What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Herlock Sholmes]

He has done no such thing neither have you

from lawtons statement

"Feigenbaum admits that he was frequently in London at different periods during the time covered by the murders, which extended from 1887 until the summer of 1891

The same Feigenbaum that you describe as a compulsive liar. Is he only a compulsive liar on certain occasions?

There is circumstantial evidence to corroborate what Feigenbaum told Lawton. In addition there is now recently discovered crew lists for one of the german ships which was here on two occasions in 1890 which shows he was here on those voyages, showing that he was working for that merchant line during the periods he said he was in London. The same merchant line that had ships in London at the time of the murders.

At the time when most people consider the ripper murders to have ended. I’m not saying that Feigenbaum couldn’t have been in London but there is no evidence at this point in time that he was.

Different periods = merchants ships going back and forth

Why would Lawton lie, what would he gain from saying that if it didn't happen. By making the statement he was leaving himself open to having the information investigated and him being proved to be a liar.

Substitute the name Lawton with Macnaghten and ask the same question. Why the different rules?

You keep quoting from my book but it seems you are not reading from the revised edition "Jack the Ripper The real Truth" which is uptodate

I have the Kindle version with your copyright 2013/2018

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

For some inexplicable reason you give weight to Lawton. A man who appears to have given his information, gleaned from a compulsive liar and a man that killed a non-prostitute in completely different circumstances to any of the ripper murders, to the press rather than directly to the police. It appears that he was looking for his fifteen minutes of fame.

[PaulB]

Ok, there was, or is no proof to prove him to be the killer, but where is the proof/evidence to suggest MM`s belief in what he was told was genuine?

There is none, its just the opinion of MM based on hearsay, which without corroboration is of no evidential value in trying to identify JTR.

For you to keep repeating there may have been this, or there may have been that, is nothing more than conjecture on your part.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,
Macnaghten states something which he is in a position to know. There is no evidence or reason to believe he is lying. So why are you so desperate to disbelieve him?

Who has said that what Macnaghten was told was genuine?

Macnaghten reached a conclusion based on information at his disposal - that does have evidential value. It is evidence of what Macnaghten believed. And the whole point is that you don't know, don't have the remotest idea, what that information was, so you can't judge whether it was good evidence or not. But if you think Macnaghten was suckered-in by some trivial nonsense said in passing over a glass of sherry, you prove it!

I am not conjecturing, Trevor. I am stating that Macnaghten suspected that Druitt was Jack the Ripper. That is a fact based on Macnaghten's own statements. And because it isn't credible that Macnaghten would have suspected Druitt without having reason for doing so, it follows that a reason existed. If you think the evidence didn't exist, prove it.

Otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This simply cannot be clearer Trevor. It’s unbelievable that you are willing to expend so much effort to defend an indefensible position. If you can ask “why would Lawton lie?” why can’t we ask “why would Macnaghten lie?” We might also add that as Feigenbaum was a “compulsive liar” why should he be believed? So we have 2 potential liars. Another poster recently suggested that there would have been no way that the Druitt family would have let slip the fact that Monty was the ripper. They might have if they were seeking help or advice but what’s a certainty is that they wouldn’t have simply made up a story about one of their own being the loathed Jack The Ripper.

If it’s suggested that the information about Druitt came via - a family member - to Majendie for eg - and then to Macnaghten how is this in any way unreliable? Are you suggesting that one high official was incapable of hearing information from a family to which he had a connection and relaying accurately to another high official? This is information from an educated/respectable family via an educated/intelligent/responsible man to a very highly regarded senior police official. It’s not pub gossip or Chinese whispers yet you keep attempting to make it appear just that. The evidence that Druitt might have been the ripper no longer exists but Macnaghten is clear that it once did exist and that it was in his possession. Of course we cannot prove that it existed but conversely you cannot prove that it didn’t exist. You also have no evidence that Macnaghten was either a liar or an idiot. The reasonable position is the open-minded one and that doesn’t mean simply implying that Mac was an idiot or a liar.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So why are you so desperate to disbelieve him?

This is the crux of it. Why?

[The Baron]

The fact that, over a period of some twenty years, Macnaghten didn't budge from his belief that the Ripper drowned himself after Mary Kelly's murder, and that we know that his drowned suspect was Druitt, would seem to indicate that his belief was sincere.

Sincere?! Is this even an argument Sam ?! I would expect better than this from you.

Even Macnaghten's daughter didn't believe Druitt was the ripper.

At least Abberline gave reasons to support his favored suspect, Abberline who was on the ground active during the murders, but what did Macnaghten do except sitting on his cosy chair ?!

NOTHING


The Baron

[PaulB]

Sincere?! Is this even an argument Sam ?! I would expect better than this from you.

Even Macnaghten's daughter didn't believe Druitt was the ripper.

At least Abberline gave reasons to support his favored suspect, Abberline who was on the ground active during the murders, but what did Macnaghten do except sitting on his cosy chair ?!

NOTHING


The Baron

Rather than accept that Macnaghten believed the information implicating Druitt, which Macnaghten stated was the case, you choose to accept a newspaper story attributing to Lady Aberconway an improbable story that Macnaghten was toeing the Scotland Yard line but really believed some 'highest in the land'-type story that she never mentioned to Daniel Farson or Philip Loftus, or any other known source, and which appears not to have been transmitted through her own family or that of Julia Donner?

And even if one for a moment allows that what Lady Aberconway said was true, what do you suppose she meant by toeing the Scotland Yard line - following what Scotland Yard accepted as the truth? Even that seems to suggest that there was something that implicated Druitt.

