Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    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!





    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?

    Hi,
    Personally, I think the police believed the crimes to be sexually motivated (probably correct) and the perpetrator to be insane (probably incorrect.) And, as senior police officers, rightly or wrongly, considered Druitt and Kosminski to be sexually insane, they both met that criteria, forming the basis for them to be regarded as having the required motive and therefore viable suspects (Macnaghten was also of the opinion that the perpetrator most likely committed suicide shortly after Miller's Court, so Druitt also meets that criteria).

    However, for me the biggest problem with Druitt's candidacy is the fact that he had no known association to the Whitechapel district. Now, considering the fact that all of the murders took place within an incredibly small geographical area (around 1 square mile), and that the perpetrator didn't expand his boundaries even after the police presence was greatly increased, it seems as plain as a pikestaff that JtR was a local man, with local geographical knowledge, who was psychologically committed to carrying out his activities within the confines of a narrow geographical boundary. And that's not Druitt.

    Why still a viable suspect? Well, the police seemed to have considered him as such, and we can't totally discount the possibility that they were privy to undisclosed information that strengthened his candidacy. Also, although I don't think Macnaghten was correct about the suicide issue (serial killers rarely commit suicide), I think it likely that the perpetrator either died, was institutionalised, or became seriously incapacitated shortly after the Kelly murder-on the basis that serial killers don't suddenly stop killing-so that's a small thing in favour of Druitt's candidacy.

    Oh, and if Astrachan Man existed he shoots up the suspect list!

    Last edited by John G; 05-06-2019, 09:51 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      Hey...Iím psychic
      It could be that you're psychic. Or maybe it's just that Trevor is predictable.

      I always try to find out if there is some substance to Trevor's arguments. I don't want to too quickly dismiss something as nonsense because sometimes even the most off the wall idea is worth considering, so when Trevor says something like 'the memoranda isn't worth the paper it's written on', I try to understand his reasoning. Unfortunately, with Trevor it invariably spirals off into the Twilight Zone.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

        It could be that you're psychic. Or maybe it's just that Trevor is predictable.

        I always try to find out if there is some substance to Trevor's arguments. I don't want to too quickly dismiss something as nonsense because sometimes even the most off the wall idea is worth considering, so when Trevor says something like 'the memoranda isn't worth the paper it's written on', I try to understand his reasoning. Unfortunately, with Trevor it invariably spirals off into the Twilight Zone.
        It’s the only reasonable way to approach things Paul when there’s so much that we can’t possibly know for anything approaching certainty. And it’s only unwarranted certainty that I object to. If we dismissed suspects on the basis that there’s no real evidence then the suspect sections on here and the JTR forums would be howling wildernesses. A statement like “the MM is not worth the paper it was written on” is ironically “not worth the paper it was written on.”
        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 John G View Post

          Hi,
          Personally, I think the police believed the crimes to be sexually motivated (probably correct) and the perpetrator to be insane (probably incorrect.) And, as senior police officers, rightly or wrongly, considered Druitt and Kosminski to be sexually insane, they both met that criteria, forming the basis for them to be regarded as having the required motive and therefore viable suspects (Macnaghten was also of the opinion that the perpetrator most likely committed suicide shortly after Miller's Court, so Druitt also meets that criteria).

          However, for me the biggest problem with Druitt's candidacy is the fact that he had no known association to the Whitechapel district. Now, considering the fact that all of the murders took place within an incredibly small geographical area (around 1 square mile), and that the perpetrator didn't expand his boundaries even after the police presence was greatly increased, it seems as plain as a pikestaff that JtR was a local man, with local geographical knowledge, who was psychologically committed to carrying out his activities within the confines of a narrow geographical boundary. And that's not Druitt.

          Why still a viable suspect? Well, the police seemed to have considered him as such, and we can't totally discount the possibility that they were privy to undisclosed information that strengthened his candidacy. Also, although I don't think Macnaghten was correct about the suicide issue (serial killers rarely commit suicide), I think it likely that the perpetrator either died, was institutionalised, or became seriously incapacitated shortly after the Kelly murder-on the basis that serial killers don't suddenly stop killing-so that's a small thing in favour of Druitt's candidacy.

