Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Hi Phil.

    Not sure what you mean about Montie's mother, she was incarcerated in an Asylum in Clapton at that time.
    However, I do agree about Montie not turning up or at least communicating with his siblings over Christmas is another reason the suicide note cannot have remained undiscovered until 30th Dec.

    I'm not sure about the rest of your post, although Mac. said he received information he doesn't say it came directly from the family.
    Hello Jon,

    In one of the scribbles.. The Aberconway version, the SY version or hia autobiographical book, perhaps elsewhere? HE, MM, says family. I forget where tbh.

    Druitt's mother was on the invite list to the shooting weekend as well as MJD.

    Simon may be able to confirm the above.

    You don't understand the significance of the family not knowing about their relative being labelled as Jack the Ripper? It's pretty obvious, to be honest, Jon.


    Phil
    Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


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

    Comment


    • I've just been reviewing an issue that was raised some 30 years ago by Howells & Skinner.
      The identification of Mac's "PC in Mitre Square".

      This article was published in the Dundee Peoples Journal, 19, Sept. 1919.



      I just posted the well known article associated with Stephen White on another thread:
      https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...477#post708477

      The clip above from the Peoples journal appears to suggest Det. White was investigating political crimes, that he may have been attached to Special Branch. This explains why the article above (the link) is not as detailed as it could be. It also might explain why Det. White never appeared at an inquest.

      This then begs the question, was Det. Stephen White Mac's "City PC in Mitre Square"?
      It's just the "City" bit he got wrong.
      Last edited by Wickerman; 05-05-2019, 02:22 AM.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post

        Hello Jon,

        You don't understand the significance of the family not knowing about their relative being labelled as Jack the Ripper? It's pretty obvious, to be honest, Jon.

        Phil
        Hi Phil, no I didn't mean that. I just need to see where that suggestion came from. It may not be correct.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          Hi Phil, no I didn't mean that. I just need to see where that suggestion came from. It may not be correct.
          Hello Jon,

          Oh, I see. I'm unsure, but think it may come from Farson. However don't quote me on that. I'm pretty sure the comment is correct though.


          Phil
          Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

            Exactly Jeff, which means that if the suicide note was genuine, we can't rule out the "Since Friday" referring to Millers Court.
            Hi Wickerman,

            I suppose not, though I would think the note writing would have occurred before he set out, and on occasions when he returned, he would probably burn any notes he may have left previously. I doubt he would write one, save it for ages until he decided it was time, and not at that point at least add his current thoughts. It's cryptic, as one would expect as it's all "obvious" in MJD's head what his thoughts are, and if contemplating suicide, clarity of thought on paper is probably not going to be arise.

            We don't know enough details, and the cryptic bits we have can be seen in quite different light, depending upon what destination we try to get to. Given the amount of effort that has been put in researching his life, while many interesting bits turn up, none of it has raised any real red flags, and a lot of the information starts looking like it would be difficult (not impossible though) for him to be JtR. I think he's well worth considering, simply because his name has come up, but personally I find it hard to connect what we know of him to the murder series. There's just a lack of real connections, other than his name comes up in the MM, but even the wording of that, and it's purpose (to downplay the press reports on Cutbush), don't require that MM have solid evidence to connect MJD to the crimes, only that he has better reasons to investigate "this MJD guy here" than Cutbush would warrent (family suspicions would be that - as it would potentially be an inside knowledge lead, type thing. It might go nowhere, as not all leads end up at the solution, but if it's a better lead than Cutbush, then MM is just pointing that out).

            I don't think MM could have had anything definitive, or he woudln't have listed anyone else and would have just said "We know who it was, but the guy is dead, and while we know it was him it wouldn't be enough to secure a conviction." - something to that effect. Rather, he indicates he has a strong belief, and tends to favour MJD over two other possible suspects. That, right there, indicates that MM didn't have anything solid, but he did have something that peaked his suspicions.

            So, in the absence of anything more than MMs suspicions, I see Druitt as someone worth investigating, but I don't hold my breath with regards to there being anything solid turn up. Rather, if I had to bet, I would put my money on something turning up that shows it couldn't have been him. But the cards are still being dealt on that, so time and effort will tell.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Hi Phil.

              I just dug up Farson's book. There's nothing that really deals with family recollections until chapter 5, and it's only a couple of pages referring to various members of the family.

              Dr. Peter Druitt, great grandson of Dr. Robert Druitt (Montie's uncle), on the subject of family rumors he replied: "I do assure you that the subject causes me no distress whatever. In a macabre way it livens up an otherwise dull, though very worthy, ancestry".

