What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Because there is corroboration to what Lawton says, and there in none to what Mac says

which book are you referring to ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The Real Truth - kindle version.

[Herlock Sholmes]

An argument could be made that if Mac knew Druitt's movements then one of the reasons he doesn't include Martha is - On Friday and Saturday, August 3 and 4, Druitt was in Dean Park, Bournemouth. He was there again on August 10 and 11 playing the Gentlemen of Dorset. Tabram was killed on Tuesday, August 7. Would it not make sense that Druitt would have stayed in the region of Bournemouth if he was playing two consecutive weekends? [From this site]

Of course the argument can be made that Druitt could have hopped back and forth from Bournemouth, but why not kill an unfortunate there? In fact why Whitechapel at all? Why not Blackheath, or anywhere close by south of the Thames? Why risk travelling, and staying overnight in a notorious district he has no known or little connection with.

True or it could just mean that Tabram wasn’t a ripper victim? The point I was making though was why choose someone as potentially traceable as Druitt when he’d have had other easier options?

[Sam Flynn]

Daily Mail 2 June 1913 - ‘I have destroyed all my documents,’ he said, ‘and there is now no record of the secret information which came into my possession at one time or another.’

Does "my documents" suggest that these weren't official papers? After all, in the years before the loss of most of the Ripper casefiles, I'd have thought that there'd have been at least the odd memo referring to Druitt still in the MEPO/Home Office files. Assuming Druitt ever was a genuine police suspect, that is, as opposed to the anti-hero of a family story imparted to Macnaghten as "private information".

[Sam Flynn]

The point I was making though was why choose someone as potentially traceable as Druitt when he’d have had other easier options?

All three suspects were potentially traceable and, as I've said, I see no reason why The Sun would have been arsed to investigate them. They weren't in the business of chasing the Ripper, after all, and if a man with Melville Macnaghten's authority (and position) said "Here are three likelier candidates", why should they not simply accept it? After all, when other police figures later spoke to the press or publishers with their own theories, they weren't reality-checked before publishing, as far as I know.

Even if The Sun decided to spend time and money investigating Druitt's movements to find that he had a cast-iron alibi on the relevant dates, it would be no big deal. It would just be one name off the list, and I see nothing that need have stopped Macnaghten from including Druitt's name on it.

[PaulB]

Daily Mail 2 June 1913 - ‘I have destroyed all my documents,’ he said, ‘and there is now no record of the secret information which came into my possession at one time or another.’
Secret Info and and all my documents. I might be wrong but it sounds to me he was keeping the info [whatever it may be] to himself Paul.

When Abberline said a report was made to the H/O could he not have meant PC Moulson's report? Seems a stretch but Abberline says young Doctor and way beyond the truth. If Mac had informed him would he be saying that?
Regards Darryl

Macnaghten might have been keeping the information to himself, but he could just have been saying that he'd destroyed all his papers, so as of 2 June 1913, or whenever he destroyed his papers, the information had gone. Personally, I think he was just deterring the journalist and other people who might have inquired. Whether or not he'd destroyed his papers is open to question.

Macnaghten may not have informed Abberline personally. Abberline might just have been told to undertake an investigation into Druitt and did so. But if he did undertake an investigation, Macnaghten must have told someone about his private information.

[Herlock Sholmes]

All three suspects were potentially traceable and, as I've said, I see no reason why The Sun would have been arsed to investigate them. They weren't in the business of chasing the Ripper, after all, and if a man with Melville Macnaghten's authority (and position) said "Here are three likelier candidates", why should they not simply accept it? After all, when other police figures later spoke to the press or publishers with their own theories, they weren't reality-checked before publishing, as far as I know.

Even if The Sun decided to spend time and money investigating Druitt's movements to find that he had a cast-iron alibi on the relevant dates, it would be no big deal. It would just be one name off the list, and I see nothing that need have stopped Macnaghten from including Druitt's name on it.

They were possibly traceable but I’d still suggest that someone of Druitt’s class would have been far easier. Also if Mac was trying to rubbish their nomination of Cutbush might not his credibility have taken a bit of a blow if they could have proven that Druitt was innocent?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

"What he wrote at the time he believed to be true."

He did?

You know this for a fact?

Regards,

Simon

Shouldn't we expect police officials to write what they believe to be true when making out a report?
Isn't this inherent in their job?

[Sam Flynn]

^^^
Yes, but why would The Sun have bothered to take it any further, Herlock? Macnaghten was about as senior as it got when it came to law enforcement in Britain, so why would they have had cause to disbelieve him? It just wouldn't have been worth the effort or the hassle.

