to the murder of Julia Hoffman and his subsequent not guilty plea, without expert evidence to back up an insanity defence he would have had no chance, at least with his denials and the account he gave, and going to trial he may have had a slim chance, but you cant give an account denying the murder in one breath, and in the next say you are insane, it counts for nothing. He had the opportunity to admit the murder and raise an insane defense at the time he was interviewed to her murder, but as he didnt admit the murder he could not go down that route.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

No matter how many logic-free posts you make Baron you’re not advancing your case one iota. And this is all from your ingrained anti-Druitt bias. I’ve gone through this with you before but it won’t sink in, or will it? Because I don’t for a minute think that you are misunderstanding as it’s fairly obvious that you’re simply not being honest about Mackenzie. I will make this statement hopefully for the last time - it should actually go without saying but here goes:

”Mackenzie might or might not have been a ripper victim. We cannot know for sure therefore it is a matter of opinion. And as we cannot prove that she was a ripper victim then we cannot use her murder to disprove Druitt as the ripper because you cannot use an unknown to prove or disprove an unknown.”

Is this the last time that you will dishonestly presume Mackenzie to be a victim simply to advance an agenda? I somehow doubt it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have no idea that is why I asked the question.

Feigenbaum was now dead to he had no need to keep that confidentiality.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Therefore, because there is an error in your book, your theory is not worth the paper it was written on. Just following your own logic Trevor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Im struggling to understand the point of this post.

Druitt choosing the terribly full schedule and go out all the nights searching for victims,

The killer killed as many as he did. There’s nothing impossible about the amount of victims. And if your trying to employ the “playing cricket” argument it has been easily demonstrated that Druitt’s cricket playing did not stand in the way of him potentially being the murderer.

eating women in Whitechapel

Is there another Jack The Ripper that no one has told me about?

. , a place we don't know if he ever set a foot there!

Which is absolutely no problem as distances aren’t prohibitive.

[The Baron]

Im struggling to understand the point of this post.



The killer killed as many as he did. There’s nothing impossible about the amount of victims. And if your trying to employ the “playing cricket” argument it has been easily demonstrated that Druitt’s cricket playing did not stand in the way of him potentially being the murderer.



Is there another Jack The Ripper that no one has told me about?



Which is absolutely no problem as distances aren’t prohibitive.

You arguments Herlcok are the best, I like it!

You have difficulties accept people who dismiss Stride as a ripper victim, who didn't have abdominal mutilation nor 2 cuts to the throat, and accept happily that Mckenzie was not a ripper victim who had both injuries.

You have difficulties accepting Feigenbaum as a suspect since nothing proves he was in England at the time, and yet you take the time to enlighten
me saying distances absolutely aren't prohibitive.


You will never stop amaizing me Herlock!


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

You arguments Herlcok are the best, I like it!

You have difficulties accept people who dismiss Stride as a ripper victim, who didn't have abdominal mutilation nor 2 cuts to the throat, and accept happily that Mckenzie was not a ripper victim who had both injuries.



You will never stop amaizing me Herlock!


The Baron

.
You have difficulties accept people who dismiss Stride as a ripper victim, who didn't have abdominal mutilation nor 2 cuts to the throat, and accept happily that Mckenzie was not a ripper victim who had both injuries.

Try reading back.

I have no problem at all with anyone who feels that Stride wasn’t a ripper victim in fact I’ve said many times that she might not have been one. Is that clear enough?

I also have no problem with anyone who feels that Mackenzie might have been a ripper victim. She might have been - or she might not. Is that clear enough?

And so to sum up and to avoid any confusion (deliberate or otherwise) I have absolutely no issue with anyone that feels that Stride wasn’t a ripper victim or that Mackenzie was a victim. Ok so far What I don’t accept is that, at a distance in time of 130 years, anyone can be absolutely certain of each or either proposition. So what I’m actually saying Baron, is that we should be cautious and not state things as a fact when they are only possibilities. But you constantly quote Mackenzie as a ripper victim as if it’s a proven fact purely in an attempt to dismiss Druitt. It’s dishonest not to admit when we don’t know something for certain.

You have difficulties accepting Feigenbaum as a suspect since nothing proves he was in England at the time, and yet you take the time to enlight me saying distances aren’t absolutely prohibitive.

Again, surely you can’t misunderstand me?

There is a massive and very obvious difference between Druitt being something like 40 minutes walk from the murder sites and Feigenbaum being 3,450 miles away! Even you can see that this might be a stumbling block?

. You will never stop amaizing me Herlock!

Like a caveman seeing fire for the first time.

[The Baron]

I also have no problem with anyone who feels that Mackenzie might have been a ripper victim. She might have been - or she might not. Is that clear enough?

What you always fail to understand, is that for Druitt to be a viable suspect you MUST dismiss Mckenzie as a ripper victim.

If you don't know if she was or not, then you MUST also have the same attitude about the viabilty of Druitt as a suspect, you have jumped to say Druitt is one of the most viable suspects!




This is simple logic, very simple indeed.


I will continue watching the fire!


The Baron

[Trevor Marriott]

The same rules apply to Ripper studies as any other part or period of history, and 'anything is plausible' is no more the case in Ripperology than it is anywhere else. If you want to make a suggestion, it has to be plausible.

if you or I, or anyone else makes a suggestion who is to say that it isnt plausible. You dont know and cannot prove that MM wasnt given this information over a glass of sherry by an acquaintance, In fact no one knows how he came by the information so "Anything is plausible"

Macnaghten's role as a senior police officer is important insofar as it gave him access to information, material and discussions that lower ranks may not have had. Being able to distinguish good evidence from bad was not and is not the sole province of those with practical police experience. Macnaghten was educated, intelligent, had business knowledge and experience, and had a life-long interest in police work. The evidence as we have it doesn't suggest that he was gullible, but if you think otherwise, go ahead and prove it. Support your suggestion with good examples.

One example would be if he believed what he was told over a glass of sherry !

And if those in high places had said, "What the hell is all this about received information and Macnaghten nailing his colours to the Druitt mast?", Macnaghten would still have looked an idiot if he admitted that it was something he'd been told in passing over a glass of sherry. On top of which, he'd look doubly stupid if he'd placed a passing remark above the 'many circs' that made 'Kosminski' a good suspect.

Lets stick to Druitt . Police officers do not as a rule disclose the names of those giving them information all that he needed to say was that he believed the information to be reliable, but of course as it seems the memo never went anywhere other than his desk draw that situation never prevailed. So you argue a moot point.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Therefore, because there is an error in your book, your theory is not worth the paper it was written on. Just following your own logic Trevor.

There is no error, again you are seeing things that are not there, did you make that appointment with specsavers ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no error, again you are seeing things that are not there, did you make that appointment with specsavers ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You said in your book “Following Feigenbaum’s execution Lawton broke his code of confidentiality.”

and then

”so what made Lawton break his client confidentiality.”

Then in post #1126 you said:

“I have no idea why I asked the question.”

Its in black and white Trevor. Your wriggling is pretty embarrassing.

[Abby Normal]

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.

hi sean
well, Bury, kelly and Koz certainly had a history of violence