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 RJ,

    Did MJD actually say that?
    I believe he did. I think it was the title of the speech he gave when addressing the Eton debate club, or some such organization.

    Of course, when I was 10 I had a "Nixon Now" button. Ah, the folly of youth! RP

    Comment


    • Hi RJ,

      Another thing that troubles me is that Druitt's railway ticket and cheque for 50 had not been reduced to pulp after a month in the water. And nor had the ink run on the cheque. Obviously written with a Waterman's pen.

      Happy days.

      Regards,

      Simon
      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
        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.
        The point isn't really whether the police were willing to charge a suspect with only one of the crimes. The more interesting point is why did they group these crimes together in the first place? - even for a case as seemingly distinct in character as the torso in Pinchin Street. Presumably this meant resources for each murder would be pooled together.

        The later statements of officials, such as MacNaghten and Anderson, shed no light on the thinking that led to filing these murders together. The reasoning behind this though would say much about how the investigation was approached.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          Just off the top of your head, can you think of anything that connects Isenschmid, Pizer, Tumblety, Kozminski, or Sadler to any one of the crimes?
          Off the top of my head:

          Pizer - seems to have been known as Leather Apron, was well known in the area, had indecently assaulted a woman (possibly a prostitute) in the area in the past.

          Isenschmid - carried knives, fit the description of a suspicious man seen near one of the scenes of one of the murders, known to drink in a pub close to the sites of the murders of both Emma Smith and Martha Tabram, had previously been arrested in a brothel on Caledonian Road in unclear circumstances, wife had indicated he may become murderously violent (although she thought only towards herself). Possibly known as Leather Apron in the Holloway Road area.

          Kozminski - Nope, there's nothing.

          Sadler - was with Frances Coles the night she was murdered.

          All of these, with the exception of Kozminski, have a much stronger circumstantial case than Druitt, for whom we only have that he died less than a month after the Mary Kelly murder and the assurance of Macnaghten that there was evidence. There also the rumour put about by H. R. Farquharson MP, who quite possibly could have been the source of Macnaghten's 'private information'.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

            I see a copycat, and as Dr. Phillips (who conducted the autopsy assisted by Dr Brown), also did not see McKenzie's wounds as consistent with the previous Whitechapel Murders then I see no reason to change my view. Dr. Bond was always in contention with his peers and I'm not particularly impressed by his vivid imagination.
            That isn't what Phillips concluded though. Phillips conclusion is more along the lines of he can't satisfy himself the crime is sufficiently similar to the others to be sure it is by the same hand. He specifically does not rule out revising his view if other evidence were brought to bear.

            After careful and long deliberation, I cannot satisfy myself, on purely Anatomical and professional grounds that the perpetrator of all the “Wh Ch. murders” is our man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion in this noting the mode of procedure and the character of the mutilations and judging of motive in connection with the latter.

            I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favour of the one man theory if all the surrounding circumstances and other evidence are considered, holding it as my duty to report on the P.M. appearances and express an opinion only on Professional grounds, based upon my own observation.
            Phillips is far from saying this could not possibly have been committed by the same man. He asserts the anatomical evidence is not enough to conclude so with certainty. It's a professional opinion not a statement of fact.

            The copycat explanation seems like grabbing at a described (rare) phenomenon of copycat murders and using it to explain away the similarities of the crime. But it doesn't work, a copycat is unlikely to show the same ability to escape detection whilst killing literally on a police beat as the Kate Eddowes killer, the same victim selection, in a contemporary time and locality as the killer the copycat seeks to 'emulate'.
            The 'emulating' copycat is over-hyped as the phenomenon anyway, the influence is more often one where the publicised behaviour of a violent offender allows another who already has their own fantasies, to enact their own. Rarely, other than in fiction books, is an attempt made to be 'identical' to another criminal and even when it is, usually it's a botched copy like the scribbling of one who tries to mimic another's handwriting.
            If a modus operandi was so easily copied wholesale, it'd be entirely useless for reasoning about crime.

            I don't know what I see when I look at this murder but one thing I am confident I do not see is a 'copycat' murder.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
              Hi Jon,

              I was stating a fact. Others were there at the time

              If you want to call me a liar, that's your business.

              Regards,

              Simon
              I wouldn't be so bold, in part because you just may have proof of what you say.
              It is just a shame you can't have the same regard for Mac. you have no reservation about calling him a liar, but you seem to take umbrage at the thought of you being regarded in the same light.

              I was making an observation so don't take it to heart.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                Hi RJ,

                Another thing that troubles me is that Druitt's railway ticket and cheque for 50 had not been reduced to pulp after a month in the water. And nor had the ink run on the cheque. Obviously written with a Waterman's pen.

                Happy days.

                Regards,

                Simon
                I think it was J.J. Hainsworth who presented other cases of paperwork on a body retaining it's form & ink after being fished out of a river. I only read that detail a couple of weeks ago.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seanr View Post

                  Off the top of my head:

                  Pizer - seems to have been known as Leather Apron, was well known in the area, had indecently assaulted a woman (possibly a prostitute) in the area in the past.

