Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seanr View Post

    To frame what a copycat crime usually looks like it's handy to use known examples. One particular example which may be illuminating was the case of 'copycat' of Walter White from the popular TV show 'Breaking Bad'. A dealer in Kansas was found to be selling crystal meth which had been coloured blue (as it is in the TV show)... and that's it.

    In relevant 'copycat' murders, in 2008, a weak minded pervert was convicted of murders supposedly inspired by an attempt to become a 'modern Jack the Ripper'. He had picked up two women on two separate occasions from the Whitechapel area, one of whom was a sex worker, and murdered them in his home. He disposed of the bodies and they have, to my knowledge, yet to be found. The police secured the conviction based on blood evidence found in the perpetrator's home.
    Even though the it was noted part of the pervert's sick desire was to emulate Jack the Ripper, the actual technique and approach to the crime was totally different.

    The 'carbon copycat' (to coin a phrase) used to explain away the discomforting similarities between the attack on Alice Mackenzie and the previous crimes, would it seems be somewhat unique in criminal history - I'm not aware of a case like it.

    So, to the scratches... we don't know why the killer did them. We don't actually know what the intentions of the mutilations were. The reasons you provide are supposition.

    Alice was found in the Whitechapel/ Spitalfields area close to where the previous crimes had been and again with a killer who somehow avoided being seen by beat officer by the thinnest of time margins. Beyond that within the medical evidence we do have evidence of the killer setting up to right side of the body in order to inflict the mutilations exactly the same approach the medical evidence suggests the killer took with Kate Eddowes. Again we have the skirt drawn up, and a long wound along the abdomen, not as deep sure but the same 'style' of injury as inflicted on poor Kate and then there's the two cuts to the throat, the same technique as the 'Ripper's' throat injuries.

    And I'm not sure it's the same man but a 'copycat' just seems too convenient, the sheer number of similarities and commonalities with the previous crimes are difficult to explain away.

    We might make assumptions of why the killer made the mutilations the way he did, but they are all supposition. For all we know, he maybe only wanted to inflict lighter mutilations after the previous crimes and avoid getting his hands dirty. He might have lost his longer knife at some point and decided to make do with shorter, blunter one. It's all supposition.
    Hi sean
    good post. I agree. Copy cat killings are very rare. A killer deliberately trying to make his murder look like the work of another known serial killer to deflect suspician is practically unheard of. The only case im aware of is the mcdonald/ manson case. (Thanks to rjpalmer)
    Last edited by Abby Normal; 05-03-2019, 03:23 AM.
    "Is all that we see or seem
    but a dream within a dream?"

    -Edgar Allan Poe


    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

    -Frederick G. Abberline

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

      Phil, part of the problem might be, where did you read he jumped from a bridge?
      Hello Jon,

      I think I've read it in conjunction with the word suicide, somewhere.

      The point is, that it IS an assumption. We have no idea, infact, how Druitt entered the water. Or from where, nor when.

      A limp body can be slipped into water weighted down by stones easily, and quietly, from a rowing boat.
      It is unlikely Druitt walked into the water himself. From the bank. Most unlikely.
      But, we do NOT know that it was in fact suicide. That is an assumption too. It causes the next assumption, that he weighted himself down and jumped from a bridge, as it would be again, highly unlikely that he himself rowed out to the middle of the lake and jumped on from a rowing boat.. As there are no reports of a lonely boat being found floating alone, or washed up on a bank, as far as I am aware?

      Thereby the notion of suicide, mentioned at the inquest, which has led to the assumption that Druitt jumped in from a bridge. However, this is an assumption. It (suicide) was made more believable by the comments of his brother about Druitt not quite being of sound mind of late.

      The coroner therefore put two and three together to get five. Correct, based on family comment as to Druitt's mental state. Therefore, the assumption he committed suicide by jumping from a bridge into the Thames.

      However. Nobody saw it. Nobody heard a splash, nor a sound of a man whilst falling into the water. Nobody witnessed the suicide, at all. We have no evidence the man was, in fact, suicidal at all. That Druitt is supposed to have doubted his own mind's stability, does not mean he was suicidal.

