What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Herlock Sholmes]

No one had investigated Druitt throughly, and Nothing since has appeared to connect Druitt to those murders, and the fact that some want us to believe he is one of the best suspect in the case, is mind blowing.


The Baron

It’s also mind blowing that you can dismiss Druitt as a suspect without, for example, taking the time and effort to read JJ Hainsworth’s book. How can you dismiss a side of a debate that you aren’t familiar with. And finally how can you dismiss Druitt as a suspect because ‘’there’s no evidence’’ and yet at the same time give thinking time to Randy Williams utter fantasy?

[The Baron]

Who ?!

Can you enlighten me and show me where I did gave thinking time to Randy Williams fantasy?!

Or are you simply confusing posters here?!

Advice: Don't depend on memory, it fails sometimes.


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

You didn't address any of my points.

Just repeating the same old reasoning, Macnaghten was in a position to know... etc.

Druitt had not been investigated throughly, otherwise Macnaghten would have known his career, age, date of death .. etc.

And nothing since has surfaced to connect Druitt to those murders.


Besides: Druitt was dead when Mckenzie was murdered.


The Baron

Do you have evidence to show that Macnaghten was either stupid or a liar? An error in the age and occupation of Druitt doesn’t approach good enough? You appear to be dismissing Macnaghten because hes inconvenient to your preconception. A son of a surgeon fished out of the Thames can only mean Druitt in the absence of a truly freakish and previously undiscovered coincidence.

Can you also provide us with the proof that Alice Mackenzie was a ripper victim? If you can’t (and you can’t ) then your repeated use of her murder to try and dismiss Druitt is redundant.

Inconveniently for you the second most senior police officer in the country did have links to the Druitt family which gives us more than one possibility for the source of his ‘private info.’ And as I’ve said before, why did he name Druitt in the first place? After all he was just naming ‘likelier’ suspects than Cutbush. There were hardly going to be repercussions or complaints from Kosminski or Ostrog’s families. He had numerous asylum’s or graveyard’s from which to select another ‘suspect’ to add to the ‘better than Cutbush’ list. But no, Macnaghten - pillar of the Victorian establishment, Tory, Christian, Eton And Oxford attending, fingers the son of an esteemed surgeon. In an age where the upper classes believed that ‘no English gentleman could have committed these crimes.’ An age where the upper classes had a paralysing fear of scandal and dishonour. Macnaghten nominates Oxford And Harrow-educated, son of a surgeon, cricket playing, schoolteacher and Barrister Druitt. And not only that, someone that was related by marriage to a very good friend of his.

Mentioning Druit at random, purely because he conveniently committed suicide, makes no sense. So why did Sir Melville Macnaghten nominate Druitt when there was no evidence around that he could have been the ripper?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another point that I feel is worth mentioning is that because of the fact that Druitt was a barrister, school teacher and cricketer - someone who moved in society circles, he would have been far easier to exonerate than suspects like Kosminski and Ostrog. There would have been a far, far greater chance of discovering, for example, that Druitt was elsewhere at the time of one or more of the murders. One of the reasons that we were able to dismiss Prince Eddy as a suspect.

[The Baron]

Alice Mckenzie's njuries:

• Cause of death from severance of the left carotid artery.
• Two stabs in the left side of the neck 'carried forward in the same skin wound.'
• Some bruising on chest.
• Five bruises or marks on left side of abdomen.
• Cut was made from left to right, apparently while McKenzie was on the ground.
• A long (seven-inch) 'but not unduly deep' wound from the bottom of the left breast to the navel.
• Seven or eight scratches beginning at the navel and pointing toward the genitalia.
• Small cut across the mons veneris.

If alice Mckenzie was not a ripper victim, then Nechols and Stride were also not ripper victims.


And you ask me to prove someone is a victim of some unkown one.

Prove that Kelly was a ripper victim, prove that Stride was a ripper victim.



The Baron

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Sir Basil Thomson wrote about Macnaghten in his 1922 book “Queer People”—

“He had an astonishing memory both for faces and for names: he could tell you every detail about a ten-year-old crime, the names of the victim, the perpetrator, and every important witness, and, what was more useful, the official career of every one of his seven hundred men and his qualifications and ability.”

Really?

There was no 'doctor' suicide in the Thames. Druitt was a barrister/schoolteacher.

So from where had Sims and Abberline got their doctor?

They had more than likely read it in Major Griffiths November 1898 book which featured an edited version of Macnaghten's memorandum.

So, as nobody corrected the mistake, all roads lead back to Macnaghten.

There is a theory that in promoting the 'doctor' persona Macnaghten was disguising Druitt's identity to spare his family embarrassment. If he really wanted to do that, he wouldn't have mentioned Druitt at all.

Regards,

Simon

[Stacker]

I will disclose something that shows how my views on this case go against many of my personally held political beliefs:

My politics:
Lives in US
Enthusiastic supporter of Bernie Sanders
Consistent voter for the Democratic Party (Left wing)
Socialist positions on Economic Policy
Libertarian positions on Social Policy
Dovish positions on Foreign Policy

Druitt:
Lawyer for the Tory Party (Right wing)
Belonged to a wealthy family

Diemschutz & Co:
Members of a Socialist Club (Left wing)
Generally people with tough jobs belonging to not wealthy families

By all accounts, if I was letting my politics guide my view of this case, I would have every motive to put the finger towards Druitt and against Diemschutz & Co.
Yet, I am doing the exact opposite; going against my political views in coming to my analysis of this case and pointing the finger towards Diemschutz & Co, and away from Druitt.

