What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Herlock Sholmes]

1. An assumption that the paperwork never existed based just on the fact that they don’t exist now.

2. Macnaghten actually saying that he destroyed them. Plus it’s hardly likely that he’d have destroyed official documents but only his private notes.

Point 2 has the positive evidence and so is likeliest.

[The Baron]

And if he destroyed evidences or informations that incriminate a suspect, is that legal ?!


The Baron

[PaulB]

Here are part of BBC Producer Paul Bonner's 1973 notes on the Ripper files -

The file was apparently requested in January 1889. Macnaghten said that the private information pertaining to Druitt was received 'some years' after he became a police officer in the middle of 1889. In other words, Druitt wasn't known about until after the suspects file was called for. 'Kosminski' was likewise probably not a suspect in January 1889 and therefore wouldn't have been mentioned in that file. On top of all that, the suspects file appears to have contained the names of 100 people pulled in for assorted not particularly serious reasons. If there were 'serious' suspects, would they have been in that file?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

In July 1902 George R. Sims wrote—

"In that case they had reduced the only possible Jacks to seven, then by a further exhaustive inquiry to three, and were about to fit these three people's movements in with the dates of the various murders when the one and only genuine Jack saved further trouble by being found drowned in the Thames, into which he had flung himself, a raving lunatic, after the last and most appalling mutilation of the whole series."

I don't believe Sims knew of what he wrote or that Macnaghten kept him up to speed on the truth, but, if in this instance we give Sims the benefit of the doubt, it means that at the time of Druitt's drowning the cops were already in possession of the names Kosminski and Ostrog.

Regards,

Simon

[GUT]

And if he destroyed evidences or informations that incriminate a suspect, is that legal ?!


The Baron

When said suspect is long dead and buried?? Yes

[Wickerman]

But if MM`s paperwork never existed, it could not have been destroyed

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Couldn't the same be said of Paul Bonner?

[Wickerman]

And if he destroyed evidences or informations that incriminate a suspect, is that legal ?!


The Baron

Whatever this paperwork was, he doesn't call it "proof", so it was not sufficient to label Druitt as the killer.
It can't have had any stronger legal value than hearsay.

[Wickerman]

Hi Paul,

In July 1902 George R. Sims wrote—

"In that case they had reduced the only possible Jacks to seven, then by a further exhaustive inquiry to three, and were about to fit these three people's movements in with the dates of the various murders when the one and only genuine Jack saved further trouble by being found drowned in the Thames, into which he had flung himself, a raving lunatic, after the last and most appalling mutilation of the whole series."

I don't believe Sims knew of what he wrote or that Macnaghten kept him up to speed on the truth, but, if in this instance we give Sims the benefit of the doubt, it means that at the time of Druitt's drowning the cops were already in possession of the names Kosminski and Ostrog.

Regards,

Simon

I think what is missing in the above quotes from Sims, is a date.

The first paragraph is being assumed to recall events dated to around Dec. 1888, yet this may not be correct.
The Whitechapel murders extended into 1891, the last being that of Coles.
Therefore, the police could have been chasing seven suspects, which they reduced to three, all the way through 1889-1890/1, or even later.

They obviously did not have Druitt's name, or they wouldn't be looking for him, they could have easily picked him up. He wasn't difficult to find.
The police may have only discovered the name of this elusive suspect long after he killed himself - consistent with the story being told by Mac.
So, as Sims relates, the police investigation came to a halt when they discovered their prime suspect had committed suicide (several months/years prior), following the Millers Court murder.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

They "were about to fit these three people's movements in with the dates of the various murders when the one and only genuine Jack saved further trouble by being found drowned in the Thames . . ."

Which means they had the names of the other two suspects prior to 31st December 1888, when Druitt was fished out of the Thames.

Apart from the fact that Sims' story is patent bollocks, what's complicated about it?

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Simon.

A specified date by Sims would help.