          Oh, and if Astrachan Man existed he shoots up the suspect list!
          Hi john
          pretty much agree with everything except the last about serial killers dont just stop. Thats a myth. They do. Kemper and the recent golden stae killer did just that off the top of my head. What they dont do is commit suicide when theyre in no immediate danger of being caught.
          "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


          • At one time,not so long ago,Trevor was singled out as the only one who believed Druitt was not worthy of being considered suspect.That of course was not true,but it seemed to be an argument in favour of those who favoured Druitt.Now Trevor is quite correct in stating that the only information pointing to Druit is a belief of Druit's family.His(Druitt's) family considered him the murderer,not MM ,who made no such claim.So as Trevor is being challenged to prove a particular item.here is a challenge to his challenger.Prove what evidence his (Druitt) family had.
            You do not label a person as suspect unless there is evidence to support such a claim.Suspicion is not enough.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by John G View Post

              However, for me the biggest problem with Druitt's candidacy is the fact that he had no known association to the Whitechapel district.....
              We already know that men from out of town would come periodically and rent a room in a lodging house or a pub for the weekend or a few days.
              What evidence would you expect to find of Druitt renting a room from time to time?

              The Yorkshire Ripper who lived in Bingley, had no connections in Manchester, Halifax, Huddersfield, Keighley, Bradford, or Leeds, but that is where he hunted his victims.

              If finding no connection to Whitechapel is your biggest objection then you have no real objection.

              [/QUOTE]

              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by harry View Post
                ...
                You do not label a person as suspect unless there is evidence to support such a claim.Suspicion is not enough.
                ...
                I think this is the crux of the issue, what people mean by "suspect". For some, I think by referring to someone as a "suspect" that is the same as saying "I think this person did it", while for others "suspect" just means "there is reason to investigate this individual". Druitt falls into the latter, he's named by a senior police official who also indicates his family apparently had some level of suspicion he was involved. MacNaghton also indicates that of 3 people named, MJD was the one he was not inclined to exonerate, but for whom he hold strong "opinions." That makes him a worthy "suspect of investigation" to my way of thinking, but it doesn't mean I think "he did it", because that requires more substantial evidence. Half the time I think the arguments are simply rooted in the semantics of the word "suspect" and people insisting that their use of the word be adopted.

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • Originally posted by harry View Post
                  At one time,not so long ago,Trevor was singled out as the only one who believed Druitt was not worthy of being considered suspect.That of course was not true,but it seemed to be an argument in favour of those who favoured Druitt.Now Trevor is quite correct in stating that the only information pointing to Druit is a belief of Druit's family.His(Druitt's) family considered him the murderer,not MM ,who made no such claim.So as Trevor is being challenged to prove a particular item.here is a challenge to his challenger.Prove what evidence his (Druitt) family had.
                  You do not label a person as suspect unless there is evidence to support such a claim.Suspicion is not enough.
                  In which case there are no suspects
                  G U T

                  There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                    We already know that men from out of town would come periodically and rent a room in a lodging house or a pub for the weekend or a few days.
                    What evidence would you expect to find of Druitt renting a room from time to time?

                    The Yorkshire Ripper who lived in Bingley, had no connections in Manchester, Halifax, Huddersfield, Keighley, Bradford, or Leeds, but that is where he hunted his victims.

                    If finding no connection to Whitechapel is your biggest objection then you have no real objection.
                    [/QUOTE]

                    Is there any evidence that he did rent a room? The Yorkshire Ripper targeted victims over Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and Lancashire. Granted, a relatively small range, but vast compared with JtR's 1 square mile.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                      Hi john
                      pretty much agree with everything except the last about serial killers dont just stop. Thats a myth. They do. Kemper and the recent golden stae killer did just that off the top of my head. What they dont do is commit suicide when theyre in no immediate danger of being caught.
                      Hi Abby,

                      wasn't Kemper arrested a few months after his last murder? Of course, we dont know who the Golden State Killer is, although someone has now been charged with the crimes. It looks as though this might be a rare example of a serial killer who simply stopped.

