What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Sam Flynn]

Read This Mr. Begg, the words of Abberline are better than mine

"I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him. A report was made to the Home Office about the matter, but that it was 'considered final and conclusive' is going altogether beyond the truth."

Ah, but Abberline went on to say: "Then again, the fact that several months after December, 1888, when the student's body was found, the detectives were told still to hold themselves in readiness for further investigations seems to point to the conclusion that Scotland Yard did not in any way consider the evidence as final."

Regardless of his strength as a suspect, Abberline indicates that the police were at least ready to investigate Druitt further at the time. In other words, Abberline's statement suggests that Druitt was already on the police radar in 1888-89, conceivably before Macnaghten joined Scotland Yard, and five years before he wrote his Memorandum.

[The Baron]

in 1972, two years before she died, Macnaghten's daughter told her friend Michael Thornton that in nominating Druitt her father was "only following the official line. The truth could make the throne totter." Thornton reported this in the Sunday Express in 1992.

Even his daughter wasn't convinced, then how could I ?!


He should have done some research.. me saying!


The Baron

[The Baron]

Ah, but Abberline went on to say: "Then again, the fact that several months after December, 1888, when the student's body was found, the detectives were told still to hold themselves in readiness for further investigations seems to point to the conclusion that Scotland Yard did not in any way consider the evidence as final."

Regardless of his strength as a suspect, Abberline indicates that the police were at least ready to investigate Druitt further at the time. In other words, Abberline's statement suggests that Druitt was already on the police radar in 1888-89, conceivably before Macnaghten joined Scotland Yard, and five years before he wrote his Memorandum.

On police radar you say?! maybe thats how they knew he was a doctor, 41 years old, who disappeared and killed himself directly after the last murder?!

But again, the point is, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing to suspect him of.


The Baron

[The Baron]

Ah, but Abberline went on to say: "Then again, the fact that several months after December, 1888, when the student's body was found, the detectives were told still to hold themselves in readiness for further investigations seems to point to the conclusion that Scotland Yard did not in any way consider the evidence as final."

Mckenzie!


The Baron

[PaulB]

Reasonable and knowledgeable people with their heads buried in the sand!

You can use these glib phrases like needing a trip to Specsavers and heads buried in the sand as much as you like, they're an easy and flippant way of avoiding the truth, which is that these people are not Druittists, they're not saying Macnaghten was right, they have no axe to grind, they're just not buying your nonsense and are taking the time to challenge your claims.

I am not disputing that it is not a genuine historical document, but that being said it is not to be relied upon as has been proved. why cant you accept that fact, and if you cant rely on it, then you cant readily accept its contents regarding Druitt without corroboration.

This is tiresome. As has been explained to you countless times, it is accepted that the memorandum contains errors. That has been known and accepted for nearly half a century. So I do accept that. It has also been explained to you that the errors are why nobody relies on the memorandum for accurate information about Druitt. It is also manifestly obvious that nobody is ‘readily’ accepting what Macnaghten says, that’s why they subject it to a very decent analysis that has also been explained. All you do is repeat the same guff over and over, as you have done here, and you don’t address the analysis or explain why it is wrong. As for corroboration, you have said that you’re not saying information implicating Druitt wasn’t received, and that you’re not saying that Macnaghten didn’t conclude that Druitt was the murderer, so what are you wanting corroboration about? And if you or anyone thinks that Macnaghten was lying, you need to provide evidence that Macnaghten was likely to have done that.

MM`s private information was not disclosed by him either in 1894 or when the Aberconaway version was penned absolutely nothing zero, and he had the right to do that, but the circumstances surrounding that info, and the lack of him making any comments in the Aberconway version years later to show he acted upon it, or he belived the info to be the real deal, suggest to me that, all he is saying in the MM and The other verison is that the family told someone they believed Druitt to be the killer and that someone told him.

I don't see how you make the mental leap from Macnaghten not eleborating on the information received to concluding that that information was no more than the suggestion that Druitt's family believed he was the murderer. Apart from the fact that we don't know that the information implicating Druitt was the same as the private information suggesting what Druitt's family believed, you'd have to demonstrate that Macnaghten was an idiot to conclude that Druitt was the Ripper on such shallow information as that. You haven't demonstrated that Macnaghten was that foolish.

Now if you think that is good evidence you do need to take a good look at yourself

Well, if I thought you are offering good evidence, I would indeed need to take a good look at myself. But you are not offering good evidence and it has been explained to you why you're not. Why you fall back on making the same arguments over and over suggests that you're not interested in any alternative opinion (you wouldn't ignore them otherwise) or that you don't understand them

Go take a look at all the other list of 100+ so called suspects and you will see the list is full of suspects without anything to show they should be regarded as a suspect and who should not even be on the list.

I agree. But your point is, what? Are you trying to suggest that Druitt, who Macnaghten actually believed was Jack the Ripper, is on a par with a bunch of nobodies in a file called for by Scotland Yard in January 1889, wouldn't have included Macnaghten's suspects and which didn't include the names of known suspects like John Pizer and Joseph Issenschmidt? I think you're on a hiding to nothing if that's what you are trying to say.

[Sam Flynn]

On police radar you say?! maybe thats how they knew he was a doctor, 41 years old, who disappeared and killed himself directly after the last murder?!

Regardless of those later inaccuracies, Abberline's interview would appear to indicate that Druitt was indeed on the police radar in 1888-89, and that a report had been sent concerning Druitt to the Home Office. Furthermore, Abberline's statement says that the police were on standby to further investigate him months after his suicide - "further" underlined, as it follows that at least some degree of investigation had already happened.

