What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[PaulB]

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


[b]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.


The Baron

I am well aware of what Abberline wrote. It would imply that the information implicating Druitt was known to other policemen, wouldn't it? And that it was investigated? These are things which Trevor is at pains to say didn't happen. Not that that matter one iota. But when would you suppose that Druitt was looked at and it was concluded that nothing but the time of his suicide implicated him? December 1888? At the time his body was discovered? Is it possible that he was investigated at that time because he was thought to have killed himself after the murder of Kelly?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

It’s a sad state of affairs that you have to expend so much time and effort to explain something that would be obvious to your average toddler. I simply refuse to believe that Trevor can’t understand your points so the conclusion is an obvious and unavoidable one. Trevor has a suspect to promote and so is using any method that he can to try and eliminate Druitt from any list of suspects. The Macnaghten Memoranda, written by a very senior and widely respected police officer, is according to Trevor less valid than an uncorroborated statement made about Feigenbaum by a Lawyer after the suspect was dead. On what planet?!

We are in danger of falling further and further down this purposely created rabbit-hole. Thankfully there are posters who, even though they might not suggest Druitt as a favoured candidate (or even a decent candidate), remain open-minded and willing to discuss ideas. I’m not saying that Druitt was definitely Jack the Ripper unlike Baron for example who stoops to saying that Mackenzie was definitely a ripper victim purely to try and eliminate Druitt. I will say that, of the named suspects, I consider Druitt the best of them.

At least we can show that he was in the country at the time of the murders.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Look Baron.....a poster that doesn’t feel that Druitt is a particularly good candidate but can make honest, reasonable, well-informed posts.

It is possible you know.

[The Baron]

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.""

.

Because of Mckenzie murder several months after December 1888.

The Baron

[PaulB]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Macnaghten wrote, "I am inclined to exonerate the last two, but, I have always held strong opinions regarding no. 1, and the more I think the matter over, the stronger do these opinions become." And, "but I have a very clear idea who he was and how he committed suicide." And, "The truth, however, will never be known, and did, indeed, at one time lie at the bottom of the Thames, if my conjections (sic) be correct.”

I would say it is fair enough to draw from these statements that Macnaghten believed Druitt was Jack the Ripper, although he was naturally cautious about intimating that the evidence was conclusive or anything like that. What he stated about Druitt's family was that from private information he had little doubt that they believed him to be the murderer. As said, there is no certainty - in fact, it is probably very uncertain - that the only information received was the private information referring to Druitt's family. The belief of the family was probably just an aside, a corroboration that the family also believed the Druitt was the killer.

[PaulB]

It’s a sad state of affairs that you have to expend so much time and effort to explain something that would be obvious to your average toddler. I simply refuse to believe that Trevor can’t understand your points so the conclusion is an obvious and unavoidable one. Trevor has a suspect to promote and so is using any method that he can to try and eliminate Druitt from any list of suspects. The Macnaghten Memoranda, written by a very senior and widely respected police officer, is according to Trevor less valid than an uncorroborated statement made about Feigenbaum by a Lawyer after the suspect was dead. On what planet?!

We are in danger of falling further and further down this purposely created rabbit-hole. Thankfully there are posters who, even though they might not suggest Druitt as a favoured candidate (or even a decent candidate), remain open-minded and willing to discuss ideas. I’m not saying that Druitt was definitely Jack the Ripper unlike Baron for example who stoops to saying that Mackenzie was definitely a ripper victim purely to try and eliminate Druitt. I will say that, of the named suspects, I consider Druitt the best of them.

At least we can show that he was in the country at the time of the murders.

I agree that Trevor is engaged in promoting his favoured candidate, or maybe just trying to convince people who don't know much about the subject that he has something credible and worthwhile to say, but what he and those like him are succedding in doing is diverting attention away from meaningful analysis of the memorandum. And, of course, there is the natural anxiety that some poor souls will believe that the memorandum 'isn't worth the paper its written on'. But one ends up going round and round n circles.

[Sam Flynn]

Because of Mckenzie murder several months after December 1888.

Fair point - I took it to mean further investigation into Druitt, but you may be right. Then again, it might simply be saying that the case remained open anyway. Indeed, given that Abberline went on to refer to (later) Ripper-like murders in America, why didn't he mention McKenzie explicitly, or at least allude to her case?

