Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Some people are so desperate to keep the old theories alive, it amazes me, and in reality its the same ones all the time. When a challenge is made to the old accepted theories, the knives are drawn, they grind their teeth, sharpen their pens, remove the dust that has gathered in their library of ripper books that line their shelves, open up the newspaper reports file in readiness to quote from them, puff up their chests, and they are primed and ready for action, with their ammunition consisting of "What if`s" "Maybe`s" Perhaps" and "I think" never to rest until the person making that challenge has been ground down into submission.

    But of course some stand their ground and will not be bullied or intimidated into backing down. I have to ask why we see so few new posters coming on here. and of those that do they very soon leave. Leaving the army of "whitewalkers" to sit back take a few more Phyllosan tablets and wait to be reborn yet again.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Great post Trever.

    Abberline had gave us the verdict of this theory some +100 years ago.


    The Baron

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

      I thank you from the bottom of my heart for that late but welcome recognition, Trevor!
      If you didn't find me a place for the Knife except on himself, I wont consider Lechmere a viable suspect.

      But your arguments Fisherman are +100 years better than some of those who baselessly favored their suspects.



      The Baron

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        In his 1914 memoirs MM makes no mention of Druitt or any of the other suspects previously mentioned, now why was that I have to ask ? Such an important case such, important information received allegedly identifying the killer. The facts that he fails to mention anything about Druitt is another nail in the suspect coffin of Druitt.

        Thats why it is important for all to read, study, and digest what he wrote in the MM and the Aberconway versions because clearly many have jumped in with both feet by not fully understanding what he wrote and the contxet in which it was written


        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Or that he was considering the surviving family members.

        No one has jumped in and misunderstood anything. Yet again it’s a case of “only I have thought clearly about this. Only I know what I’m talking about.” When it comes to proper calm, reasoned, unbiased historical research whether criminal or not I’ll take the opinions of Paul, Wickerman and Roger Palmer over yours (a man with a suspect to promote) any day of the week. To say that you understand the details of this case whilst Paul Begg doesn’t is frankly laughable.
        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 Trevor Marriott View Post

          Some people are so desperate to keep the old theories alive
          There are few who keep the "old theory" about Druitt alive these days, not that Druittists have been particularly numerous in the past.

          If you must wheel out this increasingly "old" speech of yours, at least do so where it's relevant.
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • I forgot to hit quote so this is in response to post 1454.


            This issue is with those that start from the assumption that an older theory has to be false. It’s the constant flow of ego-driven blather and bluster. It’s the dishonest application of different standards to different suspects. It’s the dumb statements like “the Macnaghten Memorandum isn’t worth the paper it’s written on” from a man who seeks to give weight to an entirely unsubstantiated ‘confession’ made by a ‘compulsive liar’ to Lawyer that went to the press but not the police (despite your pathetic, illogical excuse for this.) And despite your own hefty supply of ““what if’s”” ““maybe’s”” and “”perhaps’’s” as to how it’s not impossible that CF might have taken a boat to London during the actual time of the murders, you criticise others for postulating what might have happened in the case of the Druitt story! And all 0f this to defend the candidature of a man that killed a women (who wasn’t a prostitute or couldn’t possibly have been mistaken for one) in completely different circumstances to the ripper murders.

            One side is saying - we can’t simply dismiss Macnaghten out of hand. Druitt is worth further investigation, research and discussion. None of us are saying that Druitt was definitely the ripper. - This is a reasoned, open-minded approach.

            The other side is saying - we have no physical evidence that Druitt was the ripper and that there were a couple of minor errors in the MM so we should close the book and throw it in the bin. - This is closed-minded dogmatism that can only come from bias.

            I’ve never seen a discussion/debate before where the cautious side are the ones that are considered crazed conspiracy theorists. It’s utterly bizarre!
            Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 05-06-2019, 04:10 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 Trevor Marriott View Post

              Yes, exactly that that the way it reads he mentions nothing about his own personal suspicions other than to lump them all together in the original version, and use the term "more likely to have been the killer than Cutbush" Thats doesnt say much because Cutbush was a non starter other than in the press, and we know that the details of the other suspects as he described are incorrcet.