But again, the point is, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing to suspect him of.

I agree, but that's a separate matter. In the specific context of recent discussions, the important thing to note is that, regardless of how weak the case was against him, Druitt seems to have been of at least some interest to the contemporary police, and wasn't retrofitted (or retrofitted-up) by Macnaghten on the basis of "private information" alone.

[Trevor Marriott]

You can use these glib phrases like needing a trip to Specsavers and heads buried in the sand as much as you like, they're an easy and flippant way of avoiding the truth, which is that these people are not Druittists, they're not saying Macnaghten was right, they have no axe to grind, they're just not buying your nonsense and are taking the time to challenge your claims.



This is tiresome. As has been explained to you countless times, it is accepted that the memorandum contains errors. That has been known and accepted for nearly half a century. So I do accept that. It has also been explained to you that the errors are why nobody relies on the memorandum for accurate information about Druitt. It is also manifestly obvious that nobody is ‘readily’ accepting what Macnaghten says, that’s why they subject it to a very decent analysis that has also been explained. All you do is repeat the same guff over and over, as you have done here, and you don’t address the analysis or explain why it is wrong. As for corroboration, you have said that you’re not saying information implicating Druitt wasn’t received, and that you’re not saying that Macnaghten didn’t conclude that Druitt was the murderer, so what are you wanting corroboration about? And if you or anyone thinks that Macnaghten was lying, you need to provide evidence that Macnaghten was likely to have done that.



I don't see how you make the mental leap from Macnaghten not eleborating on the information received to concluding that that information was no more than the suggestion that Druitt's family believed he was the murderer. Apart from the fact that we don't know that the information implicating Druitt was the same as the private information suggesting what Druitt's family believed, you'd have to demonstrate that Macnaghten was an idiot to conclude that Druitt was the Ripper on such shallow information as that. You haven't demonstrated that Macnaghten was that foolish.



Well, if I thought you are offering good evidence, I would indeed need to take a good look at myself. But you are not offering good evidence and it has been explained to you why you're not. Why you fall back on making the same arguments over and over suggests that you're not interested in any alternative opinion (you wouldn't ignore them otherwise) or that you don't understand them



I agree. But your point is, what? Are you trying to suggest that Druitt, who Macnaghten actually believed was Jack the Ripper, is on a par with a bunch of nobodies in a file called for by Scotland Yard in January 1889, wouldn't have included Macnaghten's suspects and which didn't include the names of known suspects like John Pizer and Joseph Issenschmidt? I think you're on a hiding to nothing if that's what you are trying to say.

But he doesn’t state he believed it,he believed the family believed it if that makes sense that’s all there was. It is cleAr he took it no further

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Regardless of those later inaccuracies, Abberline's interview would appear to indicate that Druitt was indeed on the police radar in 1888-89, and that a report had been sent concerning Druitt to the Home Office. Furthermore, Abberline's statement says that the police were on standby to further investigate him months after his suicide - "further" underlined, as it follows that at least some degree of investigation had already happened.
I agree, but that's a separate matter. In the specific context of recent discussions, the important thing to note is that, regardless of how weak the case was against him, Druitt seems to have been of at least some interest to the contemporary police, and wasn't retrofitted (or retrofitted-up) by Macnaghten on the basis of "private information" alone.

Where is the evidence ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

If it means nothing, then stop begging for it.


The Baron

I will stop asking for it.

You are dishonest. It’s there in black and white for all to see.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Go take a look at all the other list of 100+ so called suspects and you will see the list is full of suspects without anything to show they should be regarded as a suspect and who should not even be on the list.

Like Feigenbaum.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On police radar you say?! maybe thats how they knew he was a doctor, 41 years old, who disappeared and killed himself directly after the last murder?!

But again, the point is, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing to suspect him of.


The Baron

You keep topping pathetic meritless posts with pathetic meritless posts.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He should have done some research.. me saying!

If you had done some research Baron you would have known that Druitt’s father was a surgeon. Then you wouldn’t have needed to lie about it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mckenzie!


The Baron

If you are yet again trying to say that Mackenzie was definitely a ripper victim just to try and dismiss Druitt it’s another example of your lack of honesty on this subject.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Would anyone please be so kind as to tell me the origin of the assumption, (because I can find no evidence) that Druitt went into the water from a bridge?

Thank you


Phil

[Sam Flynn]

Where is the evidence ?

Abberline's interview in the Pall Mall Gazette of 31st March 1903. The relevant sections of that interview have been quoted and their implications pointed out already, but here's the section on Druitt in full, with the most significant parts of highlighted:

"Our representative called Mr. Abberline's attention to a statement made in a well-known Sunday paper, in which it was made out that the author was a young medical student who was found drowned in the Thames.

"Yes," said Mr. Abberline, "I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him. A report was made to the Home Office about the matter, but that it was 'considered final and conclusive' is going altogether beyond the truth. Seeing that the same kind of murders began in America afterwards, there is much more reason to think the man emigrated. Then again, the fact that several months after December, 1888, when the student's body was found, the detectives were told still to hold themselves in readiness for further investigations seems to point to the conclusion that Scotland Yard did not in any way consider the evidence as final.""

To spell it out, Abberline is saying that a report was sent about Druitt to the Home Office, and that detectives were told to be prepared for further investigations several months after Druitt's suicide. This means that he was of some interest to the police at least 5 years before Macnaghten wrote his memorandum.