              Sarah, daughter of Dr. Robert Druitt (above) wrote: "As a child I was quite used to hearing jocular references to Jack the Ripper, particularly when we tried to boast of our descent from Edward III."

              Sarah's brother James had used an unfinished Autobiography, where his entries break off in November 1888, after the Kelly murder, then pick up again years later in 1894 with the words: "...avoiding all mention of the defects which one hopes to conceal from ones neighbours".
              Source: Blood Harvest, by David Andersen.

              She also adds that she believes Montie was involved in his own father's medical practice"(Bare in mind his father died in 1885)

              Then there is an account by Montie's niece, no name given. She does remember the specific family regret, "Oh, what a pity Lional had to emigrate", as if this had been an unfortunate necessity, writes Farson. He then continues: "As for her uncle being Jack the Ripper, she appreciates the strength of the case against him but can neither substantiate nor disprove the claim".

              And that is about it.
              Except that quote from David Andersen, all the rest came from the 1973 reprint of Jack the Ripper, by Daniel Farson.

              As to whether the family is denying any association or just avoiding the subject is perhaps up to the individual reader.


              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Hello Jon,

                Thank you kindly.

                Phil
                Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by harry View Post
                  If my posts are read correctly,Herlock,It will be seen that I am supporting MM,who I contend never labelled any one a suspect,least of all Druitt.
                  What MM did was refer to an article that named Cutbush a suspect MM states quite clearly that there was no proof against anyone.He also makes it clear that he was writing of a theoretical situation in which at least three persons would be of more interest than Cutbush,and because of information given to him(MM),Druitt was the most interesting of the three. He further writes his(MM) comments as being of opinion and conjecture.So how is bias being shown against MM.Furthermore there is nothing in the memoirs which would indicate that the information of madness and complicity in the Whitechapel murders was investigated and believed. So where is the basis for Druitt being classed a suspect? Show me one proven piece of incriminating evidence against him.
                  Harry,
                  In the Aberconway version he wrote: '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.” Macnaghten was reported in the Daily Mail (2 June 1913) as saying of Jack the Ripper, ‘...I have a very clear idea who he was and how he committed suicide...' And 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...'

                  It is obvious that Macnaghten seriously suspected Druitt, so he did label Druitt a suspect. I don't understand your repeated statements about proof or of asking where there is incriminating evidence against Druitt. There wasn't proof, everyone knows there was no proof, Macnaghten couldn't have made that clearer, but that doesn't mean Druitt wasn't a suspect and it doesn't mean that incriminating evidence didn't exist.

                  Comment






                  • . Sarah's brother James had used an unfinished Autobiography, where his entries break off in November 1888, after the Kelly murder, then pick up again years later in 1894 with the words: "...avoiding all mention of the defects which one hopes to conceal from ones neighbours".
                    Source: Blood Harvest, by David Andersen.
                    I quoted this in earlier post. I think it’s an interesting little snippet. Why would this autobiography cut off after Kelly but way before there was any known issue with Monty and pick up in a significant year?

                    She also adds that she believes Montie was involved in his own father's medical practice"(Bare in mind his father died in 1885)
                    I haven’t read Farson or Howell’s & Skinner in years. This is another interesting snippet giving more weight to the possibility of Monty having medical/anatomical knowledge.
                    Regards

                    Herlock




                    “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                    “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                    “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                    “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                    “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by harry View Post
                      If my posts are read correctly,Herlock,It will be seen that I am supporting MM,who I contend never labelled any one a suspect,least of all Druitt.
                      What MM did was refer to an article that named Cutbush a suspect MM states quite clearly that there was no proof against anyone.He also makes it clear that he was writing of a theoretical situation in which at least three persons would be of more interest than Cutbush,and because of information given to him(MM),Druitt was the most interesting of the three. He further writes his(MM) comments as being of opinion and conjecture.So how is bias being shown against MM.Furthermore there is nothing in the memoirs which would indicate that the information of madness and complicity in the Whitechapel murders was investigated and believed. So where is the basis for Druitt being classed a suspect? Show me one proven piece of incriminating evidence against him.
                      Sorry Harry but Macnaghten very obviously believed that Druitt was a genuine and very likely suspect as Paul has said. We have no proof of course (apart from Mac’s own words) but he was either a)telling the truth b)lying or telling the truth or c)but was somehow wrong.

                      c) I can’t see how this could have been possible or likely.
                      b) why would he lie and we have no evidence that he was dishonest

                      Therefore, for me, a) is the likeliest and Macnaghten believed Monty to be a likely suspect and that the evidence on which he based that opinion existed at one time.

