What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[PaulB]

Midsomer Murders makes me laugh, that sleepy little English village must be the most violent place on the planet. After 20 seasons more victims have turned up dead than actually live there!

Anyway, not to distract the debate.....

Just to be really, really nit-picky, Midsomer is a fictional county, not a single village. Apart from that, what you say is correct. It's a terribly dangerous place to live and seems to host a vast number of events and festivals, all of which are best avoided.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As there is no physical evidence against any suspect (except the shawl and the diary of course) then these boards would be much quieter as we would have no suspects to discuss.

‘Suspect’ and ‘person of interest’ are interchangeable for the purposes of these boards. What criteria does a person of interest require to attain to rate suspect status. In his book, for example, Trevor calls Feigenbaum a likely suspect and yet he cannot be connected to the murders except by an uncorroborated statement. He cannot even be shown to have been in the same country! Cornwall considers Sickert a suspect as does Richard Patterson with Thompson but most people wouldn’t and there are many that wouldn’t even give them the person of interest tag. Just appearing to be ‘the right type’ seems to be enough to merit being suggested a suspect.

To suggest that a historical figure is either a liar or incompetent or a gullible fool requires backing up and this requirement isn’t fulfilled by pointing out a couple of errors. A whole conspiracy industry has been built on such thinking. The MM has to be viewed in this light and with an open mind. There are many ifs in this case. What if Macnaghten’s private info was absolutely correct? What if the Druitt family had excellent reason to believe that Druitt was guilty? There’s much mystery surrounding Druitt. Why not be open minded? No...people would rather say that they somehow know for a fact that the MM is worthless so that they can dismiss Druitt. We’ve even had someone say that they know for a certainty the Mackenzie was a victim so Druitt is out. I don’t understand this biased desperation. The simple fact that someone in Mac’’s position mentions Druitt elevates him above the herd of manufactured suspects.

[Trevor Marriott]

No, Trevor. You are talking irresponsible balderdash that you repeatedly demonstrate that you can't defend. Most people know that.

No I am talking a common sense approach, which most others with the exception of you and one other seem to also adopt that same approach.

You have proved yourself in the past to be biased, you stand up for Anderson as being honest and forthright. Now you stand up for MM not wanting to hear a word said about him either, these are but two names I recall. You have been lulled into a false sense of security over the years by readily accepting all that these senior officers said as being the truth. You need to take the history cap off, and start looking at things from a different perspective. It has been proven that the historical documents you rely on so much have not stood up to close scrutiny.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Why do you insist on relating police jargon to normal everyday definitions? Don't you understand that 'prime suspect' is used in the same way as a 'prime' cut of beef or plus services such as Amazon Prime? Nobody in everyday life uses the term 'person of interest' to describe someone on whom suspicion has fallen, they say suspect. Applying specialist language to everyday speech is pointless, proves nothing, and is misleading to the general person. All those named were suspects; that's how they were perceived in 1888 and that's how people perceive them today.

Today we have a list of a number prime suspects who have been named in that way by modern day researchers thus giving misleading facts to those who start to follow this mystery when the evidence against then is assessed and in most cases there is next to nothing, they are not prime suspects at best as I keep saying persons of interest.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

No I am talking a common sense approach, which most others with the exception of you and one other seem to also adopt that same approach.

You have proved yourself in the past to be biased, you stand up for Anderson as being honest and forthright. Now you stand up for MM not wanting to hear a word said about him either, these are but two names I recall. You have been lulled into a false sense of security over the years by readily accepting all that these senior officers said as being the truth. You need to take the history cap off, and start looking at things from a different perspective. It has been proven that the historical documents you rely on so much have not stood up to close scrutiny.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

More rubbish from you. I don't stand up for Anderson or Macnaghten. I stand up for the proper and responsible treatment of source materials. You don't. Far from me taking the history cap off, you really need to understand that this subject IS history and you need to learn what history is all about. And it has not been 'proven' that the historical documents don't stand up to scrutiny. What has been proven is that all your arguments for discrediting them cannot be supported.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You really are doing yourself no favours here Trevor. You’re not taking a reasoned approach or anything like one. Neither Paul, Wickerman or myself are talking in terms of certainties just that we should remain open minded and yet you are perfectly happy discard something written by an important figure like Macnaghten based on a couple of insignificant errors. Paul has pointed out more often than he should have needed to on a forum of adults that if Mac was being truthful, and we have absolutely no reason to call him a liar, then the evidence incriminating Druitt might indeed have existed. There is far too much surrounding the memoranda and Druitt to simply cast them aside. And as I’ve shown on here you appear to have a different set of criteria when it comes to evaluating your own ‘suspect.’ Ripperology is full of people that make the same kind of claims that you do: ““Ripperologists blindly stick to their preconceptions. They’re unwilling to challenge current thinking. They’re biased but I see more than they do. I can look from outside the box. I’m an original thinker.”” Yawn, yawn. Rubenhold, Cornwell, Bruce Robinson, yourself.

