What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Abby Normal]

As far back as the archives can take you I have always believed two soldiers were responsible for the Tabram murder.
McKenzie & Coles were by others, in my opinion. In fact I have considered that there was more similarity between Stride & Mckenzie/Coles than those of Nichols, Chapman Eddowes & Kelly.

hi wick
one of the soldiers could have been the ripper. why does the two soldier theory exclude that possibility?

[Herlock Sholmes]

What you always fail to understand, is that for Druitt to be a viable suspect you MUST dismiss Mckenzie as a ripper victim.

If you don't know if she was or not, then you MUST also have the same attitude about the viabilty of Druitt as a suspect, you have jumped to say Druitt is one of the most viable suspects!




This is simple logic, very simple indeed.


I will continue watching the fire!


The Baron

Do us all a favour Baron and try visiting Planet Earth one day. It’s tiring trying to get you to understand the simplest of ideas!!!

Do we know for certain that Mackenzie was a victim of Jack The Ripper?

The answer to that is no. Categorically, absolutely, beyond a single, solitary smidgeon of doubt. Can you please try to understand that Baron.

But.......and please try to understand......you are saying that she’s definitely a victim so that you can dismiss Druitt. Something that you cannot possibly know. I’m not saying that she definitely wasn’t just to keep Druitt as a suspect. You are the one making the positive statement about something that you cannot possibly know.

And I don’t know either, which is the honest position to take. She may have been or she may not have been. If she was a victim then Druitt can be eliminated. If she wasn’t then we can’t exonerate Druitt on those grounds.

The point being.......we simply do not know if she was a victim or not. So I can’t use Mackenzie and neither can you.

Stop being dishonest. You are twisting and wriggling like a fish on a hook. There is nothing about this post that isn’t utterly reasonable, honest and fair. Try it yourself.

[Trevor Marriott]

You said in your book “Following Feigenbaum’s execution Lawton broke his code of confidentiality.”

and then

”so what made Lawton break his client confidentiality.”

Then in post #1126 you said:

“I have no idea why I asked the question.”

Its in black and white Trevor. Your wriggling is pretty embarrassing.

There is no wriggling, it was a simple logical question that begged to be asked, and I do not know the answer as to why he made that statement. He would not be breaching confidentiality because Feigenbaum was dead, stop being a numpty !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

It better not rain when I come to Kauai, or there'll be trouble.

Since coming to California I have rekindled my liking for British cop shows, as, with one or two notable exceptions, their American counterparts are too formulaic and cheesy. You can't beat Inspector Knacker of the Yard doing his stuff in a chocolate box English village.

I never got a parking ticket or smoked pot, until I came to California.

My distrust of the police dates back to 1959, when my uncle, a Scotland Yard Detective Superintendent who arrested Ruth Ellis when with S Division, was framed by a man in prison, put in front of a secret disciplinary court, found guilty, and reduced to the rank of police-constable. He was 51 years old, over six feet tall, and weighed seventeen stone [224 pounds]. He died just a few years later, weighing ninety-eight pounds.

Macnaghten, Anderson, Monro and Smith are not the sort of cops you tend find in TV dramas, except for JtR dramatisations, but if they were to appear they'd have to be portrayed as arrogant, pompous, dull-witted, socially adept in Macnaghten's case, and, in Anderson's case, majorly corrupt.

Please sleep well tonight. And put some straw on that tin roof.

Regards,

Simon

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no wriggling, it was a simple logical question that begged to be asked, and I do not know the answer as to why he made that statement. He would not be breaching confidentiality because Feigenbaum was dead, stop being a numpty !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nope!

From your book:

. Following Feigenbaum’s execution Lawton broke his code of confidentiality to the press revealing details of conversations he had with Feigenbaum and his past crimes.

This is you asking making a positive statement that Feigenbaum was breaking his code of confidentiality.

You are now saying:

. He would not be breaching confidentiality because Feigenbaum was dead

Between you and Baron I seem to have to waste an inordinate amount of time trying to explain why 1+1=2

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I am merely establishing a fact, a strange entity in Ripperology.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon.

The bottom line is for me, I didn't really understand the point in your post.

When anyone mentions Donner I immediately think they are about to mention that 'theoretical' original copy of the Memorandum that no-one has ever seen.
Yet, in your post you bring up the Dear Boss letter, but are you referring to it as if to say Gerald Donner is a born liar because you claim to have held the Dear Boss letter in your hand?

