What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

I disagree, but then again whats new ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Still no admission that you were wrong Baron?

Just try saying this:

.....I admit that I was wrong and that Druitt’s father was a qualified surgeon.

Any honesty for a change or will you just keep changing the subject?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Someone sure managed to do it.

Exactly GUT,

So according to The Baron we need to be looking for England’s fastest surgeon of the LVP to be able to nail the ripper.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Show me that Bury, Kosminski, Tumblety, Sickert, Feigenbaum or any of a vast number of ripper suspects could have done so.

Its amusing that some posters take Phillips words on Mckenzie to eleminate it as a ripper victim

And it’s amusing how one poster will dishonestly claim that Mackenzie was definitely a ripper victim in a biased attempt to dismiss Druitt.

Oh and by the way Druitt’s father was a fully qualified Surgeon.....do you agree?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Well said Roger

This is the point that I don’t get. Were being cautious yet those that dismiss Druitt constantly claim to be certain about things that, at a distance of 130 years, we can’t possibly know for sure.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I only mentioned you-know-who because you appear to apply different standards to Macnaghten and Lawton.

And also, of course that I pointed out an error in your book which you tried to dodge and that by your own thinking it should mean that your book isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. (Your words not mine.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Repeating drivel won’t make it true.

[Sam Flynn]

I disagree, but then again whats new ?

Quite.

[harry]

RJ
Your first line of reply says it all,suspicion of Druitt is pure speculation.Conclusive evidence is something I wrote.It is lacking.
What MM writes of is information.He came into possession of information.He did not say he came into possession of evidence that Druitts family believed he(Druitt) was a murderer,something I would have expected him to declare if evidence it was.
As we do not know what the information was,or if indeed there was information as stated,how can we judge Druitt.
Now I don't read MM's writings as stating he(MM)was convinced of Druitts guilt.To me it is more of a 'Here is something that needs investigation to prove it's value'.Was MM so impulsive as to declare a person's guilt simply on receipt of information.Doesn't speak much for his character if he did so.
And Jeff,I don't run with any crowd,and I believe my explanations sound in rejecting Druitt as a suspect.

[PaulB]

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,
The value of the information might be determined by how Macnaghten came by it, but you don’t know how he came by it, nor do you know what he or others did to corroborate it. You are therefore basing your conclusions on ignorance, not evidence.

What you personally believe is irrelevant. It's the evidence on which your beliefs are based that matter. It isn’t up to anyone else to show you why what you believe is wrong, it is up to you to convincingly demonstrate to others why you are right. You haven’t come near to doing that.

You don’t know what Macnaghten or others did or did not do to investigate it. You cannot base a conclusion on the absence of evidence.

So what is your point about Macnaghten's opinion that Druitt's family believed he was the Ripper? Are you suggesting that the only information implicating Druitt that Macnaghten possessed was what Druitt’s family probably believed? Are you suggesting that Macnaghten believed Druitt was the murderer on just that information? If you are, where’s your evidence?

You write: '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.'

Do you fondly imagine that historians unquestioningly accept every source document as the truth? Because if you do, I suggest you actually try to find out what historians do. In fact, a lot of what historians do is source analysis, which is basically determining everything one can about a source, including the veracity of what it says. So, historical sources are there to be challenged, but sensibly and with good reason.

Now, the memorandum is a ‘genuine historical document’. It was written by the person it purports to have been written by, It was written at the time it purports to have been written, and it is intended as a factual document, and there is not a scrap of evidence to suggest otherwise. It is therefore a ‘genuine historical document’, and it remains a 'genuine historical document' even if there isn’t a single word in it that is true. It might therefore help your case considerably if you actually understood what you mean when you write this stuff. Secondly, whilst we can infer a lot from the errors it contains, those errors have no bearing on whether the police/Macnaghten received information implicating Druitt and that Macnaghten found that information so compelling that he believed him to be Jack the Ripper. To put it simply, either that information was received or it wasn’t. If you think Macnaghten lied about it, you need more than a handful of errors to support your case. If you think such information was received, then we have a ‘genuine historical document’ which merits close examination.

Really, you might take some time out to reflect on what some very reasonable and knowledgeable people are trying to explain to you, instead of repeating the same old nonsense over and over again.

[The Baron]

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

Great Post Trever!


The Baron

[The Baron]

Id accept your apology Baron but you’re wrong so often it would mean nothing.