                      I agree they don't commit suicide. The police at the time understandably had a poor understanding of the criminal mind, and took the view that the killer's mind must have given way after the Kelly murder. I think in hindsight that's a very unlikely scenario.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by harry View Post
                        At one time,not so long ago,Trevor was singled out as the only one who believed Druitt was not worthy of being considered suspect.That of course was not true,but it seemed to be an argument in favour of those who favoured Druitt.Now Trevor is quite correct in stating that the only information pointing to Druit is a belief of Druit's family.His(Druitt's) family considered him the murderer,not MM ,who made no such claim.So as Trevor is being challenged to prove a particular item.here is a challenge to his challenger.Prove what evidence his (Druitt) family had.
                        You do not label a person as suspect unless there is evidence to support such a claim.Suspicion is not enough.
                        Harry,
                        You write, 'you do not label a person as suspect unless there is evidence to support such a claim'. So, okay, why do you think Macnaghten would have labelled Druitt a suspect without any evidence?

                        I mean, Macnaghten did label Druitt a suspect. And apparently Macnaghten was an intelligent and educated man, he had a hands-on interest in criminal investigations, would have understood the need for evidence and what constituted good evidence, so do you really believe he would have suspected Druitt without evidence to support that belief?

                        The point is, from what we know of Macnaghten he would not have expressed his belief that Druitt was probably (or possibly) the murderer unless he had good evidence for doing so. Therefore, anyone who wants to challenge that must have a good argument supported by evidence for doing so. Unless there is a supported argument, the rational and reasonable conclusion must be that Macnaghten had good evidence. We just don't know what it was.

                        You write, 'Trevor is quite correct in stating that the only information pointing to Druit is a belief of Druit's family.' Now, even if that is correct, it only applies to us. It might be the only information pointing to Druitt that we know about, but is there any reason to suppose that it was the only information pointing to Druitt that Macnaghten possessed? Is there any reason to suppose that Macnaghten would have expressed his belief that Druitt was probably (or possibly) the murderer on nothing more substantial than having little doubt about what Druitt's family believed? Do you think he would have done that without even knowing why they believed he was? Do you think Macnaghten would have expressed his belief that Druitt was the murderer in a memorandum intended for his superiors and even for senior civil servants and government ministers, and if asked what his evidence was, would have said, "Oh, I'm told that's what Druitt's family possibly believed"? You see, if that was the only evidence he possessed he'd look like a fool, but we don't have any evidence that Macnaghten was that kind of fool. So why suppose that he would have behaved like one?





                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                          I think this is the crux of the issue, what people mean by "suspect". For some, I think by referring to someone as a "suspect" that is the same as saying "I think this person did it", while for others "suspect" just means "there is reason to investigate this individual". Druitt falls into the latter, he's named by a senior police official who also indicates his family apparently had some level of suspicion he was involved. MacNaghton also indicates that of 3 people named, MJD was the one he was not inclined to exonerate, but for whom he hold strong "opinions." That makes him a worthy "suspect of investigation" to my way of thinking, but it doesn't mean I think "he did it", because that requires more substantial evidence. Half the time I think the arguments are simply rooted in the semantics of the word "suspect" and people insisting that their use of the word be adopted.

                          - Jeff
                          Jeff,
                          I'd just note that whilst suspect can mean someone who should be investigated, it can also mean someone who has been investigated but against whom proof is lacking. Macnaghten could have been identifying Druitt as someone who might repay investigation, or he could be saying that Druitt had been investigated and (in Macnaghten's opinion) was likely but could not be proved to have been the murderer. Now, if Druitt was someone worthy of investigation, that would put him on a par with any other individual similarly worth investigating, but Druitt was on a list of three, two of whom Macnaghten was inclined to exonerate, or otherwise remove from suspicion, in favour of Druitt. Don't you think that suggests that Druitt was elevated from someone who should be investigated to someone who had been investigated and against whom there was evidence to which Macnaghten gave long and careful consideration?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                            I think this is the crux of the issue, what people mean by "suspect". For some, I think by referring to someone as a "suspect" that is the same as saying "I think this person did it", while for others "suspect" just means "there is reason to investigate this individual". Druitt falls into the latter, he's named by a senior police official who also indicates his family apparently had some level of suspicion he was involved. MacNaghton also indicates that of 3 people named, MJD was the one he was not inclined to exonerate, but for whom he hold strong "opinions." That makes him a worthy "suspect of investigation" to my way of thinking, but it doesn't mean I think "he did it", because that requires more substantial evidence. Half the time I think the arguments are simply rooted in the semantics of the word "suspect" and people insisting that their use of the word be adopted.

