What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[PaulB]

Trevor,
It would be easier to deal with your arguments individually.

Lets make this clear once and for all MM states he received private information, that we cant prove to be true or false,

I agree, and we will probably never be able to prove it. But lacking corroboration for statements found in things like diaries, personal papers, and notebooks, is common, and it's resolved as best it can be by looking to see if there are reasons why what is said could be untrue. There is no evidence to suggest that Macnaghten was prone to inventing sources that didn't exist, and in this case Macnaghten wrote about the 'private information' in a document believed to have been intended for his informed superiors and political masters, so we can reasonably assume that unless Macnaghten was a complete dolt, he wouldn't have invented it.

He received it through an unknown third party, who may or may not have been a reliable source...

I agree, but not knowing whether the source was reliable or not means precisely that - we don't know. Which means you can't base any conclusion on it. However, do you have evidence for supposing that Macnaghten couldn't distinguish between a reliable and unreliable source (you don't need to be a trained detective to be able to do that), or that he'd place his reputation and credibility at risk by voicing his belief in something unreliable? Unless you have evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that at least Macnaghten considered it to be a reliable source.

... and who it would seem received it through a member of the Druitt family, as to who that was, again we do not know..

It does not 'seem to have been received through a member of Druitt's damily'. That's your idea. As has been made clear, Macnaghten only said he had little doubt about what the family believed. It can be reasonably assumed that he would have had no doubt if the information had come via the family. What the family believed could have been inferred from the 'private information', not based on something anyone said.

So how strong was the information, again we do not know.

No we don't, but we know Macnaghten found it convincing, and - unless you've provided some - we have no reason to suppose that Macnaghten lacked even the basic ability to distinguish good from bad evidence. But despite not knowing how strong the information was, you are happily prepared to pre-judge it, dismiss it as having no evidential value, claim the memorandum isn't worth the paper it's written on.

But by the time it got to MM it was third hand.

And each of those three hands could have been exceptionally well-informed, each enhancing the quality and reliability of the information. In fact, in one source Macnaghten refers to the information having being received at different times, which suggests that the information may not have been one single piece, but been a composite, perhaps received from different people.

I have to question was it relayed verbally to MM just as it had been relayed verbally to the third party, did anything get lost or embellished in the different hands it passed through? This is quite possible.

And you are quite right to ask those questions, and they may be why we will never be able to say with absolute certainty that Macnaghten was right or that Druitt was Jack the Ripper. But that doesn't take him out of the frame. It doesn't mean Macnaghten's faith in the information was misplaced. It doesn't mean the memorandum isn't worth the paper it's written on. It just means that a credible source believed the received information that Druitt was the murderer.

As to what the information was we do not know, but as it seems no action was taken and there is no other mention of this or Druitts viability as a suspect anywhere else we can in my opinion rightly assume that it was nowhere near as strong as is being made out by some on here and you also.

That no action was taken is also your idea. The sparse surviving documents don't contain any suspect files, so we can't say whether any investigation of Druitt was undertaken or not. We might ask whether it is credible that the 'private information' wouldn't have been followed up and conclude that it isn't. We might ask if it isn't a follow-up investigation that Abberline isn't alluding to. And let me make this clear, I have no idea about how strong Macnaghten's evidence was - and neither do you, but you feel able to make irresponsibly sweeping statements like the memorandum not being worth the paper it's written on.

But it was third hand, and that is proven in MM`s own words its there for all to see in the MM.

I actually said 3rd hand and baseless.

The most logical and right and proper thing for MM to do in such an important case, as would be the case today in such circumstances would be to pass the information on for it to be investigated. Even if Druitt were dead such information would be worth following up, after all the first line of inquiry would be family members, and then close acquaintances, and then those he worked with. There would be no need for MM to disclose his source, the police might have discovered the source from any investigation they might have conducted.

Why did he not do that, why did he just sit on it?

I agree. But you haven't shown that he did 'just sit on it'. You just assume he did. There are no suspect records surviving, so nobody knows what Macnaghten did or didn't do, or what investigations were undertaken or not, or, if not, why not. You cannot ignore this, Trevor, but must address it.