      Looking at this with an open mind therefore, the likelihood of Druitt being murdered by drowning, from a small boat in the middle of the night, is equally as likely as his purported suicide.

      Far too much is hanging on assumption re Druitt. And since 1888 it seems that Druitt's antecedents have been manipulated in word to bolster his candidacy as a multiple murderer, of which there is zero evidence that he was a violent man in any way.

      Walking around with the necessary railway tickets, uncashed cheques and a fairly large sum of money gives no indication of an unsound kind. A mind sound enough to buy the correct ticket, please note.

      Now, I've no idea what happened, and won't guess either, but it seems obvious to this neutral person that a large portion of Druitt's supposed guilt comes from diverse comments about him, and a putting together assumption by the Coroner, suicide.

      And just about the only way to commit suicide, having been found dead in the Thames, has been reasoned as Druitt jumping from a bridge.

      But is isn't fact. Therein lies the crux.
      It is assumption.


      Phil
      Last edited by Phil Carter; 05-03-2019, 10:56 AM.
      Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


      Justice for the 96 = achieved
      Accountability? ....

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post

        Hello Jon,

        I think I've read it in conjunction with the word suicide, somewhere.

        The point is, that it IS an assumption. We have no idea, infact, how Druitt entered the water. Or from where, nor when.

        A limp body can be slipped into water weighted down by stones easily, and quietly, from a rowing boat.
        It is unlikely Druitt walked into the water himself. From the bank. Most unlikely.
        But, we do NOT know that it was in fact suicide. That is an assumption too. It causes the next assumption, that he weighted himself down and jumped from a bridge, as it would be again, highly unlikely that he himself rowed out to the middle of the lake and jumped on from a rowing boat.. As there are no reports of a lonely boat being found floating alone, or washed up on a bank, as far as I am aware?

        Thereby the notion of suicide, mentioned at the inquest, which has led to the assumption that Druitt jumped in from a bridge. However, this is an assumption. It (suicide) was made more believable by the comments of his brother about Druitt not quite being of sound mind of late.

        The coroner therefore put two and three together to get five. Correct, based on family comment as to Druitt's mental state. Therefore, the assumption he committed suicide by jumping from a bridge into the Thames.

        However. Nobody saw it. Nobody heard a splash, nor a sound of a man whilst falling into the water. Nobody witnessed the suicide, at all. We have no evidence the man was, in fact, suicidal at all. That Druitt is supposed to have doubted his own mind's stability, does not mean he was suicidal.

        Looking at this with an open mind therefore, the likelihood of Druitt being murdered by drowning, from a small boat in the middle of the night, is equally as likely as his purported suicide.

        Far too much is hanging on assumption re Druitt. And since 1888 it seems that Druitt's antecedents have been manipulated in word to bolster his candidacy as a multiple murderer, of which there is zero evidence that he was a violent man in any way.

        Walking around with the necessary railway tickets, uncashed cheques and a fairly large sum of money gives no indication of an unsound kind. A mind sound enough to buy the correct ticket, please note.

        Now, I've no idea what happened, and won't guess either, but it seems obvious to this neutral person that a large portion of Druitt's supposed guilt comes from diverse comments about him, and a putting together assumption by the Coroner, suicide.

        And just about the only way to commit suicide, having been found dead in the Thames, has been reasoned as Druitt jumping from a bridge.

        But is isn't fact. Therein lies the crux.
        It is assumption.


        Phil
        Great Post Phil! Agree completely.



        The Baron

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          I'm not sure anyone set out with the intent of murdering a stranger in such a way as to make it look like the work of someone else.