All that aside, it still leaves us with Abberline's statement that a report about Druitt was sent to the Home Office.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby. Let me just say that I prefer the suspects that have been thrown into the ash-heap of Ripperology, those dismissed by the 'Null Set' as 'ridiculous,' 'non-starters,' and even 'impossible': the Tumiltys, the Deemings, the Druitts. I'll even put your man Puckeridge in there, too, if it is shown that he wasn't really hunkered down in the West End. (And before you ask, I've never been entirely satisfied that Deeming was in South Africa in 1888; he very probably was, but the documentation is vague and iffy).

Feel free to disagree; a good homicide team argues, disagrees, gives a different perspectives. That's how we refine our thinking. But the professional nay-sayers have very little to add; they can sound authoritative, but they really aren't very useful when it comes to finding a murderer. I don't include you in that set. Best wishes.

hi rj
thanks. Null set-LOL.

[PaulB]

Fair point - I took it to mean further investigation into Druitt, but you may be right. Then again, it might simply be saying that the case remained open anyway. Indeed, given that Abberline went on to refer to (later) Ripper-like murders in America, why didn't he mention McKenzie explicitly, or at least allude to her case?

All that aside, it still leaves us with Abberline's statement that a report about Druitt was sent to the Home Office.

Why would the police be told to ready themselves to investigate a murder that hadn't happened? Or, had Mackenzie been found dead and the police were they told to ready themselves to investigate if it turned out to be a Ripper murder (and I wonder why Abberline didn't say so if that was the case)?

[Abby Normal]

Because of Mckenzie murder several months after December 1888.

The Baron

hi Baron
nah. in this context hes talking about druitt and the possible investigation about him plus several months can hardly mean July 89 when McKenzie was killed.

that being said I lean toward McKenzie being a ripper victim, but who knows? in any event druitt was apparently being looked at by the police as a suspect and not just McNaughten.

[Sam Flynn]

in any event druitt was apparently being looked at by the police as a suspect and not just McNaughten.

Exactly, Abs.

[The Baron]

that being said I lean toward McKenzie being a ripper victim, but who knows? in any event druitt was apparently being looked at by the police as a suspect and not just McNaughten.

And there was absolutely nothing to suspect him of.

That was the point.


The Baron

[Sam Flynn]

Why would the police be told to ready themselves to investigate a murder that hadn't happened? Or, had Mackenzie been found dead and the police were they told to ready themselves to investigate if it turned out to be a Ripper murder (and I wonder why Abberline didn't say so if that was the case)?

Agreed. On reflection, I think Abberline was merely saying that the police remained on alert for several months after Druitt's death, the implication being that the case against him wasn't found to be conclusive. There's no indication in Abberline's interview that there was a particular "trigger" - be it McKenzie's murder or something else - that rekindled the investigation in 1889.

[Sam Flynn]

And there was absolutely nothing to suspect him of.

Yes, but - I'll say it again - in the context of this discussion, the salient point is that Druitt was on the police radar in 1888/89, to the extent that a report was sent to the Home Office about him. This should quell those doubters who believe that Druitt's status as a suspect was something that only Macnaghten and his informant(s) conjured up a few years later. And, here's the thing, I used to be one of those doubters... until today, in fact, when the import of Abberline's interview finally sunk in. It's true what they say - you're never too old to learn

[Observer]

Yes, but - I'll say it again - in the context of this discussion, the salient point is that Druitt was on the police radar in 1888/89, to the extent that a report was sent to the Home Office about him. This should quell those doubters who believe that Druitt's status as a suspect was something that only Macnaghten and his informant(s) conjured up a few years later. And, here's the thing, I used to be one of those doubters... until today, in fact, when the import of Abberline's interview finally sunk in. It's true what they say - you're never too old to learn

I said as much in post 546. Many moons ago I speculated that something struck a chord at Monty's inquest, and the suicide was picked up by officers investigating the Ripper crimes.

Just to add that Albert Backert was told in March 1889 that the Ripper had drowned himself in the Thames. However the source for this piece of information was revealed to have emanated from Dr Thomas Dutton, so make of that what you will.