                            - Jeff
                            One final post by me on this topic and that relates to how safe and reliable the MM is to rely on,

                            As is known MM was not in the police at the time of the murders. So when asked to provide some form of written reply to the Sun suggestion re Cutbush, how did he set about gathering the information on the suspects he names. That could only have been by reviewing files, or what he was told. Clearly whether that was both or just one is not known. But what is known is that the information he gathered relating to Kosminski,Druitt and Ostrog which he put in that document was totally wrong and has proved to be wrong along with major errors with regards to Druitt.

                            Paul Begg questions the timing of the Aberconway version if it was a draft for the original then the way it is formulated adds even more weight to the suggestion that it is unsafe. The AV contains more detailed information than the original because he exonerates two of his original suspects he gives no reasons, neither does he give any tangible reasons or explanations why he keeps Druitt, other than his strong opinion. Well opinions of ageing police officers in later years count for nothing in the grand scheme of things without some form of corroboration. These opinions cannot be backed up by the same old chestunt used, that they were there, so they must have known something for them to form their opinions, that term is a cop out used by those who want to believe without question that these officers opinions were correct, and when we look at them they all had different opinions so that says something for the value of those opinions.

                            This was the biggest case the police had encountered I think that if they had suspicions then they would have acted on them, the police code gave officers the right to arrest a person on suspicion, yet none of their suspects were ever arrested on suspicion or it seems questioned for that matter. The main suspect file is missing, someone out there has it sitting in their draw, perhaps when it comes back into the public domain it might throw more light on the likely suspects that form a major part of this mystery.

                            Are we entitled to draw inferences from what is written in The MM, and what we have we been able to prove, and disprove from its contents. The answer is yes we are entitled to draw such inferences, and the main inference that can be drawn is that it it unsafe and unreliable. Are we prepared to accept that given all the errors highlighted, we should readily accept the rest of what he says about Druitt without question, and look upon Druitt as real suspect or simply a person of interest because his name has been mentioned? Person of interest at best ,Not a suspect.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                              I think this is the crux of the issue, what people mean by "suspect". For some, I think by referring to someone as a "suspect" that is the same as saying "I think this person did it", while for others "suspect" just means "there is reason to investigate this individual". Druitt falls into the latter, he's named by a senior police official who also indicates his family apparently had some level of suspicion he was involved. MacNaghton also indicates that of 3 people named, MJD was the one he was not inclined to exonerate, but for whom he hold strong "opinions." That makes him a worthy "suspect of investigation" to my way of thinking, but it doesn't mean I think "he did it", because that requires more substantial evidence. Half the time I think the arguments are simply rooted in the semantics of the word "suspect" and people insisting that their use of the word be adopted.

                              - Jeff
                              I don’t think that anyone could have put it better Jeff.

                              To Harry: I’d say that there are those of us that are saying that Druitt is worthy of investigation whilst there are some (and I’m not accusing you Harry) who are black and white on this. There’s no evidence so we should pretty much forget about him. Macnaghten was either a liar or gullible fool. He made a couple of small errors and so the MM, as a whole, isn’t worth the paper it was written on. This is a case of saying that something is known for certain when it’s not. Did Macnaghten, at one time, have evidence that pointed to Druitt as the killer? He says quite clearly that he did. We can’t state yes or no. So why are some stating no with such confidence?
                              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 GUT View Post

                                In which case there are no suspects
                                This is another good point GUT (and Harry)

                                If we say, for example, well we canít place Druitt near the crimes scenes at the times then on that criteria we can only discuss Lechmere and Hutchinson as suspects. But then they have no known history of violence. If someone is mentioned as a suspect by a very senior police officer then we have to treat them as a suspect until we can exonerate them.
                                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