          When I talk about 'copy-cat', especially in the McKenzie case, I mean someone assaulted a woman for whatever reason and slit her throat. Only after he realized what he did does he think to try make it look like something it isn't. Make some marks on the body to make it appear like the previous Ripper murders.
          It's a last minute desperate attempt to cover his tracks or deflect the police towards the wrong assumption.
          I'm not suggesting something planned right from the start.
          This is what I meant too (Sean) I was suggesting the possibility of a spur of the moment kill, possibly by someone that had some kind of connection to Alice Mackenzie. What better way to potentially defect suspicion by making it appear like the work of the ripper by lifting the skirts and wounding the abdomen? The scratches seem significant to me. If the killer had time to make these along with two not very deep cuts then he would have had time for more extensive mutilations. The scratches werenít preparatory marks. To me this perhaps speaks of someone that couldnít actually go through with full Ripper-like mutilations.

          Theres nothing certain about this of course. Just my opinion. Iíll leave the certainties to the oracles on here.
          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 Phil Carter View Post

            Hello Jon,

            I think I've read it in conjunction with the word suicide, somewhere.

            The point is, that it IS an assumption. We have no idea, infact, how Druitt entered the water. Or from where, nor when.

            The problem with this Phil is that you are calling this point an assumption and yet no one as far as we know is suggesting or has ever seriously suggested that Druitt jumped from a bridge and so that in itself appears to be an assumption. It may have been mentioned somewhere but if it was it was probably/possibly a bit of press licence.

            A limp body can be slipped into water weighted down by stones easily, and quietly, from a rowing boat.
            It is unlikely Druitt walked into the water himself. From the bank. Most unlikely.
            But, we do NOT know that it was in fact suicide. That is an assumption too. It causes the next assumption, that he weighted himself down and jumped from a bridge, as it would be again, highly unlikely that he himself rowed out to the middle of the lake and jumped on from a rowing boat.. As there are no reports of a lonely boat being found floating alone, or washed up on a bank, as far as I am aware?

            As Iíve often said before there is very little to be certain of but when you pull a body from the Thames with no signs of violence and very little chance of it being an accident and then a suicide note is then discovered suicide is a reasonable assumption Iíd say.

            We cannot know the details of Montyís suicide. You say that, if he jumped from a bridge, no one heard a splash and, if he jumped from a boat why no report of a lonely boat. Surely these objections can be simply explained? The splash - we donít know what time Druitt committed suicide but it could have been in the early hours or at any time when there were few people around. The boat - is it beyond belief that if someone found a random boat they would have simply kept it or sold it on or just tied it up somewhere and left it?


            Thereby the notion of suicide, mentioned at the inquest, which has led to the assumption that Druitt jumped in from a bridge. However, this is an assumption. It (suicide) was made more believable by the comments of his brother about Druitt not quite being of sound mind of late.

            Exactly Phil. Itís not really an assumption though is it? All of the facts point to suicide.

            The coroner therefore put two and three together to get five. Correct, based on family comment as to Druitt's mental state. Therefore, the assumption he committed suicide by jumping from a bridge into the Thames.

            The Coroner put two and two together to make four. Man found in Thames. Weighted down with stones. No signs of violence. Suicide note found with explanation. Surely we canít accuse the Coroner of getting this wrong?

            However. Nobody saw it. Nobody heard a splash, nor a sound of a man whilst falling into the water. Nobody witnessed the suicide, at all. We have no evidence the man was, in fact, suicidal at all. That Druitt is supposed to have doubted his own mind's stability, does not mean he was suicidal.

            Are you really suggesting that thereís doubt based on the fact that no one saw him commit suicide? Itís hardly a spectator sport Phil. Iíd suggest that the vast, overwhelming majority of suicides occur out of sight.

            Looking at this with an open mind therefore, the likelihood of Druitt being murdered by drowning, from a small boat in the middle of the night, is equally as likely as his purported suicide.

            Sorry Phil but I have to disagree. Iím not for a minute saying that murder was impossible but by any weighing up of evidence suicide was overwhelmingly the likeliest.

            Far too much is hanging on assumption re Druitt. And since 1888 it seems that Druitt's antecedents have been manipulated in word to bolster his candidacy as a multiple murderer, of which there is zero evidence that he was a violent man in any way.

