What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[rjpalmer]

Let me ask: Is druitt your favored suspect? anyone else you favor?

Hi Abby. Let me just say that I prefer the suspects that have been thrown into the ash-heap of Ripperology, those dismissed by the 'Null Set' as 'ridiculous,' 'non-starters,' and even 'impossible': the Tumiltys, the Deemings, the Druitts. I'll even put your man Puckeridge in there, too, if it is shown that he wasn't really hunkered down in the West End. (And before you ask, I've never been entirely satisfied that Deeming was in South Africa in 1888; he very probably was, but the documentation is vague and iffy).

Feel free to disagree; a good homicide team argues, disagrees, gives a different perspectives. That's how we refine our thinking. But the professional nay-sayers have very little to add; they can sound authoritative, but they really aren't very useful when it comes to finding a murderer. I don't include you in that set. Best wishes.

[GUT]

Hi Abby. Let me just say that I prefer the suspects that have been thrown into the ash-heap of Ripperology, those dismissed by the 'Null Set' as 'ridiculous,' 'non-starters,' and even 'impossible': the Tumiltys, the Deemings, the Druitts. I'll even put your man Puckeridge in there, too, if it is shown that he wasn't really hunkered down in the West End. (And before you ask, I've never been entirely satisfied that Deeming was in South Africa in 1888; he very probably was, but the documentation is vague and iffy).

Feel free to disagree; a good homicide team argues, disagrees, gives a different perspectives. That's how we refine our thinking. But the professional nay-sayers have very little to add; they can sound authoritative, but they really aren't very useful when it comes to finding a murderer. I don't include you in that set. Best wishes.

Totally agree about Deeming, it seems very uncertain where he was in 1888, nor am I persuaded that the Aussie pamphlet was about him.

[Phil Carter]

Druitt's body may have originally had more stones than were found in the pockets. If some came out the body would gradually surface, so his body could have been in the deep channel of the river. Who knows....

Hello Jon,

As a native lad of West London from the age of birth to 22 years old, I've fished more in the Thames than I'd say many on here. At Teddington, Kingston, Richmond and Chiswick and even Putney.

Below are the tide tables for 2018/19.
During the months of November and December, there are no less than 53 different times of the days of those two months, when the low tide level at Chiswick is BELOW 1m deep. Often as low as 0.4m
For those who still use imperial measures, that's 3ft 3 inches and 16 inches, respectively.

http://rjen.me.uk/tides/Tides-tables.htm

Now, if you are talking of a body in the water upward of a month, the chances of concealment in that stretch if the Thames, considering high and low tides, is pretty slim.
At Chiswick Eyot, at high tide, the road, along the river, is often impassable. Flooding is normal.

If I recall correctly, Druitt's body was found amongst the reeds towards the side of the river, not in the middle. In order for it to travel sideways towards the edge, however much weight you wish to attain to the body, it will be affected by high tide. High tide occurs as often as low tide.

Now when working out that, it becomes entirely obvious that in order for a body to be moved with both low, and high tides, the weight cannot be that heavy. Its that obvious. Also, keep in mind that a body in water becomes bloated relatively quickly.

So it means, Jon, that given the totally unlikely scenario that Druitt's body was in the centre of the river at low tide 16"-39" (remember bloated), it is more logical that it was brought into the reeds at high tide.

The reeds in November and December are not thick. It is winter. The reeds I humbly suggest are the only place the body could remain after a high tide. Therefore, the weight cannot have been that great, in order for the bloated body to be deposited there. And stay there.

As I said. I know that area of the Thames quite well, and can tell you that the view along the river, from both the paths, the roads and the Bridges, are very good indeed.

Oh, and before you ask, a body laying flat does not sink into the mud, as the weight ratio is spread, rather like if one lies flat on thin ice. Should a body be lying on the mud at low tide, it would be seen easily.

Small boats do not travel past this stretch of water at low tide, with the exception of rowing boats.


Phil

[harry]

I do not think any of the "null set" have classed Druitt as an impossibility,or MM as a liar.Any criticsm is directed at the value of the information submitted,and the labeling of Druitt as a suspect.However RJ,I would be pleased to reply to any conclusive evidence or proofs that you consider we "Null set' are ignoring.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Blimey, someone had it in for Mr Richard Worswick.

Revving up my scientific search engine, I find that Mr Worswick drowned in three feet of mud and water. See Morning Post, 24th April 1867—



Regards,

Simon

[The Baron]

I will not be surprised if even Druitt's father was not able to extract a Kidney in total darkness in less than 5 minutes, let alone his son. some may think its as easy a task as frying an egg!


The Baron

[GUT]

I will not be surprised if even Druitt's father was not able to extract a Kidney in total darkness in less than 5 minutes, let alone his son. some may think its as easy a task as frying an egg!


The Baron

Someone sure managed to do it.

[The Baron]

Someone sure managed to do it.

Abberline:

"" You will remember that Dr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, who made the post-mortem examination, not only spoke of the skillfulness with which the knife had been used, but stated that there was overwhelming evidence to show that the criminal had so mutilated the body that he could possess himself of one of the organs."

Its amusing that some posters take Phillips words on Mckenzie to eleminate it as a ripper victim, and reject his words that the murderer must have the skills to do this.


Druitt threw himself in the water, he didn't use a knife, there was no Knife in his pocket, show me that he was able to extract a kidney!



The Baron

[rjpalmer]

I do not think any of the "null set" have classed Druitt as an impossibility,or MM as a liar.Any criticsm is directed at the value of the information submitted,and the labeling of Druitt as a suspect.However RJ,I would be pleased to reply to any conclusive evidence or proofs that you consider we "Null set' are ignoring.