But the fact is that Macnaghten did not 'just sit on it', he referred to it in the memorandum, a document intended for circulation among informed people. Don't you think those people would have screamed "What!" if they'd been told that Macnaghten had received 'private information' implicating Druitt, that he thought it was so good that he believed Druitt to have been Jack the Ripper, and that he'd told nobody about it? Do you think Macnaghten was such a pillock that he would have done something like that? And if you do think he was, what is your evidence for doing so?

Whether MM himself is an unreliable source is really irrelevant, we are looking at the MM as a reliable source which he wrote,

Are you seriously saying that Macnaghten's reliability is irrelevant because we are assessing the reliability of a memorandum he wrote?

and we see to many errors to safely say that all of what he wrote is safe to rely on.

Nobody has said that 'all of what he wrote is safe to rely on'. Everybody and their mother has known for nearly fifty years that the memorandum contains errors, which is why nobody turns to the memorandum for reliable information about Druitt. But, as has been pointed out to you, the errors have no bearing at all on whether information was received or not or on Macnaghten's belief in it, and you haven't shown why you think otherwise. You simply keep saying that Macnagten made errors. The bottom line appears to be that information implicating Druitt in the murders was received and Macnaghten was convinced by it. Macnaghten was capable of distinguishing good evidence from bad, and it is unlikely that he would have risked his credibility by committing himself to Druitt in the memorandum unless he felt certain the evidence justified it. This can be deduced from the facts. Macnaghten could have been wrong, of course, but what evidence is there that he was?

[Wickerman]

Re - Herlock...
Correct, Dahmer, Bundy, both said to be nice, polite, quiet, charming young men...who'd a thought!!!
Sutcliffe was a quiet little weed of a man. One detective thought he looked effeminate.
John Christie, a feeble little man who didn't look like he could hurt a fly. What they all had in common was the ability to hide in plain sight. No-one knew anything about them, no-one would suspect them.
An old lady on my street when I was a kid would always say, "the quiet one's are the worst!". Being only a kid I never knew what she meant until I'd seen a bit of the world.

[PaulB]

Therefore when someone is living on a normal street in a normal house, being nice and attending church, this is evidence they are a crazed murderer? - This is a terrible argument.

Wasn't the point being made, and to which Herlock responded, that Feingenbaum was somehow a better candidate that Druitt for being the Ripper because he was a murderer and Druitt wasn't? I thought Herlock was just saying that because Druitt wasn't a known murderer didn't mean he couldn't have been one.

[Wickerman]

Therefore when someone is living on a normal street in a normal house, being nice and attending church, this is evidence they are a crazed murderer? - This is a terrible argument.

What it demonstrates Sean is, that not knowing anything personal about someone is no justification for dismissing them. As an argument it doesn't hold water.

[seanr]

I agree, but not knowing whether the source was reliable or not means precisely that - we don't know. Which means you can't base any conclusion on it. However, do you have evidence for supposing that Macnaghten couldn't distinguish between a reliable and unreliable source (you don't need to be a trained detective to be able to do that), or that he'd place his reputation and credibility at risk by voicing his belief in something unreliable? Unless you have evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that at least Macnaghten considered it to be a reliable source.

I have a tendency to disagree with this, sure Macnaghten considered it reliable but he didn't consider it conclusive otherwise he would have discussed one suspect in the memoranda and not three.
All that he admits is that he is convinced Druitt's family believed Druitt to be the Ripper. This isn't the same thing as proof Druitt was the Ripper.

It seems reasonable to consider it likely that the 'private information' confirms someone's belief in Druitt's guilt and not Druitt's guilt itself.

[seanr]

What it demonstrates Sean is, that not knowing anything personal about someone is no justification for dismissing them. As an argument it doesn't hold water.

Maybe but the point does not strengthen the case against Druitt one jot.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Therefore when someone is living on a normal street in a normal house, being nice and attending church, this is evidence they are a crazed murderer? - This is a terrible argument.

Can you honestly believe that this is what I meant? What I was saying, and I thought that it was pretty obvious, was that we don’t always have clues to a persons murderous behaviour even after the crime. Because we have no indications of any kind of violence with Druitt is by no means evidence against him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Re - Herlock...
Correct, Dahmer, Bundy, both said to be nice, polite, quiet, charming young men...who'd a thought!!!
Sutcliffe was a quiet little weed of a man. One detective thought he looked effeminate.
John Christie, a feeble little man who didn't look like he could hurt a fly. What they all had in common was the ability to hide in plain sight. No-one knew anything about them, no-one would suspect them.
An old lady on my street when I was a kid would always say, "the quiet one's are the worst!". Being only a kid I never knew what she meant until I'd seen a bit of the world.

