What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Wickerman]

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?

Yes, of course.

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.

It wasn't sidestepped, I read it for one. I just didn't think it did answer all the questions.
I thought we all knew the police are not supposed to talk about a case, yet many do, and did.

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."

I would assume we ALL know that Phil, it's like 'par for the course'.
The problem is, once such a claim is made we cannot be certain it is not true. Whereas, you seem to think that such a claim is automatically a lie.
It is no secret that high ranking officials (even today) tend to have friends outside the force who they pick up tid-bits of information from. What Macnaghten claims is not at all unbelievable. This is why so much interest has been placed in the claim by Farqharson, and the chain of connections to Mac., Majendie & Sims - which apparently are quite possible.

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.

So what about Anderson, Swanson, Abberline, Reid, .....the list goes on. The same Act applies to them and what they claimed to share about official cases.
So long as what these police officials wrote did no harm, then the penalties under the Act were not applied. They knew this.

[Wickerman]

Hello Phil, this is one example (in my view) of why your post did not answer all the questions.

In order to get around complicated, embarrassing or even secret events and occasions, policemen, fully knowing that the penalty for breaking this law was certain imprisonment, deflected truths, replaced names and changed the actual events.
Memoirs, for example, were carefully vetted so as to not reveal unknown truths. Names were deliberately changed or invented. That way, no methodology, no "in house" information, and no "real" suspects would be named in crimes yet solved. Only in the cases that were already solved, with names in the public eye, was that permitted.
Now. Sir MM, Sir RA, and DSS were all very aware of the Official Secrets Act. Abberline too. Reid too. They all were.

We don't need to look at the Official Secrets Act, the police had their own code of conduct, with a similar caution established in 1881 by the then Director of the CID, Howard Vincent:

The Police must not on any account give any information whatever to gentlemen connected with the press, relative to matters within police knowledge, or relative to duties to be performed, or orders received, or communicate in any manner, either directly or indirectly, with editors or reporters of newspapers, on any matter connected with the public service, without express and special authority.....etc.

All the memoirs have been studied and researched in the modern era. Sufficient is known that much of what was written by these ex officials contained an element of truth, some fact some fiction, even as far at what was true, there both accurate & inaccurate recollections.
If what you claim was true, then everything they wrote about their experiences would have to be false. Which is demonstrably not the case at all.

This is why researchers like Chris Scott, J.J. Hainsworth, Tom Cullen, Danial Farson, Andy Spallek, David Andersen and others have spent years looking into how Mac. could have known what he claimed to know. Is there a potential chain of communication between the sources; from the West country politician, the priest, MJD and Mac.?, and it turn out there most certainly is.
Such an established connection has not been demonstrated with other suspects, like Kozminski & Ostrog, etc.

Those who simply do not 'like' Druitt as the Ripper will always dismiss him on the most superficial grounds - they are not prepared to accept the possibility, so there is no point in trying to convince them. It's rather like the Hutchinson threads, theorists dig a trench and are prepared to defend their position to the end.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

For all the work of pro-Druitt researchers looking into the potential chain of communication between their various sources of information, they have yet to set forth a collective and coherent argument for their suspicions.

Thus, Druitt remains as unlikely a Ripper suspect as [insert name here].

Regards,

Simon

[The Baron]

Hi Jon,

For all the work of pro-Druitt researchers looking into the potential chain of communication between their various sources of information, they have yet to set forth a collective and coherent argument for their suspicions.

Thus, Druitt remains as unlikely a Ripper suspect as [insert name here].

Regards,

Simon

..Ostrog.


The Baron

[Phil Carter]

Hi Jon,

You state you did read my piece on the OSA.
Then ask me, "what about Anderson, Reid, etc"

If you read the first posting, you will note I included ALL of them. Yes, the OSA applies to them all.

And it just so happens there are a plethora of Different theories from different policemen.

Two things.

One. One would have thought that there would be a general concencus. There isn't. They have different suspects, dying at different times with different real names or professions.

Two. It is entirely obvious that ANY policeman who is under the scrutiny of the OSA, cannot, under the circumstances, actually tell the real truth about the Whitechapel murderer(s). Because the case was, and is, unsolved. Under those circs, they simply cannot open their collective mouths and names REAL suspects, real events, real backgrounds of these real people. They can't do it.. Because they are not allowed to. The exact same rule applies today. No unsolved murder gives the retired or serving policeman the right to name real persons.

Now you, or anybody else, can say "I believe X, Y, or Z was actually telling the truth'. Trouble is, as I said, the OSA craves silence on truth. It's a fact.

And whatever titbit Sims picked up, and when, it dies nothing to confirm the MM theory. Because of the OSA, and because it becomes third hand evidence.

