What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Trevor Marriott]

No

Surely too much is being made of this error. At certain points in our lives we’ve all heard pieces of information that wasn’t correct. We have then carried that piece of information around in our brains; possibly for the rest of our lives. As that information was given as a ‘fact’ it’s how we consider it. This is simply what Mac had done. He’d been told that the two Cutbush’s were related. He would have thought ‘why would someone lie about it?’ He simply assumed, incorrectly, that it was true. This is such a trivial point. Just as trivial as the fact that Mac didn’t mention Kosminski’s Christian name. So what? He mentioned the name Kosminski. What lengths do we have to go to to try and discredit Macnaghten and his memoranda? Are we going to criticise his handwriting or the quality of the paper that it was written on?

It’s not about discrediting him it’s all about proving or disproving, thats what you do when presented with facts or evidence as an investigator.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Proving Mac. was wrong about Cutbush has no bearing on Druitt.

Proving Mac. was wrong about Druitt being (said to being) a doctor has already been done. Yet this is not sufficient to discredit Mac. because he was correct about him being from a good family, he was right about the body being found on 31st Dec, and being in the Thames about a month. We also know Druitt seemed to have a mental condition, as Mac. said, precisely what remains a mystery.
We don't know about the rumors within the family, but we do know rumors existed outside the family.
On balance Mac. can hardly be said to have the 'wrong guy', we know which Druitt he is referring to. And, because Mac. does not tell us his sources does not mean no sources existed.

[Observer]

Proving Mac. was wrong about Cutbush has no bearing on Druitt.

Proving Mac. was wrong about Druitt being (said to being) a doctor has already been done. Yet this is not sufficient to discredit Mac. because he was correct about him being from a good family, he was right about the body being found on 31st Dec, and being in the Thames about a month. We also know Druitt seemed to have a mental condition, as Mac. said, precisely what remains a mystery.
We don't know about the rumors within the family, but we do know rumors existed outside the family.
On balance Mac. can hardly be said to have the 'wrong guy', we know which Druitt he is referring to. And, because Mac. does not tell us his sources does not mean no sources existed.

And how did those rumours leak out to non family members? No family in their right minds would disclose such information.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

I am merely trying to determine if Ann Druitt was told about Montie's suicide.

Personally, I don't think she was.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Proving Mac. was wrong about Cutbush has no bearing on Druitt.

Proving Mac. was wrong about Druitt being (said to being) a doctor has already been done. Yet this is not sufficient to discredit Mac. because he was correct about him being from a good family, he was right about the body being found on 31st Dec, and being in the Thames about a month. We also know Druitt seemed to have a mental condition, as Mac. said, precisely what remains a mystery.
We don't know about the rumors within the family, but we do know rumors existed outside the family.
On balance Mac. can hardly be said to have the 'wrong guy', we know which Druitt he is referring to. And, because Mac. does not tell us his sources does not mean no sources existed.

Rumours where do they figure in the chain of evidence?

But you don't understand, the so called evidence/sources you seek to rely on to support Druitt are nothing more than hearsay, and no matter what it was. it is not available today. and nothing more came to light from 1888 to the present day to suggest there was anything to corroborate this weak hearsay back then. So how can you or anyone else say that as a result of this weak hearsay Druitt must be treated as a prime suspect just because MM said he was the ripper from what he had been told.

In any event what is the earliest MM could have received this information 1894? Surely if the family had sat on their suspicion all that time why did they not disclose it before, and why then to MM, after all Druitt had been dead for 6 years and so what was the point in ever mentioning it after all that time if no one had suspected Druitt up until then?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Trevor,
How do you know the evidence was hearsay? You don't know what it was, therefore you cannot possibly say it was hearsay, let alone that it was weak hearsay.

There is nothing or next to nothing to corroborate any suspect, named or not named (and there were over 100 named in the lost suspects file), so why do you find it significant that there is no corroboration of Druitt?

You don't know the quality of the information Macnaghten received, so how can you say Druitt can't be treated as a prime suspect on the basis of what Macnaghten said? But, I would point out that this isn't about claiming that Druitt was a 'prime suspect' (at least, not in the sense you use the word), it's about the reliability of Macnaghten's claim that private information was received that implicated Druitt.

And it has been explained to you that the 'private information' didn't come from Druitt's family. Why do you think this reasoning is wrong?