Alternately, are you telling us that you believe what Philip Loftus said, without any evidence? Loftus might be said to have made some tittle-tattle up about Donner & him having the letter, which you believe whole-sale?
Conversely, you are telling us you held the Dear Boss letter in your hand, and we are supposed to believe this is true?

The thought's running through my mind are - I wonder if Simon feels like Macnaghten now, telling tales that he can't prove?
Should you believe Loftus?
Should the Forum believe you?
Do you now appreciate the position you put Mac. in now?

[PaulB]

If you or I, or anyone else makes a suggestion who is to say that it isnt plausible. You dont know and cannot prove that MM wasnt given this information over a glass of sherry by an acquaintance, In fact no one knows how he came by the information so "Anything is plausible"

Well, let’s see…: Macnaghten received his information from a Martian. That’s a suggestion. Who would say it isn’t plausible? Almost everybody. That's your argument disposed of.

I don’t know and I can’t prove that Macnaghten wasn’t given the information over a glass of sherry by an acquaintance, but I can and have stated that if that was the case then Macnaghten would have to have been a gullible fool to have put his credibility and reputation on the line by writing what he did in the memorandum, and I have pointed out that there is no reason to believe that Macnaghten was either gullible or a fool. I can therefore say that your sherry suggestion is implausible.

One example would be if he believed what he was told over a glass of sherry !

No, it wouldn’t be an example. Macnaghten would have to have been a gullible fool to have believed that, but the evidence is that he wasn’t a gullible fool, so if you want to suggest otherwise you need to ‘support your argument with good examples’. Your good example is that he believed what he was told over a glass of sherry. I don’t think I have ever seen a better example of a circular argument! You are talking rubbish.

Lets stick to Druitt . Police officers do not as a rule disclose the names of those giving them information all that he needed to say was that he believed the information to be reliable, but of course as it seems the memo never went anywhere other than his desk draw that situation never prevailed. So you argue a moot point.

Trevor, your argument is that Mr Sherry made a casual observation about Druitt in passing. If the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police demanded to know who gave the information to Macnaghten, why on earth would Macnaghten not have told him? The informant wasn’t an 1894 equivalent of Bernie Smalls? His life wasn’t on the line. His identity didn’t need to be protected.

I think we’ve taken this discussion as far as it will go. I’m not prepared to waste my time responding to rubbish like you’re coming up with. The bottom line is that Macnaghten received or was party to information implicating Druitt and he found that information so compelling that he believed Druitt was the murderer. We don’t know what the information was, we can’t say whether it was good or bad, but the fact that Macnaghten was neither gullible nor a fool, it is reasonable to conclude that the information was good. That doesn’t mean that Druitt was Jack the Ripper, but it also doesn’t mean that the memoranda is discredited as not worth the paper it was written on.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

I was establishing the fact that, in 1987, I held the Dear Boss letter in my hands prior to its arrival at Scotland Yard.

What you make of Donner is up to you.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

[B]

No, it wouldn’t be an example. Macnaghten would have to have been a gullible fool to have believed that, but the evidence is that he wasn’t a gullible fool, so if you want to suggest otherwise you need to ‘support your argument with good examples’. Your good example is that he believed what he was told over a glass of sherry. I don’t think I have ever seen a better example of a circular argument! You are talking rubbish.

Maybe instead of you keep asking me for proof to prove MM was not gullible, perhaps you should show good reasons why this private information given to him was good enough for him to name Druitt as a suspect, along with the other non runners he named, and why he had to destroy it? Was it because it was nothing more than a rumour, or idle chit chat, or the more likely the desperate need to reply to the sun newspaper. After all when you look at his suspects. Druitt dead,Kosminski in an asylum,Ostrog in jail, how convenient. I am sure there were many more other suspects who were suspected whose whereabouts could be accounted for. So to risky to name any of them.

Lets stick to Druitt . Police officers do not as a rule disclose the names of those giving them information all that he needed to say was that he believed the information to be reliable, but of course as it seems the memo never went anywhere other than his desk draw that situation never prevailed. So you argue a moot point.

Trevor, your argument is that Mr Sherry made a casual observation about Druitt in passing. If the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police demanded to know who gave the information to Macnaghten, why on earth would Macnaghten not have told him? The informant wasn’t an 1894 equivalent of Bernie Smalls? His life wasn’t on the line. His identity didn’t need to be protected.