Exactly Wick. If we relied heavily on the ‘‘there is no evidence that he was violent’ argument’ we would have to eliminate Lechmere, Hutchinson, Tumblety, Sickert and a host of others that people still consider as viable suspects.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wasn't the point being made, and to which Herlock responded, that Feingenbaum was somehow a better candidate that Druitt for being the Ripper because he was a murderer and Druitt wasn't? I thought Herlock was just saying that because Druitt wasn't a known murderer didn't mean he couldn't have been one.

Correct Paul

[Wickerman]

Maybe but the point does not strengthen the case against Druitt one jot.

Agreed. It's a none issue. It doesn't work for either camp. So there is nothing to be gained by raising the issue.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Trevor,
It would be easier to deal with your arguments individually.



I agree, and we will probably never be able to prove it. But lacking corroboration for statements found in things like diaries, personal papers, and notebooks, is common, and it's resolved as best it can be by looking to see if there are reasons why what is said could be untrue. There is no evidence to suggest that Macnaghten was prone to inventing sources that didn't exist, and in this case Macnaghten wrote about the 'private information' in a document believed to have been intended for his informed superiors and political masters, so we can reasonably assume that unless Macnaghten was a complete dolt, he wouldn't have invented it.



I agree, but not knowing whether the source was reliable or not means precisely that - we don't know. Which means you can't base any conclusion on it. However, do you have evidence for supposing that Macnaghten couldn't distinguish between a reliable and unreliable source (you don't need to be a trained detective to be able to do that), or that he'd place his reputation and credibility at risk by voicing his belief in something unreliable? Unless you have evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that at least Macnaghten considered it to be a reliable source.



It does not 'seem to have been received through a member of Druitt's damily'. That's your idea. As has been made clear, Macnaghten only said he had little doubt about what the family believed. It can be reasonably assumed that he would have had no doubt if the information had come via the family. What the family believed could have been inferred from the 'private information', not based on something anyone said.



No we don't, but we know Macnaghten found it convincing, and - unless you've provided some - we have no reason to suppose that Macnaghten lacked even the basic ability to distinguish good from bad evidence. But despite not knowing how strong the information was, you are happily prepared to pre-judge it, dismiss it as having no evidential value, claim the memorandum isn't worth the paper it's written on.



And each of those three hands could have been exceptionally well-informed, each enhancing the quality and reliability of the information. In fact, in one source Macnaghten refers to the information having being received at different times, which suggests that the information may not have been one single piece, but been a composite, perhaps received from different people.



And you are quite right to ask those questions, and they may be why we will never be able to say with absolute certainty that Macnaghten was right or that Druitt was Jack the Ripper. But that doesn't take him out of the frame. It doesn't mean Macnaghten's faith in the information was misplaced. It doesn't mean the memorandum isn't worth the paper it's written on. It just means that a credible source believed the received information that Druitt was the murderer.



That no action was taken is also your idea. The sparse surviving documents don't contain any suspect files, so we can't say whether any investigation of Druitt was undertaken or not. We might ask whether it is credible that the 'private information' wouldn't have been followed up and conclude that it isn't. We might ask if it isn't a follow-up investigation that Abberline isn't alluding to. And let me make this clear, I have no idea about how strong Macnaghten's evidence was - and neither do you, but you feel able to make irresponsibly sweeping statements like the memorandum not being worth the paper it's written on.



I actually said 3rd hand and baseless.



I agree. But you haven't shown that he did 'just sit on it'. You just assume he did. There are no suspect records surviving, so nobody knows what Macnaghten did or didn't do, or what investigations were undertaken or not, or, if not, why not. You cannot ignore this, Trevor, but must address it.

But the fact is that Macnaghten did not 'just sit on it', he referred to it in the memorandum, a document intended for circulation among informed people. Don't you think those people would have screamed "What!" if they'd been told that Macnaghten had received 'private information' implicating Druitt, that he thought it was so good that he believed Druitt to have been Jack the Ripper, and that he'd told nobody about it? Do you think Macnaghten was such a pillock that he would have done something like that? And if you do think he was, what is your evidence for doing so?



Are you seriously saying that Macnaghten's reliability is irrelevant because we are assessing the reliability of a memorandum he wrote?