[Herlock Sholmes]

No

It’s not about discrediting him it’s all about proving or disproving, thats what you do when presented with facts or evidence as an investigator.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes and what can we prove or disprove? We obviously can’t prove that Druitt was the ripper neither can we disprove it. We know that Macnaghten mentioned Druitt as a good possible suspect. We know that he got his age and occupation wrong but it’s still obvious that it was Druitt that he was naming. Can we categorically prove the existence of the ‘private info?’ No because it hasn’t survived. Is there though a link between Macnaghten and the Druitt family which might provide us with a plausible source for the ‘private info?’ Coincidentally yes there is! Could Macnaghten, with all of the resources available to him, have selected to recently dead criminal or some hopeless, incarcerated lunatic to throw under the bus as one of his ‘better than Cutbush’ suspects thus avoiding any investigation into the details of Druitt’s life and death? Of course he could. But he named Druitt.

Hearsay? I’d agree if Mac had said “”well this bloke down the pub told me that a bloke called Druitt....””

[PaulB]

And how did those rumours leak out to non family members? No family in their right minds would disclose such information.

Why wouldn't a family member disclose such information? Don't people tell things in confidence to close friends who don't always respect the confidence?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why wouldn't a family member disclose such information? Don't people tell things in confidence to close friends who don't always respect the confidence?

Someone always spills the beans.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
How do you know the evidence was hearsay? You don't know what it was, therefore you cannot possibly say it was hearsay, let alone that it was weak hearsaay

Itis hearsay because mm is passing on something he has heard or been told without anything to support the truthfulness of what was told

There is nothing or next to nothing to corroborate any suspect, named or not named (and there were over 100 named in the lost suspects file), so why do you find it significant that there is no corroboration of Druitt?

There lies the rub of the green because most of those on the list are nothing more at best persons of interest most suggested as a result of someone wild speculative theory

You don't know the quality of the information Macnaghten received, so how can you say Druitt can't be treated as a prime suspect on the basis of what Macnaghten said? But, I would point out that this isn't about claiming that Druitt was a 'prime suspect' (at least, not in the sense you use the word), it's about the reliability of Macnaghten's claim that private information was received that implicated Druitt.

i have already answered this previous

And it has been explained to you that the 'private information' didn't come from Druitt's family. Why do you think this reasoning is wrong?

wherever it came from doesn’t change how it is assessed and evaluated and what conclusions can be drawn

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

And how did those rumours leak out to non family members? No family in their right minds would disclose such information.

How did, or how could?
The most likely person outside the family to learn of something criminal would be a psychiatrist, someone like Dr. Tuke, a close friend of the family.

The way I read Mac's claim is that he says he had "little doubt" (via private information), which suggests to me he heard something 2nd hand, not directly from a family member. He also heard Druitt was "sexually insane", this, in my view, came from a medical professional. So Mac. had two sources; one professional, one with family connections.
So, given what we know today it looks to me like the medical professional was one of the Tuke doctors.
The 'private information' originated with William (as the head of the family), though he must have confided in someone who passed this on the Mac.

[Wickerman]

........ and nothing more came to light from 1888 to the present day to suggest there was anything to corroborate this weak hearsay back then. So how can you or anyone else say that as a result of this weak hearsay Druitt must be treated as a prime suspect just because MM said he was the ripper from what he had been told.

I don't believe I have said he must be a prime suspect for anyone interested in the case.
Druitt is the type of person I think is a more likely fit than some local dosser.

In any event what is the earliest MM could have received this information 1894? Surely if the family had sat on their suspicion all that time why did they not disclose it before, and why then to MM, after all Druitt had been dead for 6 years and so what was the point in ever mentioning it after all that time if no one had suspected Druitt up until then?

Before 1894, that was just the date of the MM.
He says he obtained the information some time after he took office in June 1889.

I can easily see the family sitting on their suspicions for 6 months or longer, they'd be in no hurry to talk publicly.
What we don't know is what may have triggered them (William?) to say something after all.

[Observer]

Why wouldn't a family member disclose such information? Don't people tell things in confidence to close friends who don't always respect the confidence?

To the extent that the family member in question was Jack The Ripper? I find that hard to believe.

[Observer]

How did, or how could?
The most likely person outside the family to learn of something criminal would be a psychiatrist, someone like Dr. Tuke, a close friend of the family.

The way I read Mac's claim is that he says he had "little doubt" (via private information), which suggests to me he heard something 2nd hand, not directly from a family member. He also heard Druitt was "sexually insane", this, in my view, came from a medical professional. So Mac. had two sources; one professional, one with family connections.
So, given what we know today it looks to me like the medical professional was one of the Tuke doctors.
The 'private information' originated with William (as the head of the family), though he must have confided in someone who passed this on the Mac.

As I said above I find it very hard to believe that a family member would divulge information to the effect that they were of a belief that Monty was Jack The Ripper. Let's see William confided in someone? Yes that's just the kind of thing you would confide to a colleague.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What if William confided in someone whilst Monty was still alive in an effort to decide what to do ie how to get Monty incarcerated without causing a scandal?