So argue away as much as you wish. The OSA us one hell of a stumbling block. It applied to all policemen.
You know.. The ones that gave us XX amount of different theories.

Two men say they are Jesus, one if them must be wrong.

If 10 say it. 9 are.

See the pattern?

The OSA gives a very reasonable reason for it.



Phil

[Wickerman]

Actually Phil, the OSA does not limit gossip to only "truth", it says quite clearly no talk of any kind - "any person, in any position, in service to The Queen and Country, is duty bound to conceal all truths referring to anything involving work for HM Government and the Crown."

Government Acts that limit what can be talked about openly are intended to include everything, so they can get you on anything, if they deem it necessary.

Which means not a word about your job in any way, even down to a constable's beat. Yet you choose to limit gossip to the names of true suspects, the restrictions go a good deal deeper than that. So why do many of these officials (Anderson, Reid, Swanson, etc.) provide true accounts of their work, or duties?
For precisely the same reason I gave before, what they talk about offers no harm to Queen & Country.

It happens, yet you choose to ignore the fact.
The Official Secrets Act was intended for people such as Kim Philby & Guy Burgess, not PC plod moaning to his wife about where he has to go on his beat, or for that matter Anderson beating his own drum about how important he was.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Jon

You have ignored the fact that UNSOLVED murder cases are not included in naming suspect names.
That's where the OSA comes in. Sorry.

That's the difference. (From your examples)

And you ignore, I see, the poinant facts that they all told different stories or theories.

10 men naming a suspect. 9 must be wrong.

6 men 5..its the same rule.

Oh, and Anderson was shown to have lied and bent the truth on other subjects in TLSOMOL.
Simon Wood gave examples in his book, Deconstructing Jack.

Look. Anyone can defend X and say He told the truth.
Trouble is, if X did.. The rest didn't. The obvious reason is the OSA. Covers all.

And you are going to say the OSA 1889 had no effect on X as well?
Good luck with that!


Phil

[Herlock Sholmes]

Surely this quote:

the OSA does not limit gossip to only "truth", it says quite clearly no talk of any kind - "any person, in any position, in service to The Queen and Country, is duty bound to conceal all truths referring to anything involving work for HM Government and the Crown."

Government Acts that limit what can be talked about openly are intended to include everything, so they can get you on anything, if they deem it necessary.

Which means not a word about your job in any way, even down to a constable's beat.

Combined with this fact:

. So why do many of these officials (Anderson, Reid, Swanson, etc.) provide true accounts of their work, or duties?
For precisely the same reason I gave before, what they talk about offers no harm to Queen & Country.

Shows that the OSA doesn’t ‘explain all?’

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

In 1888 Scotland Yard [I use the term colloquially] was the beating heart of the uniformed branch, the CID, an early form of a countrywide FBI and a progenitor of the later MI5 and MI6. It was an immense law and order powerhouse under the control of one man who answered only to the government of the day.

In 1889, Robert Anderson took care to cover his backside. Following his "1888 trip to Switzerland" he defended his disclosure of certain letters to Henri Le Caron for the purposes of his witness appearance at the Special Commission, by writing in The Times, 21st March 1889–

" . . . The letters in question do not come within the definition contained in the Official Secrets Bill now before Parliament. They never were on record in a Government office. They were never 'filed' in a public department. I kept them at my private residence . . . Nor had I personally, in relation to such matters, any official position of a kind to lend an official character to the documents in question . . ."

How Anderson reconciled this specious argument with the fact that in 1886 he had been officially relieved of all intelligence duties other than controlling Le Caron is unknown, but taking into account the then on-going parliamentary debate on the 1888 Official Secrets Bill it appears that he was also covering Henry Matthews' backside.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Well firstly was it not shown he was playing cricket out of town on the day of one of the murders and it was virtually impossible to get back in time?.....

Chris Scott obtained the train timetables, I knew I copied his post somewhere, it was just finding it...

In conclusion he wrote:
"Based on these ascertainable facts, Druitt could conceivably have caught the 0614 Cannon Street train at London Bridge and arrived at Valentine's in Blackheath before 7 am. He certainly could have caught the 0730 at either Cannon Street or London Bridge and arrived at Valentines at, say, 0815."


Chris's complete post is given below:

OK rail timetables for January 1889 now in hand.

Trains departed Cannon Street for Blackheath (on Saturdays) at:

0614
0730
0749

and thereafter about every 10-20 minutes throughout the morning. The was on the South Eastern Railway -- North Kent Line.

Departures from London Bridge are not given but I do know that these were the same trains as above, so they probably would have called at London Bridge only a few minutes after departing Cannon Street.