Nobody has said that 'all of what he wrote is safe to rely on'. Everybody and their mother has known for nearly fifty years that the memorandum contains errors, which is why nobody turns to the memorandum for reliable information about Druitt. But, as has been pointed out to you, the errors have no bearing at all on whether information was received or not or on Macnaghten's belief in it, and you haven't shown why you think otherwise. You simply keep saying that Macnagten made errors. The bottom line appears to be that information implicating Druitt in the murders was received and Macnaghten was convinced by it. Macnaghten was capable of distinguishing good evidence from bad, and it is unlikely that he would have risked his credibility by committing himself to Druitt in the memorandum unless he felt certain the evidence justified it. This can be deduced from the facts. Macnaghten could have been wrong, of course, but what evidence is there that he was?

A perfectly logical, calmly reasonable, sensible and utterly fair post. Ever feel like you’re flogging a dead horse though Paul?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Maybe but the point does not strengthen the case against Druitt one jot.

And not knowing whether Druitt had ever been violent doesn’t weaken the case against him one jot.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
It would be easier to deal with your arguments individually.

I agree, and we will probably never be able to prove it. But lacking corroboration for statements found in things like diaries, personal papers, and notebooks, is common, and it's resolved as best it can be by looking to see if there are reasons why what is said could be untrue. There is no evidence to suggest that Macnaghten was prone to inventing sources that didn't exist, and in this case Macnaghten wrote about the 'private information' in a document believed to have been intended for his informed superiors and political masters, so we can reasonably assume that unless Macnaghten was a complete dolt, he wouldn't have invented it.

So what do you think his superiors would have said had it found its way to their desks ? They would have said follow it up !

I agree, but not knowing whether the source was reliable or not means precisely that - we don't know. Which means you can't base any conclusion on it. However, do you have evidence for supposing that Macnaghten couldn't distinguish between a reliable and unreliable source (you don't need to be a trained detective to be able to do that), or that he'd place his reputation and credibility at risk by voicing his belief in something unreliable? Unless you have evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that at least Macnaghten considered it to be a reliable source.

But by following it up the question could have been answered could it not

It does not 'seem to have been received through a member of Druitt's damily'. That's your idea. As has been made clear, Macnaghten only said he had little doubt about what the family believed. It can be reasonably assumed that he would have had no doubt if the information had come via the family. What the family believed could have been inferred from the 'private information', not based on something anyone said.

By the way its worded certainly infers that is where it came from initially

No we don't, but we know Macnaghten found it convincing, and - unless you've provided some - we have no reason to suppose that Macnaghten lacked even the basic ability to distinguish good from bad evidence. But despite not knowing how strong the information was, you are happily prepared to pre-judge it, dismiss it as having no evidential value, claim the memorandum isn't worth the paper it's written on.

If you and I were having a conversation and I said to you I think Charlie Farnsbarn murdered Jill Dando would you find it convincing ?

And each of those three hands could have been exceptionally well-informed, each enhancing the quality and reliability of the information. In fact, in one source Macnaghten refers to the information having being received at different times, which suggests that the information may not have been one single piece, but been a composite, perhaps received from different people.

Again why did he not take it further if it was that good as you seem to infer.

And you are quite right to ask those questions, and they may be why we will never be able to say with absolute certainty that Macnaghten was right or that Druitt was Jack the Ripper. But that doesn't take him out of the frame. It doesn't mean Macnaghten's faith in the information was misplaced. It doesn't mean the memorandum isn't worth the paper it's written on. It just means that a credible source believed the received information that Druitt was the murderer.

Everything about Druitt suggest that he in nothing more than a person of interest and not the suspect you and others seem to want to label him.

That no action was taken is also your idea. The sparse surviving documents don't contain any suspect files, so we can't say whether any investigation of Druitt was undertaken or not. We might ask whether it is credible that the 'private information' wouldn't have been followed up and conclude that it isn't. We might ask if it isn't a follow-up investigation that Abberline isn't alluding to. And let me make this clear, I have no idea about how strong Macnaghten's evidence was - and neither do you, but you feel able to make irresponsibly sweeping statements like the memorandum not being worth the paper it's written on.