              1894 version "I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer"

              AV "Personally, after much careful & deliberate consideration," Nothing about investigation, or enquiries conducted, he simply considered what he
              had been told

              Is simply a name sufficient to categorize that person as a suspect ?

              If you or any others want to continue to prop up Druitt as a suspect based on what is know then thats fine your prerogative. but at least take the blinker off and assess an evaluate all that has been said not just by me but others on here who dispute his suspect viability.


              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              Trevor,
              If opinions are going to be attributed to you, it's possible that you might care that your thinking is explained clearly and correctly, hence the questions. So,
              1. Why ‘must’ it have been written some time after the Scotland Yard version.
              2. What do the contents of the Aberconway version contain that ‘clearly show’ that it post-dates the SY version?
              3. The Aberconway and SY versions are both historical documents, but you were basing an argument on the Aberconway version post dating the SY version, so when it was written obviously mattered to you. Why, therefore, does it matter to you that it post-dates the SY version?
              By asking your questions you are avoiding addressing the point: you said Macnaghten failed ’to mention anything about Druitt’ in Days of My Years, yet he clearly refers to someone who is obviously Druitt in that book. So why and on what reasoning are you saying that he didn’t mention anything about him at all?

              It has nothing to do with being sued, but with the conventions of the day, the same conventions that closed case papers to public inspection for 100 years and caused policemen of the period to be very circumspect about giving in memoirs and other public sources the names of people suspected of committing a crime. There was also a prevailing belief that one did not speak ill of the dead, that one understood and respected the feelings of family members, and that it was poor form to malign thise who were unable to defend themselves.

              Abberline was citing information made about a man standing trial for murder which paralleled Jack the Ripper and which he believed merited investigation, whilst Littlechild said only that Tumblety was a suspect, and said so in private correspondence and which he did not intend for publication. Macnaghten was effectively saying that Druitt was Jack the Ripper, a significantly different thing.

              If you think the only information on which Macnaghten based his belief that Druitt was Jack the Ripper was that Druitt’s family probably believed he was the murderer, I really don’t think I’m the one wearing the blinkers round here, but I’m simply trying to make sure that I completely understand what you are saying so that if I attribute something to you I get it exactly right. I would therefore like you to answer my questions, not reply to them with other questions or diversionary comments.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Baron View Post

                If you didn't find me a place for the Knife except on himself, I wont consider Lechmere a viable suspect.

                But your arguments Fisherman are +100 years better than some of those who baselessly favored their suspects.



                The Baron
                And your arguments would embarrass a toddler yet you still give them

                If you took the time to climb down from Trevor’s shoulder then unruffle your feathers and try to think clearly and calmly about the issue you might reach more reasoned, less embarrassing conclusions. And just as a reminder....you might want to have the honesty to admit when you make an error. These things are noticed when you refuse to do them and all that it does is to lower people’s expectations of you.
                Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 05-06-2019, 06:13 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 Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  I forgot to hit quote so this is in response to post 1454.


                  This issue is with those that start from the assumption that an older theory has to be false. It’s the constant flow of ego-driven blather and bluster. It’s the dishonest application of different standards to different suspects. It’s the dumb statements like “the Macnaghten Memorandum isn’t worth the paper it’s written on” from a man who seeks to give weight to an entirely unsubstantiated ‘confession’ made by a ‘compulsive liar’ to Lawyer that went to the press but not the police (despite your pathetic, illogical excuse for this.) And despite your own hefty supply of ““what if’s”” ““maybe’s”” and “”perhaps’’s” as to how it’s not impossible that CF might have taken a boat to London during the actual time of the murders, you criticise others for postulating what might have happened in the case of the Druitt story! And all 0f this to defend the candidature of a man that killed a women (who wasn’t a prostitute or couldn’t possibly have been mistaken for one) in completely different circumstances to the ripper murders.

