What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

I'm glad you noted that my Horse Feather Detector is patented.

George R. Sims was a horse feather merchant. He talked a good game, but knew nothing other than that which he was vouchsafed by Macnaghten. I bet he longed to be invited to one of his Corinthian Dinners.

Almost from the start, Sims cast a mordant eye over the Whitechapel murders and its attendant hoopla, but on January 22nd 1899, following the second edition of Major Griffiths’ book, his tone changed and he first began to champion the drowned doctor as Jack the Ripper.

Eight years later, on 11th February 1907 Macnaghten wrote in a letter to Sims—

“. . . It may also save you the trouble of research if I give you the times & places of Jack the Ripper’s pleasantries.”

There followed the locations, dates and names of the five canonical victims.

It seems incredible that, nineteen years after events in Whitechapel, Macnaghten thought that Sims had not yet got these basic facts to hand.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Connected to the Druitt situation.. Bare with me a little.

In Donald McCormick s paperback 1970 revision of his 1959 book "The identity of Jack the Ripper", he writes a lot dismantling Tom Cullens 1965 book. (and thereby the Druitt theory).. Which seems to be raising its head yet again.
Now I'm certainly no fan of McCormick's style of writing. His book is generally recognised as a lot of invented text. However, there is a part in the book that often goes unnoticed. I certainly had forgotten it until yesterday.He tries to explain how Druitt became a "Ripper suspect", and in doing so, quotes a London doctor who knew Walter Sickert and who's father was at Oxford with Druitt. I quote...

"The story as told to me was much the same as the version given by Oswalk Sitwell. Sickert was often uncertain about names, and the name of the young veterinary student was something like Druitt. It may have been Drewett, or even Hewitt. Anyhow, Sickert told me he had repeated the yarn to Sir Melville Macnaghten once at the Garrick Club and that Macnagthen was convinced it must have been Druitt because he had a, widowed mother living at Bournemouth, the same as Druitt. Possibly Sir Melville developed his own theory in consequence of what Sickert told him..."

And a little later..

(referring to Sickert, the London Doctor continued..)

" .. My father was convinced there was no connection between Sickert story and Druitt. He always told me that the story about Druitt being the Ripper arose through the barrister being blackmailed by someone who threatened to denounce him as Jack the Ripper to the school at which he worked. "

Now, first if all. I repeat. I have little faith in McCormick's book. Very little. But it raises interesting questions. Perhaps Paul Begg may be able to answer one or two in particular? It would be most appreciated. Thank you.

What was the name of the London doctor McCormick quotes, who knew Sickert, and who's father was at Oxford with Druitt? Was this story ever checked out?

For to verify the story at all, we must have a name to attribute the story to, otherwise we must, like much of McCormick's book, put this too down to literary invention.

Secondly, we must consider Albert Bachert. He maintained that as early as 1889 the story of the drowned doctor was told or leaked to him by the police themselves. And that there was an element of hushing up the whole JTR business. (not the drowned doctor bit)

I suspect that the drowned Doctor theory was already in motion a long time before 1894. I also suspect that it was indeed the police who first put forward the idea, way before 1894. Why? Because MM proudly states that he had never kept a diary, nor a notebook.
And therefore we are sadly committed to his memory of events. And because of the alarming lack of precision in his memoranda re Ostrog, Druitt, Cutbush et al, our suspicions as to his use of memory must be confirmed. For had he the possibility to look at known facts, especially about Ostrog, and possibly about Druitt, he would never have gotten his purported facts so song. Doctor instead of Barrister, 41 instead of 31, Cutbush being a nephew of a renowned policeman, Ostrog and Kosminski being of murderous disposition, etc etc.

Another thing I want to know, re McCormick, is the insistance that Kosminski 's name was actually Karminski. Where Does that originate?


Thanks for the help.


Phil

[PaulB]

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.

Harry,

Nobody is classifying anyone as a suspect on evidence that didn't/doesn't exist?