            Now we get to the real crux of your post. No manipulation is required. The only manipulation that is occurring are the desperate and painfully obvious attempts to dismiss him as a suspect. The fact that thereís no evidence that he was violent has been done to death. Iíll say again Phil - how many men have been discovered to have been killers only for all friends, neighbours and colleagues to say that he would have been the very last person that they would have suspected. Druitt needs no bolstering. He was mentioned by Macnaghten as a likely suspect. That fact alone makes him a worthwhile suspect because all thatís left for critics is character assassination. Mac was either dishonest or a gullible fool. Two propositions for which there is no evidence (certainly not a couple of insignificant errors).

            Walking around with the necessary railway tickets, uncashed cheques and a fairly large sum of money gives no indication of an unsound kind. A mind sound enough to buy the correct ticket, please note.

            We donít know why Druitt ended up where he did. He may have had a reason that we are unaware of but that doesnít entitle us to make unwarranted assumptions. Phil, are you really, honestly suggesting that because he was capable of buying a ticket this proves that he was of sound mind?! If that isnít utter desperation Iím at a loss to know what is. I think that if you were unfortunate enough to speak to someone who was about to attempts suicide you would find that they werenít drooling zombies.

            Now, I've no idea what happened, and won't guess either, but it seems obvious to this neutral person that a large portion of Druitt's supposed guilt comes from diverse comments about him, and a putting together assumption by the Coroner, suicide.

            Iím sorry Phil but itís fairly obvious that you are far from neutral on this issue


            And just about the only way to commit suicide, having been found dead in the Thames, has been reasoned as Druitt jumping from a bridge.

            Itís rather strange that you can accuse people of assuming that Druitt jumped from a bridge and yet you canít show us where this has been stated. If the press at one time suggested it, and they might have, then they would have been making an assumption. But this assumption is by no means anything that anyone since has assumed as a fact. You have taken a non-fact to try and disprove a fairly obvious suicide in yet another desperate attempt to dismiss Druitt. Come on Phil. A bit a fairness isnít too much to ask

            But is isn't fact. Therein lies the crux.
            It is assumption.

            It is assumed because the facts point to this conclusion. No mental or factual gymnastics are required. If Druitt had been discovered under the same circumstances today the verdict would have been suicide. No question.

            Phil
            Even if Druitt didnít commit suicide but was indeed murdered this would, if anything, point to his guilt even more strongly. Why would anyone murder an upstanding Barrister/schoolteacher? Why would his own brother be complicit unless there was something so terrible that Monty had to be silenced and more sinister explanations provided?

            Either way, despite strenuous and unwarranted efforts, Druitt remains not only a suspect but one in the very top tier. In fact one of the very, very few that are worthy of consideration. In my opinion, and itís only my opinion, he is the best suspect that we have. The second best is Kosminski. So old Mac didnít do too badly by getting the two best suspects in his list.
            Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 05-03-2019, 12:27 PM.
            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 The Baron View Post

              Great Post Phil! Agree completely.



              The Baron
              Hardly surprising

              Baron - a question for you:

              What was Druittís father qualified as?
              Regards

              Herlock






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

              Comment


              • Here some of us are saying that Monty may have been the Killer, because of a Senior Officer's connection to the family and had some insider knowledge. what if Monty knew who the killer was, his family and colleagues just went of on one when he mentioned it to them and poor Monty felt really belittled and embarrassed and decided to end it all when Monty suspicions were turned around and everyone made him the killer?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                  ".......they had reduced the only possible Jacks to seven, then by a further exhaustive inquiry to three, and were about to fit these three people's movements in with the dates of the various murders when the one and only genuine Jack saved further trouble by being found drowned in the Thames, into which he had flung himself, a raving lunatic, after the last and most appalling mutilation of the whole series."
                  Well, in all fairness, I can see how Simon Wood's Patented Horse Feather Detector might be activated by George Sim's account. Taken literally, one would have to believe that in December 1888, not only was Ostrog a suspect, but also Kosminski, Druitt, and four other unmentionables, and, as the list was whittled down to the three, and the net closing, Druitt was fished out of the Thames. At best, the chronology seems a little...unlikely.