                  One side is saying - we can’t simply dismiss Macnaghten out of hand. Druitt is worth further investigation, research and discussion. None of us are saying that Druitt was definitely the ripper. - This is a reasoned, open-minded approach.

                  The other side is saying - we have no physical evidence that Druitt was the ripper and that there were a couple of minor errors in the MM so we should close the book and throw it in the bin. - This is closed-minded dogmatism that can only come from bias.

                  I’ve never seen a discussion/debate before where the cautious side are the ones that are considered crazed conspiracy theorists. It’s utterly bizarre!
                  I just wanted to add for clarity that I’m not lumping into the section that I’ve called ““”The other side””” anyone who simply honestly believes that Druitt wasn’t Jack The Ripper. It’s directed at those that say that Druitt shouldn’t be considered, that Macnaghten was obviously a liar and other such gems. Basically those that state as a ‘‘’fact’’’ things that they cannot possibly know for certain.
                  Regards

                  Herlock






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

                  Comment


                  • I would therefore like you to answer my questions, not reply to them with other questions or diversionary comments.
                    And whilst you’re waiting for those answers Paul perhaps you might have a cup of tea and a biscuit or two....or write a book.
                    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 PaulB View Post

                      Trevor,
                      If opinions are going to be attributed to you, it's possible that you might care that your thinking is explained clearly and correctly, hence the questions. So,
                      1. Why ‘must’ it have been written some time after the Scotland Yard version.
                      2. What do the contents of the Aberconway version contain that ‘clearly show’ that it post-dates the SY version?
                      3. The Aberconway and SY versions are both historical documents, but you were basing an argument on the Aberconway version post dating the SY version, so when it was written obviously mattered to you. Why, therefore, does it matter to you that it post-dates the SY version?
                      By asking your questions you are avoiding addressing the point: you said Macnaghten failed ’to mention anything about Druitt’ in Days of My Years, yet he clearly refers to someone who is obviously Druitt in that book. So why and on what reasoning are you saying that he didn’t mention anything about him at all?

                      It has nothing to do with being sued, but with the conventions of the day, the same conventions that closed case papers to public inspection for 100 years and caused policemen of the period to be very circumspect about giving in memoirs and other public sources the names of people suspected of committing a crime. There was also a prevailing belief that one did not speak ill of the dead, that one understood and respected the feelings of family members, and that it was poor form to malign thise who were unable to defend themselves.

                      Abberline was citing information made about a man standing trial for murder which paralleled Jack the Ripper and which he believed merited investigation, whilst Littlechild said only that Tumblety was a suspect, and said so in private correspondence and which he did not intend for publication. Macnaghten was effectively saying that Druitt was Jack the Ripper, a significantly different thing.

                      If you think the only information on which Macnaghten based his belief that Druitt was Jack the Ripper was that Druitt’s family probably believed he was the murderer, I really don’t think I’m the one wearing the blinkers round here, but I’m simply trying to make sure that I completely understand what you are saying so that if I attribute something to you I get it exactly right. I would therefore like you to answer my questions, not reply to them with other questions or diversionary comments.
                      Paul
                      i am done with this topic now I have said what needs to be said from my perspective and from an evidential perspective.some people just don’t want to listen, and can’t comprehend what is right before their eyes
                      you keep flying the flag for the old accepted theories and keep arguing for the sake of arguing thats what you are good at

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Sir Melville Macnaghten described Druitt as "sexually insane" and whose "own family believed him to have been the murderer."

                        Similarly, Macnaghten described Kosminski as being insane, "owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices." And, according to Robert Anderson, "his people knew of his guilt."

                        It seems that there's a recurring theme here! Put simply, what we have is a nineteenth century misunderstanding of both mental illness and the likely psychological make up of a serial killer: serial killers are rarely insane.