Hi Harry.

Since we do not know the nature of Macnaghten's private information, any criticism of its "value" is pure speculation.

And who said anything about “conclusive evidence” against Druitt?

Even Macnaghten didn’t claim that.

What Paul B., Wickerman, Michael, and others have pointed out repeatedly is that we DON’T KNOW the nature of the ‘private information against Druitt,’ but, taken at face value, it apparently convinced Macnaghten of Druitt’s guilt.

That makes him an interesting, if largely mysterious "suspect."

By contrast, the Null Set have concluded (and I quote) that Macnaghten is a “blow hard,” that the memoranda is “not worth the paper it is written on,” that all of Macnghten’s suspects “are a waste of time” etc. etc. etc.

Is this really the crowd you wish to run with?

It's a strange dynamic. Those who seem to be interested in Druitt are the ones who are actually urging caution, while it's the nay-sayers and critics who have rushed in pell-mell like so many bulls in a china shop, critiquing private information, the nature of which has never been revealed.

I’m entirely happy with you rejecting Druitt as a suspect provided you present a valid reason for doing so.

All the best.

[Trevor Marriott]

Someone sure managed to do it.

I apologise for keep having to repeat the following statement but it seems some are just not taking note, or simply dont want to accept these facts.

You are right someone did, but I would suggest not at the scene, there was not enough time for the killer to walk in the square with the victim, carry out the murder, and the mutilations, rifle the pockets, and remove a uterus and a kidney in almost total darkness.

I have recently carried out an extensive review of the Mitre Sq timings as well as obtaining further medical evidence from modern day experts which in my opinion supports this.

Of course these findings also have a knock on effect, because is the killer did not remove organs from the Whitechapel victims then it destroys part of the suggestion that The Torsos were all murdered by the same killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Let's stay focused on Druitt, please.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Harry.

Since we do not know the nature of Macnaghten's private information, any criticism of its "value" is pure speculation.

And who said anything about “conclusive evidence” against Druitt?

Even Macnaghten didn’t claim that.

What Paul B., Wickerman, Michael, and others have pointed out repeatedly is that we DON’T KNOW the nature of the ‘private information against Druitt,’ but, taken at face value, it apparently convinced Macnaghten of Druitt’s guilt.

That makes him an interesting, if largely mysterious "suspect."

By contrast, the Null Set have concluded (and I quote) that Macnaghten is a “blow hard,” that the memoranda is “not worth the paper it is written on,” that all of Macnghten’s suspects “are a waste of time” etc. etc. etc.

Is this really the crowd you wish to run with?

It's a strange dynamic. Those who seem to be interested in Druitt are the ones who are actually urging caution, while it's the nay-sayers and critics who have rushed in pell-mell like so many bulls in a china shop, critiquing private information, the nature of which has never been revealed.

I’m entirely happy with you rejecting Druitt as a suspect provided you present a valid reason for doing so.

All the best.

The value of the information is determined by how he came by it, and what it was, and what did he do with the information to corroborate what he had been told.

By his own admission he came by it third hand, the suspicion seemingly origination from a family member, and was it enough for him to form the same suspicion?

Was the information reliable, or unreliable and how good was it? As I have previously suggested I believe it was simply hearsay, or someones opinion, again with no supporting evidence, If someone wants to show me otherwise then I will relent.

Now as to what did he do with the information, did he take steps to investigate the claims? There is no evidence that he did, and that leads me to suspect that there was nothing to investigate because all he had was the "information" as is described above, and it would seen that by the time he got it Druitt was long dead.

If we look at what he writes in 1894 regarding Druiit

"He was sexually insane and from private info.. I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer."

All he is saying is that Druitts family believed him to have been the killer.

When he penned the Aberconway Version is does not vary that much

"From private information I have little doubt but that his own family suspected this man of being the Whitechapel murderer; it was alleged that he was sexually insane."

In both of these versions he mention nothing about how the family came to believe him to be the killer. In both versions he never says that from a police perspective Druitt was ever looked upon as a suspect, or that he was ever investigated, or suspected by any other source. No one in the police service in 1888 or the years that followed mentions him at all !

As to Druitts current suspect status it is poorly deserved, and on what we know that status falls into the same category of all the other persons who have been wrongly labeled as suspects that make up this modern day suspect list. Are the words "I have little doubt" sufficient enough to label a seemingly innocent man a ripper suspect, without one scrap of corroboration?

As to the MM itself two things I would say.

From a modern day evidential perspective with what we know and the glaring errors contained in it. it is unsafe and unreliable.

From a Historical perspective as I have said before History is there to be challenged, and not readily accepted. As a Historical document that challenge has been made, and again much of it has been proved to not just be unsafe, and unreliable, but totally wrong, and those who support it as a genuine historical document should perhaps now accept that fact.

For those who might be interested I came across this on the net it shows the differences between both documents

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/jtr/AberconwayOrder.htm

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Let's stay focused on Druitt, please.

Perhaps you will pass that on to Herlock Sholmes when he mentions Feigenbaum

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Baron]

but, taken at face value, it apparently convinced Macnaghten of Druitt’s guilt.

Because he thought, based on this false informations, that Druitt was a sexually insane Doctor who ran the streets of Whitechapel all nights..


This is ofcourse not true, should we continue favouring him after we knew he was not?!



The Baron

[Sam Flynn]

Perhaps you will pass that on to Herlock Sholmes when he mentions Feigenbaum

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Comparing the strengths/weakness of other suspects in order to contextualise Druitt's candidacy is legitimate in the context of this discussion. Debating the issue of where the organs were removed is another matter entirely.