Ill take Paul and Wickerman’s more reasoned, open-minded approach any day.

[PaulB]

Today we have a list of a number prime suspects who have been named in that way by modern day researchers thus giving misleading facts to those who start to follow this mystery when the evidence against then is assessed and in most cases there is next to nothing, they are not prime suspects at best as I keep saying persons of interest.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You are simply trying to use modern police jargon to imply that Druitt's importance as a suspect is less than many people rightfully think it to be.

People are sensibly prioritising the suspects, mainly for research purposes. When people say 'prime suspect' they mean the best or one of the best suspects, even the best of a bad bunch. Even if you change 'suspect' to 'person of interest', people will call Druitt a 'prime person of interest'.

You are just wasting everybody's time with this nonsense.

[rjpalmer]

Thanks, Simon. That's a dismal, gut-wrenching story about your uncle, but I'm glad you shared it.

I do hope you write down your memories someday.

Meanwhile, enjoy your trip; it's always sunny down by the beach, no matter how much it rains up on the mountain.

As for Druitt: C of E, voted a straight Conservative ticket. Would you agree? I base it mainly on statistics and commonsense; his circle of friends; his brother's affiliations; MJD's own youthful statement that Gladstone was the 'only saving grace of the Liberal Party.'

[seanr]

hi sean
well, Bury, kelly and Koz certainly had a history of violence

Bury, yes. Kelly, yes (he'd be a very interesting suspect if it could be proved he was any where near Whitechapel at the time), Kozminski - not so much?

[seanr]

None of the other cases involved the presence of a soldier at any time.

The Pinchin Street torso?

[Abby Normal]

Bury, yes. Kelly, yes (he'd be a very interesting suspect if it could be proved he was any where near Whitechapel at the time), Kozminski - not so much?

hi sean
led away with his hands tied behind his back, could suggest he was violent, but certainly threatening his sister with a knife, and attacking an attendant with a chair.
now we don't know exactly when this all happened, but theres documented violence and threat of violence on his record.

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

Did MJD actually say that?

I've always been bothered by the fact that Druitt schlepped all the way to Chiswick to drown himself when the Thames ran straight past his door at King's Bench Walk.

BTW, I'm packing my umbrella, just in case.

Regards,

Simon

[Abby Normal]

You're quite right, he could have.
It's just that there is no similarity between the wounds & mutilations on the rest of the victims, and those on Tabram. The weapon described in the subsequent cases bares no similarity with that (those) used on Tabram.
None of the other cases involved the presence of a soldier at any time.

If we are going to theorize that the subsequent Ripper murders were the work of a soldier, where would we begin?

we would begin with the fact that many serial killers have a military background, that tabram was apparently with a soldier shortly before she was killed. that if it was one of the soldiers, he wouldn't wear his uni again, or perhaps since none of the paraded men worked out these guys were wearing there old unis (not active duty any more-or were "faking it"). one of the suspects was described as military bearing-hutch. The ripper knew how to use a knife and could quickly subdue and kill his victims-indicative of perhaps a military background. any differences between Tabrams wounds and subsequent victims could be chalked up to escalation and the ripper perfecting his technique.

Im not married to the idea of the ripper being a soldier, or having a military background, its just a possibility-but I do have a problem with the argument that Tabram couldn't have been killed by the ripper because she was probably killed by one of the soldiers. Its a mistake I see on here constantly.

[Sam Flynn]

Im not married to the idea of the ripper being a soldier, or having a military background, its just a possibility-but I do have a problem with the argument that Tabram couldn't have been killed by the ripper because she was probably killed by one of the soldiers. Its a mistake I see on here constantly.

I don't think Wickerman was saying that the Ripper couldn't (theoretically) have been a soldier, but that no canonical Ripper victim was ever seen in the presence of a soldier, either in a pub or near the scenes of crime. In fact, most of them were seen with men of decidedly unsoldierly appearance before their deaths, and even the most tenuously "militaristic" suspect - Broad Shoulders Man - was clad in dowdy civilian clothing.

[Abby Normal]

I don't think Wickerman was saying that the Ripper couldn't (theoretically) have been a soldier, but that no canonical Ripper victim was ever seen in the presence of a soldier, either in a pub or near the scenes of crime. In fact, most of them were seen with men of decidedly unsoldierly appearance before their deaths, and even the most tenuously "militaristic" suspect - Broad Shoulders Man - was clad in dowdy civilian clothing.

hi sam

heres the original post and context that I originally responded to:

#1114
04-28-2019, 08:08 PM



Originally posted by seanr View Post


If you believe that either Martha Tabram or Alice Mackenzie were Ripper victims, you must dismiss Druitt.



"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." wicks response.

to me its clear wicks response is ruling out Tabram as a ripper victim because "two soldiers were responsible for the Tabram murder".

but anyway, hes already cleared it up and responded that the two soldier theory dosnt rule out the ripper killing Tabram, so were good. thanks