Unfortunately, arrival times at Blackheath are also not given. If it is about 12 minutes today, I think 30 minutes is a very safe estimate for 1888 given that modern trains don't run up to anywhere near full speed on busy metropolitan rail. If you want to be even more cautious you can allow 45 minutes for the journey but I think that stretches credibility.

Using 30 minutes gives us approximate arrival times at Blackheath of:

0644
0800
0819

It's a five minute walk from the Blackheath rail station to Valentine's.

Google maps gives the following walking times and distances:

29 Hanbury Street to Cannon Street Station: 1.2 miles, 25 minutes (via main roads)

29 Hanbury Street to London Bridge Station: 1.4 miles, 29 minutes (via main roads)

29 Hanbury Street to 9 Eliot Place, Blackheath: 6.1 miles, 2 hrs 6 mins.

Obviously, this walking time is predicated on modern traffic and traffic signals. Walking time in 1888 might have been a bit different but on the whole approximately the same. Also, remember that Druitt was an athlete and may have been in a hurry or anxious which could have cut the walking time considerably.

Based on these ascertainable facts, Druitt could conceivably have caught the 0614 Cannon Street train at London Bridge and arrived at Valentine's in Blackheath before 7 am. He certainly could have caught the 0730 at either Cannon Street or London Bridge and arrived at Valentines at, say, 0815.
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=62531&postcount=26

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

You have ignored the fact that UNSOLVED murder cases are not included in naming suspect names.
That's where the OSA comes in. Sorry.

Phil.

I'm not following you here.
The OSA limits making confidential information public. It does not limit the sharing of confidential information between departments - internally.

Mac. did not make Druitt's name public in his memoir, or with the press. Druitt's name was only written in his 'Confidential' internal report.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

In 1888 Scotland Yard [I use the term colloquially] was the beating heart of the uniformed branch, the CID, an early form of a countrywide FBI and a progenitor of the later MI5 and MI6. It was an immense law and order powerhouse under the control of one man who answered only to the government of the day.

In 1889, Robert Anderson took care to cover his backside. Following his "1888 trip to Switzerland" he defended his disclosure of certain letters to Henri Le Caron for the purposes of his witness appearance at the Special Commission, by writing in The Times, 21st March 1889–

" . . . The letters in question do not come within the definition contained in the Official Secrets Bill now before Parliament. They never were on record in a Government office. They were never 'filed' in a public department. I kept them at my private residence . . . Nor had I personally, in relation to such matters, any official position of a kind to lend an official character to the documents in question . . ."

How Anderson reconciled this specious argument with the fact that in 1886 he had been officially relieved of all intelligence duties other than controlling Le Caron is unknown, but taking into account the then on-going parliamentary debate on the 1888 Official Secrets Bill it appears that he was also covering Henry Matthews' backside.

Regards,

Simon

Thankyou Simon, I admit to not being familiar with the "Le Caron" paperwork, but yes what appears as a technicality, is being used as an excuse for sharing proprietary(?) information. But was it proprietary?
I'm not sure that would fly today.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Was it proprietary information?

Well, that depends on whether or not you believe Anderson went to Switzerland in September/October 1888.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Hi Jon

That "confidential" information.. The memoranda, was indeed marked "confidential" . To that I will concede.
However. "internal" we can dispute. As has previously been gone over 1000 times, it was so "internal" it wasn't addressed to any department nor person, internally.
Oh, and before someone shouts "it was meant for the Home Office".. That's not internal. That's an external department outside of Scotland Yard.

I'm still waiting for you to address many of my points. If 4,5 or 10 policemen publically comment on an unsolved case, and all have different scenarios, including putting other scenarios down, 3 out of 4, 4/5 or 9/10 of them MUST be wrong. Like I stated. The most natural thing is for the whole lot if them to have agreed on a certain scenario or suspect. At least, one most likely when talking of the case. But no. They all differ.

To get around the OSA, which commanded a silence on truths, its easy to make up names, make up scenarios and bend truths. That way no one is liable for prosecution.
You keep saying "they all did it" in their memoirs. Yes.. They did.. But ONLY. talk about things already in public knowledge.
But not one, as far as I can recall, told true tales about unsolved murder suspects. They simply cannot name names not truisms that would in any way endanger the OSA Let alone the names of innocent persons. Let alone spill the beans on the workings or inability of the force.


Phil

[Herlock Sholmes]

. If 4,5 or 10 policemen publically comment on an unsolved case, and all have different scenarios, including putting other scenarios down, 3 out of 4, 4/5 or 9/10 of them MUST be wrong.

Couldn't all of them have been wrong?