                  Isenschmid - carried knives, fit the description of a suspicious man seen near one of the scenes of one of the murders, known to drink in a pub close to the sites of the murders of both Emma Smith and Martha Tabram, had previously been arrested in a brothel on Caledonian Road in unclear circumstances, wife had indicated he may become murderously violent (although she thought only towards herself). Possibly known as Leather Apron in the Holloway Road area.

                  Kozminski - Nope, there's nothing.

                  Sadler - was with Frances Coles the night she was murdered.

                  All of these, with the exception of Kozminski, have a much stronger circumstantial case than Druitt, for whom we only have that he died less than a month after the Mary Kelly murder and the assurance of Macnaghten that there was evidence. There also the rumour put about by H. R. Farquharson MP, who quite possibly could have been the source of Macnaghten's 'private information'.
                  Agreed, but nothing could be found concerning these suspects and the previously murdered women. All you have is the evidence that they lived there, but so did thousands of others.
                  Even with Sadler, they couldn't tie him to the previous victims.

                  So, what is the stronger circumstantial case?
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • Herlock,
                    In not accepting the word alone of one man,is keeping an open mind.I doubt the information that Druitt's family suspected him(Druitt)of being the murderer,came directly to Mac from the family.The word family is ambiguous.Was it the whole family,only one member of the family,a distant member of the family etc. Why was suspicion aroused among the family?It is not only the lack of physical or conventional evidence that is lacking when considering Druitt,but the origin of the information that suggests Druitt might have been a murderer.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seanr View Post

                      That isn't what Phillips concluded though. Phillips conclusion is more along the lines of he can't satisfy himself the crime is sufficiently similar to the others to be sure it is by the same hand. He specifically does not rule out revising his view if other evidence were brought to bear.
                      Thats normal procedure. The doctor can only make his judgement based on the last known evidence he saw.


                      Phillips is far from saying this could not possibly have been committed by the same man.
                      He wouldn't say that, but neither did I, right?

                      The copycat explanation seems like grabbing at a described (rare) phenomenon of copycat murders and using it to explain away the similarities of the crime. But it doesn't work, a copycat is unlikely to show the same ability to escape detection whilst killing literally on a police beat....
                      Didn't the killer have approx. a half hour, like 12:20 till 12:50, and still no mutilations?
                      I could have cooked a couple of burgers in that time.

                      I don't know what I see when I look at this murder but one thing I am confident I do not see is a 'copycat' murder.
                      He had twice as long as the Eddowes killer, yet did less than half as much - and you think it's the same guy?

                      He even had a lamp to see what he was doing, but did nothing - why?

                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Hi Jon,

                        I would have expected no less a defense of a train ticket and ink on a cheque being able to withstand the ebbing and flowing of the River Thames for a calendar month.

                        And, by the way, I've been at this lark far too long to ever take umbrage at anything which anyone may say or think.

                        Regards,

                        Simon
                        Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by harry View Post
                          .....I doubt the information that Druitt's family suspected him(Druitt)of being the murderer,came directly to Mac from the family.The word family is ambiguous.Was it the whole family,only one member of the family,a distant member of the family etc.
                          Montie's family lived over in Wimborne, Dorset. We have no indication he visited them in late in 1888, but he did visit his elder brother William who lived in Bournemouth, some time towards the end of October.
                          As William was the head of the family any suspicions would come through him, if it wasn't just him himself.

                          Why was suspicion aroused among the family?
                          The October visit?

                          It is not only the lack of physical or conventional evidence that is lacking when considering Druitt,but the origin of the information that suggests Druitt might have been a murderer.
                          All of which, if it existed, has long disappeared. Yet as one officer (Mac) claims to have received some information we can only work with what we've got.
                          On top of which is the Farquharson letter & the "Priest's Confession" story. All seem to point in the same direction.

                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            Montie's family lived over in Wimborne, Dorset. We have no indication he visited them in late in 1888, but he did visit his elder brother William who lived in Bournemouth, some time towards the end of October.
                            As William was the head of the family any suspicions would come through him, if it wasn't just him himself.


                            The October visit?



                            All of which, if it existed, has long disappeared. Yet as one officer (Mac) claims to have received some information we can only work with what we've got.
                            On top of which is the Farquharson letter & the "Priest's Confession" story. All seem to point in the same direction.
                            I agree save the clergyman could point to anyone, but not inconsistent with Montie
                            G U T

                            There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                            Comment


                            • What indications are there that William had suspicions,or that he would communicate them if he had?Well Jon , we cannot work with information that doesn't exist,and the 'if it existed' shows such a condition of uncertainty,I fail to see why you include it. All your reply does is echo the, well Mac must have received some information.Must he?

                              Comment


                              • The January 1899 North Country Vicar story was reminiscent of the 1892 Catholic priest story. It appeared at the same time as the second edition of Major Griffiths Mysteries of Police and Crime, and, with its two confirmatory references to this book, may have been nothing more than inventive promotional material.
                                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X