                  Or a little fishy.

                  Click image for larger version  Name:	Harpo.JPG Views:	0 Size:	22.8 KB ID:	708383





                  Comment


                  • Montague Druitt was a late addition to an already existing story of the Ripper committing suicide in the Thames soon after Millers Court.


                    The Baron

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                      Montague Druitt was a late addition to an already existing story of the Ripper committing suicide in the Thames soon after Millers Court.


                      The Baron
                      Another classic

                      Im starting to think the you are the real Dr Who. The levels of certainty in your pronouncements can only come from someone that has travelled back in time. Come on Baron put us out of our misery and tell us who the ripper really was. And while youíre at it you might tell us what Druittís father was?
                      Regards

                      Herlock






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

                      Comment


                      • Why would his own brother be complicit unless there was something so terrible that Monty had to be silenced and more sinister explanations provided?
                        From my post #1370

                        ďSinisterĒ should be ďinnocent.Ē
                        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 Phil Carter View Post

                          Hello Jon,

                          I think I've read it in conjunction with the word suicide, somewhere.

                          Phil
                          Hi Phil.

                          More likely the result of modern conjecture, certainly not in any contemporary accounts or press reports.

                          However, having read your post, I agree with what you wrote, though I also agree with Herlock's reply.

                          I'm sure you are familiar with the book by Howells & Skinner - The Legacy of Jack the Ripper? This was the first time a serious theory was put together suggesting Druitt might have been murdered. I agreed at the time, and still do even though I always refer to Druitt as a suicide.
                          Back in 2014 my 2nd post in this thread concerned doubts I have with the official suicide note.
                          There is also the fact that William Druitt perjured himself at the inquest, and for some unknown reason important witnesses did not appear - like George Valentine for one.
                          And, the most important question for me is why Chiswick?

                          I certainly think Druitt's death, and the circumstances surrounding it is a mystery all of it's own, regardless of his candidature as Jack the Ripper.

                          However, the bottom line is, beyond conjecture there is no evidence of an actual murder.


                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • So where is the proof that Druitt murdered any of the ripper victims. . MM himself declares there is no proof against anyone.Funny how the posters who most cry out for evidence and proof,are now ignoring the one person,MM, who states there was none,and at the same time quoting him (MM) as the only source of a case against Druitt.
                            What a Shambles. Druitt the best suspect,Please have some respect for the man.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              Even if Druitt didnít commit suicide but was indeed murdered this would, if anything, point to his guilt even more strongly. Why would anyone murder an upstanding Barrister/schoolteacher?
                              Precisely, though there are several ways to kill someone without leaving tell-tale marks, plus the body was badly decomposd.
                              It's hard to imagine someone staging a suicide for a body with obvious physical wounds, when chloroform couldn't be too hard to find for the son of a surgeon.
                              Why would someone leave a suicide note in his room, but take gold and silver coins plus cheques worth
                              £66 with him?
                              Then there's the question of the role of the Tuke family.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                                Precisely, though there are several ways to kill someone without leaving tell-tale marks, plus the body was badly decomposd.
                                It's hard to imagine someone staging a suicide for a body with obvious physical wounds, when chloroform couldn't be too hard to find for the son of a surgeon.
                                Why would someone leave a suicide note in his room, but take gold and silver coins plus cheques worth
                                £66 with him?
                                Then there's the question of the role of the Tuke family.
                                This is something I was thinking about last night Wick. If Monty had been sacked from the Blackheath School because heíd gotten into some Ďserious troubleí is it likely that heíd have retained his lodgings? Then thereís the gap between when he was last seen and when he was pulled out of the Thames. This points to Druitt writing his suicide note days before he actually committed suicide. Then of course we have the return ticket. Murder isnít an impossibility.
                                Regards

                                Herlock






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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X