Well the Aberconway version might suggest that nothing was done on the information on Druitt

I agree. But you haven't shown that he did 'just sit on it'. You just assume he did. There are no suspect records surviving, so nobody knows what Macnaghten did or didn't do, or what investigations were undertaken or not, or, if not, why not. You cannot ignore this, Trevor, but must address it.

If he were that good a suspect others would have known and someone would have talked, or put pen to paper in later years, and the absence of that shows that nothing was done to prove or disprove Druitts suspect status.

But the fact is that Macnaghten did not 'just sit on it', he referred to it in the memorandum, a document intended for circulation among informed people. Don't you think those people would have screamed "What!" if they'd been told that Macnaghten had received 'private information' implicating Druitt, that he thought it was so good that he believed Druitt to have been Jack the Ripper, and that he'd told nobody about it? Do you think Macnaghten was such a pillock that he would have done something like that? And if you do think he was, what is your evidence for doing so?

No thats not how it works withing the police service now, and I would suggest the same applied back then, if information is believed to be reliable then it should be put into the investigation and looked at thoroughly.

Are you seriously saying that Macnaghten's reliability is irrelevant because we are assessing the reliability of a memorandum he wrote?

Yes

Nobody has said that 'all of what he wrote is safe to rely on'. Everybody and their mother has known for nearly fifty years that the memorandum contains errors, which is why nobody turns to the memorandum for reliable information about Druitt. But, as has been pointed out to you, the errors have no bearing at all on whether information was received or not or on Macnaghten's belief in it, and you haven't shown why you think otherwise. You simply keep saying that Macnagten made errors. The bottom line appears to be that information implicating Druitt in the murders was received and Macnaghten was convinced by it. Macnaghten was capable of distinguishing good evidence from bad, and it is unlikely that he would have risked his credibility by committing himself to Druitt in the memorandum unless he felt certain the evidence justified it. This can be deduced from the facts. Macnaghten could have been wrong, of course, but what evidence is there that he was?

But all your replies are negative in as much that you wont accept the errors in the memo are errors that shouldn't be there if MM was as informed as is rank determined he should have been. There is no evidence he was wrong about Druitt because there is no real evidence other than someone probably saying in passing over a glass of sherry. "Oh the drowned doctor could have been the killer"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

I have a tendency to disagree with this, sure Macnaghten considered it reliable but he didn't consider it conclusive otherwise he would have discussed one suspect in the memoranda and not three.
All that he admits is that he is convinced Druitt's family believed Druitt to be the Ripper. This isn't the same thing as proof Druitt was the Ripper.

It seems reasonable to consider it likely that the 'private information' confirms someone's belief in Druitt's guilt and not Druitt's guilt itself.

I'm not suggesting that Macnaghten thought the evidence against Druitt was conclusive, I'm just saying that we don't know what the evidence was and therefore can't base any conclusions on it. However, I am suggesting that Macnaghten was capable of distinguishing good evidence from bad, and that he is unlikely to have committed himself to a suspect against whom there was crap evidence, and that we could conclude from this that the evidence was persuasive. It is therefore irresponsible to claim that the memorandum isn't worth the paper it's printed on. I guess the point I am struggling to get across to Trevor is that Macnaghten didn't pluck Druitt's name out of thin air, he was suspected by somebody, Macnaghten found the evidence persuasive, and Druitt is therefore a legitimate suspect. I am NOT saying Druitt was Jack the Ripper.

[Observer]

When Alice MacKenzie was murdered, the investigating officers considered seriously that the perpetrator was same killer as the previous Whitechapel murders. Whether you think they were right to do so, is by the by, it is clear at the time the investigation did not seriously believe the Ripper was dead.

With regard to the McKenzie case MM wrote that McKenzie was stabbed in the neck, which of course was not true. He must have read the Inquest report. Why describe the wounds to the throat as stabs? If McKenzie was a Ripper victim then of course Druitt could not have been the Ripper.Have we a case of shoehorning of Druitt by MM in evidence?

and with Druitt we have 'the outrage at 13 Miller's Court finally sent the perpetrator so mad he destroyed himself' (this is a psychologically implausible proposition in the first place).
That the Ripper died after murdering Mary Kelly is a post-rationalisation resting on the canonical five post-rationalisation.

Indeed if Druitt was the Ripper I have no doubts that he did not kill himself because his mind gave way due to the "awful glut" of carnage as witnessed in Millers Court. There is ample evidence that this type of killer is incapable of remorse, cold fish an underestimate.