Information is given to police officer in many ways and by all different types of persons, and it happens on a daily basis much of it is simply persons trying to be too helpful, and give their own opinions based on next to nothing to back it up, or hearsay regarding a conversation they overheard. The Special Branch registers are testimony to that.

I think we’ve taken this discussion as far as it will go. I’m not prepared to waste my time responding to rubbish like you’re coming up with. The bottom line is that Macnaghten received or was party to information implicating Druitt and he found that information so compelling that he believed Druitt was the murderer. We don’t know what the information was, we can’t say whether it was good or bad, but the fact that Macnaghten was neither gullible nor a fool, it is reasonable to conclude that the information was good. That doesn’t mean that Druitt was Jack the Ripper, but it also doesn’t mean that the memoranda is discredited as not worth the paper it was written on.

There is nothing more to discuss the MM is unreliable, and unsafe to rely on, end of story

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is nothing more to discuss the MM is unreliable, and unsafe to rely on, end of story

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Translation:

”” “I really can’t maintain my completely illogical stance so I’ll try and make it appear that I’ve proved my point and move on.”””

Ive shown, in black and white by directly quoting your own book, that there is a contradiction in what you are saying now to what you said in your book. This is beyond argument. And so by the standard that you apply to the MM we should conclude that your book isn’t worth the paper that it’s written on.

And Paul has conclusively and comprehensively shredded your completely biased view of the validity of the MM.

End of story

[Trevor Marriott]

Translation:

”” “I really can’t maintain my completely illogical stance so I’ll try and make it appear that I’ve proved my point and move on.”””

Ive shown, in black and white by directly quoting your own book, that there is a contradiction in what you are saying now to what you said in your book. This is beyond argument. And so by the standard that you apply to the MM we should conclude that your book isn’t worth the paper that it’s written on.

And Paul has conclusively and comprehensively shredded your completely biased view of the validity of the MM.

End of story

You really have lost the plot change your medication because what you are on isn't working

[Wickerman]

What a fair statement, that shows how your bias to support Druitt blurred your judgment!

Dr. Bond:

I see in this murder evidence of similar design to the former Whitechapel murders, viz. sudden onslaught on the prostrate woman, the throat skillfully and resolutely cut with subsequent mutilation, each mutilation indicating sexual thoughts and a desire to mutilate the abdomen and sexual organs. I am of opinion that the murder was performed by the same person who committed the former series of Whitechapel murder

Sure you can see sexual mutilation in Stride and Cole's murders too, can you not Jon ?!

Outstanding indeed!


The Baron

I see a copycat, and as Dr. Phillips (who conducted the autopsy assisted by Dr Brown), also did not see McKenzie's wounds as consistent with the previous Whitechapel Murders then I see no reason to change my view. Dr. Bond was always in contention with his peers and I'm not particularly impressed by his vivid imagination.

[Wickerman]

I'm new here, I joined just to reply to this. I've read this thread from the beginning, and I agree with this, I had wondered why no one else here addressed this. My understanding is he did not say he had evidence that Druitt was Jack, he said he had little doubt that the family thought he was the murderer. He didn't even say that he knew the family thought that he was the murderer. IMO there is a difference.

Hi, Welcome!

I'm pretty sure those points have been addressed. More than one poster has in fact admitted that Mac. said he did not have proof.
A good number of criminal cases go to trial on an accumulation of circumstantial evidence. One of the reason's a jury is required - to decide if the evidence is conclusive.
There's no proof against any suspect, Kozminski included (often considered to be a Prime Suspect by many).

What is amusing is that some theorists especially here on Casebook promote their own suspect knowing very well that the circumstantial evidence they push is not 'proof' in the strictest sense. Yet, they are among the first to dismiss the theories of others by demanding "you have no proof"!
Really funny!

No-one has, or ever had, any proof against anyone.

[Wickerman]

MM was only a senior police officer in rank only, he had no practical police experience, resulting in him being vulnerable to believing without question anything he was told.

I've never heard that in order to avoid being gullible "you should become a policeman"!

[Herlock Sholmes]

You really have lost the plot change your medication because what you are on isn't working

Obfuscation.

No proper response.

Proved my point with ease but your ego won’t allow you to admit it