                        In answer to the original question: Druitt probably is a viable suspect, but that's a pretty low bar: about 60 people confessed to Elizabeth Short's [Black Dahlia] murder, and the district attorney considered 25 of them to be viable suspects!
                        Last edited by John G; 05-06-2019, 08:16 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          Paul
                          i am done with this topic now I have said what needs to be said from my perspective and from an evidential perspective.some people just don’t want to listen, and can’t comprehend what is right before their eyes
                          you keep flying the flag for the old accepted theories and keep arguing for the sake of arguing thats what you are good at

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Ill just translate this for Paul.

                          ““ I can’t answer your very pertinent questions without simply regurgitating the same old dogmatic bias and because I can’t base those answers in anything approaching reason, logic or simple fairness.””

                          You’re right. Reasonable people don’t want to listen to the same old tired boasting Trevor. You just carry on in your own world where only you can really understand things. Where you can simply dismiss the inconvenient and promote non-suspects due the fact that you apply different criteria to your own. Druitt will remain a suspect when, in all likelihood, Feigenbaum will be forgotten.
                          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 05-06-2019, 08:38 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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            And whilst you’re waiting for those answers Paul perhaps you might have a cup of tea and a biscuit or two....or write a book.
                            Hey...I’m psychic
                            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 Trevor Marriott View Post

                              Paul
                              i am done with this topic now I have said what needs to be said from my perspective and from an evidential perspective.some people just don’t want to listen, and can’t comprehend what is right before their eyes
                              you keep flying the flag for the old accepted theories and keep arguing for the sake of arguing thats what you are good at

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              Trevor,
                              Rudeness is always your get out of jail card and you always bring it into play when faced with questions you can't answer.

                              Being utterly unable to say why the Aberconway version 'must' have been written after the SY version, you ask an irrelevant question in an effort to divert the topic elsewhere. It's what you always do and anyone interested can review your last couple of dozen posts and see you doing it, time after time.

                              You say internal evidence in the Aberconway version 'clearly shows' it was composed after the SY version (years after, you suggest), but there is no internal evidence that shows this. In fact, the internal evidence, such as the removal of a lot of personal opinions, suggests the opposite. When asked to prove what you say, you can't.

                              To be blunt, there is no logical reason to explain why Macnaghten would have re-written the memorandum a year or more after the need for it had passed and to have so closely followed the SY version that he would have to have had access to it, so your premise makes no sense. Your claim that internal evidence shows its composition post-dates the SY version, but it doesn't. Your claims are extravagant and you support them nowhere on this thread or any other because you can't support them.

                              The thing is, Trevor, your common fall-back is to claim that you've explained everything that needs explaining, but that those who don't accept what you say either don't want to accept it or are too thick to understand it, or are just arguing for the sake of it. And I guess there are some people out there who will believe you.






                              Comment


                              • Hi Simon - I completely agree that G. R. Sims adds an interesting element to the Druitt theory, and one that is rarely discussed. Sims becomes a sort of unofficial spokesman for the Ripper solution and thus we have the extraordinary situation of a Chief Constable leaking information to him, knowing full well that it will find its way into print. Make of that what you will (or won't).

                                By the way, as you may have noticed, the image of Harpo Marx that I reproduced in my previous post comes from the 1932 film, Horse Feathers. An old favorite of mine!



                                Originally posted by John G View Post
                                Put simply, what we have is a nineteenth century misunderstanding of both mental illness and the likely psychological make up of a serial killer: serial killers are rarely insane.
                                Hi John G -- certainly a reasonable observation, but wouldn't the Druittists counter-argue that by using the term "
                                sexually insane," Macnaghten is implying that Druitt wasn't
                                otherwise insane? In other words, that he was perfectly normal in other aspects of his life?

                                It's not all that far removed from the 21st Century arguments used by those plumping for Lechmere, Hutchinson, etc., is it? A perfectly normal chap that just happens to carve up women that he doesn' t know?


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X