Macnaghten had evidence. Macnaghten is classifying Druitt as a suspect.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Hi Jeff

Are opinions, and suspicions one and the same ? No they are not

The text you quote as we know comes from the Aberconway version penned many years after he penned the original memo, and the quote in the original is as I have stated reads "I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer" and I say again. All he is in effect saying is that he believed the information given to him was that the family believed that Druitt was the killer from what they had been told or from their own suspicions. In that first memo no mention of MM adopting the same belief at the time he penned that original memo.

In the Aberconway version he says "Personally, after much careful & deliberate consideration, He mentions nothing about any investigation, or the results of any investigation into the original information, what was he considering? I would suggest it could only have been the original information referred to in the original memo which whatever it was came for a Druitt family connection, and confirming his belief that the family believed Druitt to have been the killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff

Are opinions, and suspicions one and the same ? No they are not

The text you quote as we know comes from the Aberconway version penned many years after he penned the original memo, and the quote in the original is as I have stated reads "I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer" and I say again. All he is in effect saying is that he believed the information given to him was that the family believed that Druitt was the killer from what they had been told or from their own suspicions. In that first memo no mention of MM adopting the same belief at the time he penned that original memo.

In the Aberconway version he says "Personally, after much careful & deliberate consideration, He mentions nothing about any investigation, or the results of any investigation into the original information, what was he considering? I would suggest it could only have been the original information referred to in the original memo which whatever it was came for a Druitt family connection, and confirming his belief that the family believed Druitt to have been the killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

In the context of the rest of the text I can see no other reading other than MacNaghten indicating his opinion that no. 1 is the best of the lot is intended.

And yes, I think all he was given was, as he says, information that Druitt's family had concerns. I don't think there was anything more substantial. Druitt's concerns over his own mental health (his note's reference to being worried he would end up like mother) would be tantalizing suggestion of his own mental illness, his father being in the medical profession, raises that red flag as well. None of it more than dancing around the ideas that were prevalent, and high on lists, but enough to make those suspicions by his family seem like the lead that indicates the answer without being enough to prove it. And with nothing better, I could see how that could turn into a personal belief stronger than perhaps the evidence he had warranted.

But it would mean that MacNaghten was given information that the family held suspicions about Druitt, and we don't know what those suspicions were based upon. Hence, MJD is worth investigating to see if anything can still be uncovered. To my view, nothing has come up of any real substance, though we've learned a fair bit about him. But at the same time, it means the MM is not entirely worthless. It tells us what MacNaghten's belief was (not whether is belief is true or false), what it was based upon (private information that his family suspected him). We know others had their own preferred suspects (Littlechild liked Tumblety for example), and I wouldn't be surprised if one could go back and poll the police of the day that quite a few "opinions" (or suspicions) would be offered, all with more confidence than perhaps the information warrants.

To some that's not enough to spend time on as they feel there are more likely leads to follow. For others, that warrents Druitt being on the list of suspects. And for others yet again, it's enough to convict Druitt. I place myself behind door number 2 despite my opinion that I don't think Druitt was the Ripper as nothing solid has been found.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

In the context of the rest of the text I can see no other reading other than MacNaghten indicating his opinion that no. 1 is the best of the lot is intended.

And yes, I think all he was given was, as he says, information that Druitt's family had concerns. I don't think there was anything more substantial. Druitt's concerns over his own mental health (his note's reference to being worried he would end up like mother) would be tantalizing suggestion of his own mental illness, his father being in the medical profession, raises that red flag as well. None of it more than dancing around the ideas that were prevalent, and high on lists, but enough to make those suspicions by his family seem like the lead that indicates the answer without being enough to prove it. And with nothing better, I could see how that could turn into a personal belief stronger than perhaps the evidence he had warranted.