[Wickerman]

In response to Herlock, who asked:
"What if Macnaghten wanted to obscure Druitt’s true identity to protect the family because his good friend was linked to them by marriage?"

In part, you pointed out:

And mentioned his Name?!

The Baron

But he didn't though.

I believe it was Jonathan Hainsworth's argument that certain biographical details were intentionally changed. The name of the suspect only appears in the Memorandum, not in public documents.
Mac. spoke to the press at the time of his retirement. He briefly mentioned his theory, but gave no name. His autobiography mentioned the theory three times, in three different paragraphs, neither of which did he offer a name.
In all the hints and 'leaks' Mac. passed to Sims, never once did he share the name. Or, at least Sims never put it in writing if he did.

It is essential that police documents, when entitled CONFIDENTIAL remain so. For the eyes of officials only, not for public release or public consumption.
Mac's Memorandum was entitled CONFIDENTIAL, so Jonathan's argument remains sound.

The real reason Mac. wrote that Druitt was a doctor remains an open question in my mind. I don't believe this was part of the coverup.

[Wickerman]

And what do you think that paperwork could have been? A signed confession from Druitt, or nothing more than a letter from a family member suggesting he could have been the killer? Druitt was living in London at the time of the murders, his family lived miles away from him in Dorset, how much contact would they have had with him to form an opinion that he could have been JTR?

Montie had stayed with his elder brother some day at the end of October. It could well be that William discovered something from Montie on that occasion. We don't know what was meant by "the family", but social etiquette of the time would dictate the elder son, being the head of the family (as both parents were dead), would have to be informed if any of the peripheral family members (cousins, uncle's, etc.) had any suspicions.
So, certainly William had to be one member who knew something, or thought he knew something.

[Herlock Sholmes]

^^^
Yes, but why would The Sun have bothered to take it any further, Herlock? Macnaghten was about as senior as it got when it came to law enforcement in Britain, so why would they have had cause to disbelieve him? It just wouldn't have been worth the effort or the hassle.

The Sun were claiming to have solved the great mystery. If Macnaghten’s memoranda had somehow leaked out they might have tried to show that they were right all along and that Mac was wrong? Macnaghten must have known that his memoranda would have eventually become common knowledge and therefore open to scrutiny. Would he have wanted someone looking into it and finding that Druitt had an easily traceable alibi? Also if Druitt was innocent wouldn’t he have risked the family taking some kind of legal action? Wouldn’t they have spoken up if Monty was being touted as Jack the Ripper?

[Wickerman]

Believing and having evidence to back up a belief are two different things. There is to much belief nowadays put into the beliefs of senior officers from back then. To many people are too ready to readily accept these beliefs by stating they were there so they must have know something, that counts for nothing without anything to back it up

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Right, but when the evidence has not survived do we then discard the conclusions?
Mac. does say there was evidence (the paperwork he destroyed). What about the "circs" that made Kozminski a "strong suspect"?
Where are those "circs"? - so are you saying he shouldn't be regarded as a strong suspect because we have no "circs"?

You should know better than most that in large organizations only the conclusions are retained, the reason's why are eventually thrown out, but not the conclusions.

[Wickerman]

Maybe so, but I don't see why Macnaghten should have felt constrained to cover this up. As to besmirching the family: (a) they themselves allegedly believed he was the killer - a "fact" that was clearly out there or MM wouldn't have heard of it; (b) the Druitts were hardly major public figures, so it's not as if this news would rock the Establishment; and (c) the Memorandum clearly states that Druitt was insane, which would explain (or even partly excuse) his behaviour without dragging the rest of the family down.

Any cover up was with respect to the general public.
(a) The "family" didn't go public.
(b) The Druitt family had friends in high places, and connections through marriage. Nothing to do with "rocking the establishment", more to do with family shame in spawning such a despicable murderer.
(c) The public were not intended to see the Memorandum, this is why the autobiography contained no name.

[Sam Flynn]

I see no reason why The Sun should have bothered taking it further, nor why Macnaghten should have felt deterred from putting three suggested candidates down on paper. Note that Macnaghten doesn't once say that they were strong or even "average" candidates, only that any one of them would have made better candidate Rippers than Cutbush. And that wording bears repeating: "I might mention three... any one of whom" says it all, the implication being that there were were plenty of other better suspects than Cutbush, but here's three for starters. That's the context against which Druitt's inclusion in the Macnaghten Memorandum, indeed the Memorandum itself, should be considered.

[Sam Flynn]

(c) The public were not intended to see the Memorandum, this is why the autobiography contained no name.

There is that, too. Macnaghten was hardly expecting that a major scandal - involving this fairly minor family, let's face it - would ensue, so why should he have felt deterred?