[Wickerman]

If there was 'absolutely nothing' to incriminate the drowned man other than when he was found, why did Macnaghten believe he was the murderer? Why did he prefer him to 'Kosminski', around whom there were 'many circs' that made him a good suspect? I am prepared to accept that Macnaghten's memory was crap, I am prepared to listen to those good people who think he preferred Druitt because he was the one who had received the private information (if he was in fact the one), and I will even give a little houseroom to the possibility that Macnaghten may not have had any qualms about dismissing his boss's suspect in a report his boss would have had to approve, but I find it hard to believe that Macnaghten was such a total dolt that he would accept that someone was Jack the Ripper just because of the coincidental date that he drowned in the Thames.

Agreed!
My question still stands, with an average of 6 suicides per week in 1888 between 10 Nov & 31 December there was potentially 40+ suicides to pin this series of murders on - why Druitt?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,


There was no 'doctor' suicide in the Thames. Druitt was a barrister/schoolteacher.

So from where had Sims and Abberline got their doctor?

They had more than likely read it in Major Griffiths November 1898 book which featured an edited version of Macnaghten's memorandum.

Hi Simon.

Abberline was at the forefront of the investigation, he interviewed all the primary witnesses. Yet, you think he forgot about a drowned doctor and merely used the account by Griffiths written a decade later?
That's stretching things a little wouldn't you say?
If he was so easily influenced, on what grounds should we believe anything he wrote?

I've spent untold hours looking for a doctor suicide in Nov, Dec, of 1888. Suicides were rarely national news, you have to look in the local papers. Not all the local papers are archived yet.
Druitt's suicide wasn't national news either, so the chances are pretty good Mac. didn't get his info from the press.

[Wickerman]

It’s also mind blowing that you can dismiss Druitt as a suspect without, for example, taking the time and effort to read JJ Hainsworth’s book. How can you dismiss a side of a debate that you aren’t familiar with. And finally how can you dismiss Druitt as a suspect because ‘’there’s no evidence’’ and yet at the same time give thinking time to Randy Williams utter fantasy?

Just a quick question (if you don't mind), given that I think you have read both Andersen & Hainsworth, what is your thinking on their competing theories about Mac's "informed sources" on Druitt?

[Herlock Sholmes]

For me I think that Majendie was the likelier source. The family link was there and he and Mac were good friends. Mac obvious held him in high esteem and so would have had a real incentive to try and obscure Druitt’s identity as the story threatened to leak out.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

"Abberline was at the forefront of the investigation, he interviewed all the primary witnesses. Yet, you think he forgot about a drowned doctor and merely used the account by Griffiths written a decade later?"

Sure. Why not?

He also forgot about a drowned barrister/schoolteacher.

Regards,

Simon

[Herlock Sholmes]

I will disclose something that shows how my views on this case go against many of my personally held political beliefs:

My politics:
Lives in US
Enthusiastic supporter of Bernie Sanders
Consistent voter for the Democratic Party (Left wing)
Socialist positions on Economic Policy
Libertarian positions on Social Policy
Dovish positions on Foreign Policy

Druitt:
Lawyer for the Tory Party (Right wing)
Belonged to a wealthy family

Diemschutz & Co:
Members of a Socialist Club (Left wing)
Generally people with tough jobs belonging to not wealthy families

By all accounts, if I was letting my politics guide my view of this case, I would have every motive to put the finger towards Druitt and against Diemschutz & Co.
Yet, I am doing the exact opposite; going against my political views in coming to my analysis of this case and pointing the finger towards Diemschutz & Co, and away from Druitt.

But there’s not a single, solitary shred of anything approaching evidence to connect Diemschutz & co to these crimes. Especially this mysterious Russian guy. I can’t for the life of me see how anyone can give this theory a seconds credence and yet mock Druitt as a candidate? The fact that he was mentioned by Macnaghten alone lifts him layers and layers above that fantasy. It’s like saying “ how can you consider Kosminski a suspect when it was more likely to have been Prince Eddy in partnership with Florence Nightingale!”

I don’t know but is there any research on whether those on the left are more susceptible to conspiracy theories?

[Wickerman]

No one had investigated Druitt throughly, and Nothing since has appeared to connect Druitt to those murders, and the fact that some want us to believe he is one of the best suspect in the case, is mind blowing.


The Baron

Druitt was not thoroughly investigated, because he had been dead for more than 6 months before he came to the attention of police, at least according to Mac.
No-one is about to invest effort & resources into the background of a man they cannot charge, and who cannot offer any kind of defense.
There were no suspicions about Druitt until after June 1889, so he died in innocence, but was accused posthumously.
I'm not sure about him being "one of the best suspects". He is arguably one of the most genuine suspects.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

How did Druitt qualify as one of the most genuine suspects?

Regards,

Simon