But it would mean that MacNaghten was given information that the family held suspicions about Druitt, and we don't know what those suspicions were based upon. Hence, MJD is worth investigating to see if anything can still be uncovered. To my view, nothing has come up of any real substance, though we've learned a fair bit about him. But at the same time, it means the MM is not entirely worthless. It tells us what MacNaghten's belief was (not whether is belief is true or false), what it was based upon (private information that his family suspected him). We know others had their own preferred suspects (Littlechild liked Tumblety for example), and I wouldn't be surprised if one could go back and poll the police of the day that quite a few "opinions" (or suspicions) would be offered, all with more confidence than perhaps the information warrants.

To some that's not enough to spend time on as they feel there are more likely leads to follow. For others, that warrents Druitt being on the list of suspects. And for others yet again, it's enough to convict Druitt. I place myself behind door number 2 despite my opinion that I don't think Druitt was the Ripper as nothing solid has been found.

- Jeff

In his 1914 memoirs MM makes no mention of Druitt or any of the other suspects previously mentioned, now why was that I have to ask ? Such an important case such, important information received allegedly identifying the killer. The facts that he fails to mention anything about Druitt is another nail in the suspect coffin of Druitt.

Thats why it is important for all to read, study, and digest what he wrote in the MM and the Aberconway versions because clearly many have jumped in with both feet by not fully understanding what he wrote and the contxet in which it was written

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

In his 1914 memoirs MM makes no mention of Druitt or any of the other suspects previously mentioned, now why was that I have to ask ? Such an important case such, important information received allegedly identifying the killer. The facts that he fails to mention anything about Druitt is another nail in the suspect coffin of Druitt.

Thats why it is important for all to read, study, and digest what he wrote in the MM and the Aberconway versions because clearly many have jumped in with both feet by not fully understanding what he wrote and the contxet in which it was written


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I've not read his memoirs, but as the MM (and various versions) were not for public release (I believe they are headed confidential), I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't mention any suspects by name - particularly if all they had was tantalizing leads but nothing that really proves it. It's that really frustrating situation of thinking you're right on the edge of cracking the case but just don't have the evidence to prove it. I bet there are a lot of unsolved cases where that applies, and I bet, as often as not, the "prime suspect" is innocent. When that sort of "strength of conviction" without hard evidence was considered enough to try and secure a conviction, a lot of miscarriages of justice occurred, as the innocence project is demonstrating. While things are perfect, a greater understanding of how such tunnel vision can lead investigators astray despite their good intentions is, hopefully, reducing those events. So, while I think MacNaghten may well have believed MJD to have been JtR, and while that belief may have sprouted from private information that his family had concerns of his involvement, I want to see something a bit less abstract than just beliefs, however strong and considered they may be, I want to see something tangible. Something that puts MJD in Whitechapel, or something that places him in a location that excludes him. We're probably closer to the latter than the former with his cricket matches, but the door is slightly ajar. Until it is fully shut, or gets swung wide open, we have a person that at least one person from the police of the time felt strongly enough in their belief to name. That makes him a "suspect" in the context of the history of Jack the Ripper, and the MM is the document that provides that context. Just as the Littlechild letter gives us Tumblety, and so on. As people delve into each of these, prioritized as per their own personal views as to which are the most promising, we learn more, and some "suspects" start looking less and less plausible. So far, though, none have really risen to the top, or even above being labelled "worthy of further investigation", which is all Druitt is at the moment in my opinion.

- Jeff

[PaulB]

In his 1914 memoirs MM makes no mention of Druitt or any of the other suspects previously mentioned, now why was that I have to ask ? Such an important case such, important information received allegedly identifying the killer. The facts that he fails to mention anything about Druitt is another nail in the suspect coffin of Druitt.

Thats why it is important for all to read, study, and digest what he wrote in the MM and the Aberconway versions because clearly many have jumped in with both feet by not fully understanding what he wrote and the contxet in which it was written


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,
What are your reasons and what is your evidence for claiming that the Aberconway version was written many years after the version in the Scotland Yard files, and what reasons do you have for rejecting the reasons on which the traditional belief that Aberconway is a draft?