                      Again Harry, theres no evidence against any suspect. Yet this appears to be more pertinent in Druitt’s case for many.
                      Regards

                      Herlock




                      “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                      “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                      “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                      “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                      “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                        Harry,
                        In the Aberconway version he wrote: '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.” Macnaghten was reported in the Daily Mail (2 June 1913) as saying of Jack the Ripper, ‘...I have a very clear idea who he was and how he committed suicide...' And 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...'

                        It is obvious that Macnaghten seriously suspected Druitt, so he did label Druitt a suspect. I don't understand your repeated statements about proof or of asking where there is incriminating evidence against Druitt. There wasn't proof, everyone knows there was no proof, Macnaghten couldn't have made that clearer, but that doesn't mean Druitt wasn't a suspect and it doesn't mean that incriminating evidence didn't exist.
                        Ok, there was, or is no proof to prove him to be the killer, but where is the proof/evidence to suggest MM`s belief in what he was told was genuine?

                        There is none, its just the opinion of MM based on hearsay, which without corroboration is of no evidential value in trying to identify JTR.

                        For you to keep repeating there may have been this, or there may have been that, is nothing more than conjecture on your part.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 05-05-2019, 10:35 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                          where is the proof/evidence to suggest MM`s belief in what he was told was genuine?
                          The fact that, over a period of some twenty years, Macnaghten didn't budge from his belief that the Ripper drowned himself after Mary Kelly's murder, and that we know that his drowned suspect was Druitt, would seem to indicate that his belief was sincere.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            Ok, there was, or is no proof to prove him to be the killer, but where is the proof/evidence to suggest MM`s belief in what he was told was genuine?

                            There is none, its just the opinion of MM based on hearsay, which without corroboration is of no evidential value in trying to identify JTR.

                            For you to keep repeating there may have been this, or there may have been that, is nothing more than conjecture on your part.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            And I’ll keep repeating this Trevor. Where is the proof/evidence/corroboration that Lawton’s statement about Feigenbaum was genuine? A statement that leads you to describe Feigenbaum as “the most likely suspect,” despite there being not a shred of evidence that he was even in England at the time (and no, the existence of ships doesn’t count.)

                            Why is Lawton, someone that we know very little about, taken at face value by you and yet Macnaghten, a man that was roundly respected and admired by all that knew and worked with or for him, is considered either a liar or gullible fool who believes any old fairy story? Are there different rules that none of us are aware of?

                            This is bias and self-interest writ large. Paul has surgically demolished your arguments for all to see but on and on you go.
                            Regards

                            Herlock




                            “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                            “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                            “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                            “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                            “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                              The fact that, over a period of some twenty years, Macnaghten didn't budge from his belief that the Ripper drowned himself after Mary Kelly's murder, and that we know that his drowned suspect was Druitt, would seem to indicate that his belief was sincere.
                              Exactly Sam.

                              Take note Trevor. Sam doesn’t believe that Druitt is a good suspect. He’s being fair minded though.
                              Regards

                              Herlock




                              “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                              “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                              “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                              “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                              “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                And I’ll keep repeating this Trevor. Where is the proof/evidence/corroboration that Lawton’s statement about Feigenbaum was genuine? A statement that leads you to describe Feigenbaum as “the most likely suspect,” despite there being not a shred of evidence that he was even in England at the time (and no, the existence of ships doesn’t count.)

                                Why is Lawton, someone that we know very little about, taken at face value by you and yet Macnaghten, a man that was roundly respected and admired by all that knew and worked with or for him, is considered either a liar or gullible fool who believes any old fairy story? Are there different rules that none of us are aware of?

                                This is bias and self-interest writ large. Paul has surgically demolished your arguments for all to see but on and on you go.
                                He has done no such thing neither have you

                                from lawtons statement

                                "Feigenbaum admits that he was frequently in London at different periods during the time covered by the murders, which extended from 1887 until the summer of 1891

                                There is circumstantial evidence to corroborate what Feigenbaum told Lawton. In addition there is now recently discovered crew lists for one of the german ships which was here on two occasions in 1890 which shows he was here on those voyages, showing that he was working for that merchant line during the periods he said he was in London. The same merchant line that had ships in London at the time of the murders.

                                Different periods = merchants ships going back and forth

                                Why would Lawton lie, what would he gain from saying that if it didn't happen. By making the statement he was leaving himself open to having the information investigated and him being proved to be a liar.

                                You keep quoting from my book but it seems you are not reading from the revised edition "Jack the Ripper The real Truth" which is uptodate

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk




                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X