And Macnaghten was noted for visiting crime scenes and taking an interest in the on-the-ground investigations, so he wasn't always sitting in a comfy chair! Abberline was also being interviewed and was giving the reasons why he thought Chapman was the murderer. Macnaghten wasn't being interviewed, he didn't have to give the reasons why he believed anything about Druitt, and he was writing for people who probably already knew those reasons anyway.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sincere?! Is this even an argument Sam ?! I would expect better than this from you.

Even Macnaghten's daughter didn't believe Druitt was the ripper.

At least Abberline gave reasons to support his favored suspect, Abberline who was on the ground active during the murders, but what did Macnaghten do except sitting on his cosy chair ?!

NOTHING


The Baron

More biased nonsense from you. Will you ever learn?

I would expect better than this from you.

Sadly Baron, no one now expects any better from you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Even Macnaghten's daughter didn't believe Druitt was the ripper.

Unless she was Miss Marple I tend to assume that she didn’t play much of a role in the investigation. You would rather believe a not very believable newspaper article, purely because it suits your viewpoint, rather than Macnaghten? Desperate!

[Herlock Sholmes]

At least Abberline gave reasons to support his favored suspect,

So did Macnaghten. The fact that you choose to disbelieve him for no legitimate reason is neither hear nor there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. but what did Macnaghten do except sitting on his cosy chair ?!

If you did a bit of reading you would have known, as Paul has told you, that Macnaghten was a very hands-on type. He liked to visit the crime scenes and get to know the witnesses and suspects in cases that occurred whilst he was in office.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And last post of the evening....

Baron - Druitt’s father was a ........

[Trevor Marriott]

For some inexplicable reason you give weight to Lawton. A man who appears to have given his information, gleaned from a compulsive liar and a man that killed a non-prostitute in completely different circumstances to any of the ripper murders, to the press rather than directly to the police. It appears that he was looking for his fifteen minutes of fame.

Peter Sutcliffes victims were not all prostitutes ! and why would he go to the police in New York. The Ripper murders were not under their jurisdiction and had ceased 8 years previous.

The explicable reason you seek is that there is evidence which is more than just third hand hearsay. The starting off point is Lawton in deciding which suspect is the more viable based on the evidence. The starting off point in Druitts is MM.


This is now where it differs Feigenbaum was known to carry a long bladed knife proven fact= Druitt was not known to carry a knife

Feigenbaum was a known thief and known to use aliases- Druitt no criminal record

Feigenbaum Murdered a female by cutting her throat almost to the point of decapitation proven fact- Who can it be proven Druitt murdered?

Feigenbaum admits to being in London at varying times between 1887-1891, corroborated by ships records putting him here in 1890, also by a
family member and other maritime records linking him to a specific german merchant shipping line which had boats here at the times of all
the murders.

Lawtons hearsay was first hand -MM was third hand and when you look closely at what MM said "I have little doubt but that his own
family believed him to have been the murderer" All he is in effect saying is that he believed the information give to him was that the
family believed that Druiit was the killer no mention of MM adopting the same belief.

Corroboration to Lawtons statement-No corroboration to MM

Now based on the above tell me that Druitts candidacy as a suspect is as good as Feigenbaums

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

...

Lawtons hearsay was first hand -MM was third hand and when you look closely at what MM said "I have little doubt but that his own
family believed him to have been the murderer" All he is in effect saying is that he believed the information give to him was that the
family believed that Druiit was the killer no mention of MM adopting the same belief.

Corroboration to Lawtons statement-No corroboration to MM

...
www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

We know that he did harbour suspicions against Druitt, as he goes on to tell us this ""Personally, after much careful & deliberate consideration, I am inclined to exonerate the last 2, but I have always held strong opinions regarding no. 1, and the more I think the matter over, the stronger do these opinions become.", with no 1. of course being Druitt.

And, given he's writing a list of suspects better than Cutbush, it would make no sense to list individuals unless he thought there were reasons to warrant interest in them. Whether the information he was given was nothing more than family suspicions, and whether his growing belief in Druitt was anything more than a consolidation of belief due to nothing better arising, etc, we don't know. But regardless, we do know that he was willing to put in writing his increasing opinion that Druitt was a worthy person for investigation. Whether that belief was based upon substantial or insubstantial evidence is what we don't know; it could have been at either end of those extremes, or somewhere in the middle.

So far, however, nothing has turned up to corroborate his suspicions that Druitt was JtR, but that doesn't mean he didn't hold those suspicions. His writing tells us he did, whether they were justified or not is the question.

- Jeff

[harry]

When I say there was no proof and no suspects in the ripper murders,I am repeating what senior officers ,including MM,stated.What exists is a whole lot of information,some good ,most worthless,and none that prooves Druitt killed anyone,or that suggests Druitt was more than a person of interest.
MM comments as he himself writes,was theoretical,opinion,and conjecture,based on information.INFORMATION ,and there is nothing that says this information was investigated,or proven to be factual.MM believed that the answer once lay at the bottom of the Thames.What sort of evidence is that? When has belief been considered evidence? When has unproven suspicion been regarded as evidence? What lay at the bottom of the Thames?One could equally say the answer once lay in a room in Millers Court,for certainly if Druitt was the murderer,he would have to have been there.

[harry]

It doesn't mean that incriminating evidence didn't exist.
When Paul,was the last time you are aware of a person being classed suspect on evidence that didn't exist.