If it means nothing, then stop begging for it.


The Baron

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
The value of the information might be determined by how Macnaghten came by it, but you don’t know how he came by it, nor do you know what he or others did to corroborate it. You are therefore basing your conclusions on ignorance, not evidence.

What you personally believe is irrelevant. It's the evidence on which your beliefs are based that matter. It isn’t up to anyone else to show you why what you believe is wrong, it is up to you to convincingly demonstrate to others why you are right. You haven’t come near to doing that.

You don’t know what Macnaghten or others did or did not do to investigate it. You cannot base a conclusion on the absence of evidence.

So what is your point about Macnaghten's opinion that Druitt's family believed he was the Ripper? Are you suggesting that the only information implicating Druitt that Macnaghten possessed was what Druitt’s family probably believed? Are you suggesting that Macnaghten believed Druitt was the murderer on just that information? If you are, where’s your evidence?

You write: '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.'

Do you fondly imagine that historians unquestioningly accept every source document as the truth? Because if you do, I suggest you actually try to find out what historians do. In fact, a lot of what historians do is source analysis, which is basically determining everything one can about a source, including the veracity of what it says. So, historical sources are there to be challenged, but sensibly and with good reason.

Now, the memorandum is a ‘genuine historical document’. It was written by the person it purports to have been written by, It was written at the time it purports to have been written, and it is intended as a factual document, and there is not a scrap of evidence to suggest otherwise. It is therefore a ‘genuine historical document’, and it remains a 'genuine historical document' even if there isn’t a single word in it that is true. It might therefore help your case considerably if you actually understood what you mean when you write this stuff. Secondly, whilst we can infer a lot from the errors it contains, those errors have no bearing on whether the police/Macnaghten received information implicating Druitt and that Macnaghten found that information so compelling that he believed him to be Jack the Ripper. To put it simply, either that information was received or it wasn’t. If you think Macnaghten lied about it, you need more than a handful of errors to support your case. If you think such information was received, then we have a ‘genuine historical document’ which merits close examination.

Really, you might take some time out to reflect on what some very reasonable and knowledgeable people are trying to explain to you, instead of repeating the same old nonsense over and over again.

Reasonable and knowledgeable people with their heads buried in the sand !

I am not disputing that it is not a genuine historical document, but that being said it is not to be relied upon as has been proved. why cant you accept that fact, and if you cant rely on it, then you cant readily accept its contents regarding Druitt without corroboration. MM`s private information was not disclosed by him either in 1894 or when the Aberconaway version was penned absolutely nothing zero, and he had the right to do that, but the circumstances surrounding that info, and the lack of him making any comments in the Aberconway version years later to show he acted upon it, or he belived the info to be the real deal, suggest to me that, all he is saying in the MM and The other verison is that the family told someone they believed Druitt to be the killer and that someone told him.

Now if you think that is good evidence you do need to take a good look at yourself

Go take a look at all the other list of 100+ so called suspects and you will see the list is full of suspects without anything to show they should be regarded as a suspect and who should not even be on the list.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

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

Do you know that Druitt wasn't sexually insane? Where does Macnaghten says Druitt "ran the streets of Whitechapel all nights"? How do you know that Macnaghten based his conclusion of this and not on other information? Can you be certain that Druitt wasn't investigated and suspicions against him entertained by other policemen? After all, in the Aberconway version he wrote of “three men against whom Police held very reasonable suspicion” (my emphasis) and in Days of My Years he wrote that the information implicating Druitt “were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer” (my emphasis). And in the Daily Mail interview he refers to "secret information which came into my possession at one time or another", which suggests that he received information at different times.

[The Baron]

Do you know that Druitt wasn't sexually insane? Where does Macnaghten says Druitt "ran the streets of Whitechapel all nights"? How do you know that Macnaghten based his conclusion of this and not on other information? Can you be certain that Druitt wasn't investigated and suspicions against him entertained by other policemen? After all, in the Aberconway version he wrote of “three men against whom Police held very reasonable suspicion” (my emphasis) and in Days of My Years he wrote that the information implicating Druitt “were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer” (my emphasis). And in the Daily Mail interview he refers to "secret information which came into my possession at one time or another", which suggests that he received information at different times.

Read This Mr. Begg, the words of Abberline are better than mine:


[b]Abberline, "I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him. A report was made to the Home Office about the matter, but that it was 'considered final and conclusive' is going altogether beyond the truth.


The Baron