You, me & everyone else knows Druitt was not the prime Ripper suspect on the day his body was fished out of the Thames. So there's no need to defend an interpretation which we know to be wrong.

Sims could just as easily have meant their prime suspect was found (to have) drowned in the Thames, a fact they discovered long after the event.
this interpretation would be consistent with Mac's personal notes.

Sims:
"were about to fit these three people's movements in with the dates of the various murders...."
This is not date dependent, the police could have done that in 1889/90/91, or later.

"when the one and only genuine Jack saved further trouble by being found drowned in the Thames . . ."
Their prime suspect was found to have drowned in the Thames, but when did they discover this, the day he was fished out, or 6 months later, or longer?
There is nothing in this sentence which demands a date of December 1888.

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

In July 1902 George R. Sims wrote—

"In that case they had reduced the only possible Jacks to seven, then by a further exhaustive inquiry to three, and were about to fit these three people's movements in with the dates of the various murders when the one and only genuine Jack saved further trouble by being found drowned in the Thames, into which he had flung himself, a raving lunatic, after the last and most appalling mutilation of the whole series."

I don't believe Sims knew of what he wrote or that Macnaghten kept him up to speed on the truth, but, if in this instance we give Sims the benefit of the doubt, it means that at the time of Druitt's drowning the cops were already in possession of the names Kosminski and Ostrog.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon, yes, that's true, but only if we give Sims the benefit of the doubt. But is there any reason why we should prefer Sims account to what Macnaghten says about when the information implicating Druitt was received? Macnaghten appears to be a first-hand source, talking about information he received personally or at least on his watch, whilst Sims is repeating something he was told or has deduced from something he was told. I don't know what advantage there would have been to Macnaghten to lie about when the information about Druitt was received, and there is absolutely no reason to suppose that any great interval separated the eye-witness identification of 'Kosminski' from his committal, so there seems no reason to give Sims priority. In fact, the passage you have quoted could be taken as suggesting that Sims actually have very limited information about the suspects and was trying to work it into an understandable narrative.

[Wickerman]

Apart from the fact that Sims' story is patent bollocks, what's complicated about it?

This is rarely the case though, more often than not these second or third-hand accounts contain a mixture of fact & fiction. I think you know yourself there are perhaps over a dozen of these comments found in the press and in books by Sims, Griffiths, various officials, and others. Some mention him a doctor, some don't, some say he died the day after Millers Court, others say later. Some mention the Thames, others do not.
None of them are all "bollocks", it's a matter of sorting the wheat from the chaff. Mac. makes it clear the police did not know the killer's identity while he was alive.

[Stacker]

The grammatical wording of that statement implies that by the time they found the body drowned in the thames, they had already narrowed it down to 3 suspects, and that the body was just found right then and there. It clearly indicates that it was not a case of them having found the body earlier and drawing the connection later.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stacker,

I'm pleased that somebody finally comprehended the Sims statement.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Quote Wickerman

".. Mac. makes it clear the police did not know the killers identity while he was alive."

I am hoping you mean whilst the "killer" was alive?

Because if you mean whilst MM was alive, you've run into a massive problem. Because various "individual policemen" claimed the opposite. SRA included.

And I note my lengthy post re the Official Secrets Act has been sidestepped. Probably because it answers all the questions involving problems relating to suspects and supposed situations, Druitt and "Kosminski" included.

This business if MM "destroying all his papers " really is a ruse.
Firstly, and rather obviously, MM would not have destroyed official Police papers, which is highly illegal. (To admit such is frankly stupid)
One then must see that these supposed "papers" were his personal property, attained outside of his work. Such a claim then becomes valueless. Like..
" I had 4 Cup Final tickets fir the Royal Box, but never showed them to anyone, and they are now destroyed."

The argument against this will be.. Of course.. That there is no reason to disbelieve MM's words.

Incorrect. The Official Secrets Act is one very good reason. It weighs heavily in favour of silence, on all matters. That applies to SRA as well.
Hence, tell lies. Deflect, invent, expand.


Phil


Phil