As a side issue, Macnaghten doesn't fail 'to mention anything about Druitt' in Days of My Years. He clearly refers to him, albeit not by name, which he was morally and legally unable to do.

Also, are you saying that you think the only 'evidence' against Druitt that Macnaghten possessed was some private information about what Druitt's family believed? I want to clearly establish what it is that you believe, free from any ambiguity.

[Trevor Marriott]

I've not read his memoirs, but as the MM (and various versions) were not for public release (I believe they are headed confidential), I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't mention any suspects by name - particularly if all they had was tantalizing leads but nothing that really proves it. It's that really frustrating situation of thinking you're right on the edge of cracking the case but just don't have the evidence to prove it. I bet there are a lot of unsolved cases where that applies, and I bet, as often as not, the "prime suspect" is innocent. When that sort of "strength of conviction" without hard evidence was considered enough to try and secure a conviction, a lot of miscarriages of justice occurred, as the innocence project is demonstrating. While things are perfect, a greater understanding of how such tunnel vision can lead investigators astray despite their good intentions is, hopefully, reducing those events. So, while I think MacNaghten may well have believed MJD to have been JtR, and while that belief may have sprouted from private information that his family had concerns of his involvement, I want to see something a bit less abstract than just beliefs, however strong and considered they may be, I want to see something tangible. Something that puts MJD in Whitechapel, or something that places him in a location that excludes him. We're probably closer to the latter than the former with his cricket matches, but the door is slightly ajar. Until it is fully shut, or gets swung wide open, we have a person that at least one person from the police of the time felt strongly enough in their belief to name. That makes him a "suspect" in the context of the history of Jack the Ripper, and the MM is the document that provides that context. Just as the Littlechild letter gives us Tumblety, and so on. As people delve into each of these, prioritized as per their own personal views as to which are the most promising, we learn more, and some "suspects" start looking less and less plausible. So far, though, none have really risen to the top, or even above being labelled "worthy of further investigation", which is all Druitt is at the moment in my opinion.

- Jeff

But his memoirs were published in his book Days of my years in 1914, and still no mention of Druitt or any of the other suspects ! That would have been the ideal opportunity to expand on the information, and give the results of any follow up. After all Anderson embellished facts contained in his book why not MM? Or perhaps the truth was that the information was simply nothing but hearsay, or conjecture on the part of person or persons unknown. or were those persons known?

It is reported but not confirmed that the source of Macnaghten's alleged "private information" about Druitt has two candidates, both only uncovered in the early 21st Century. One is a Tory politician, H. R. Farquharson, who lived near the Druitts and also went to Eton with Macnaghten, and the other is Colonel Sir Vivian Majendie, a very close friend of the police chief and whose clan was related to the Druitt family. It is likely both men, in succession, were the unnamed sources of information for the police chief regarding the drowned barrister being strongly suspected of being the Ripper by his closest relations.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
What are your reasons and what is your evidence for claiming that the Aberconway version was written many years after the version in the Scotland Yard files, and what reasons do you have for rejecting the reasons on which the traditional belief that Aberconway is a draft?

Perhaps my use of many years is not in the right context, but it must have been written some time after the original, and its contents certainly indicate that fact. But some of the contents clearly show that it is not a draft for the 1894 version, and it matters not whether it was a draft of any description the fact is that we have the original and as you say it is a historical document.

As a side issue, Macnaghten doesn't fail 'to mention anything about Druitt' in Days of My Years. He clearly refers to him, albeit not by name, which he was morally and legally unable to do.

Why was he morally or legally obliged to not do so. Druitt was dead then. he could not be sued. After all, even today with see a plethora of books in the public domain all purportedly identifying dead suspects for unsolved historical murders. The moral aspect was because there was probably because there was no proof or any connecting evidence other than the hearsay.

Abberline names Chapman, Littlechild names Tumblety, so there was nothing wrong in him naming that person. He chose not to do so maybe because there was nothing to even show a link to the murders?

Also, are you saying that you think the only 'evidence' against Druitt that Macnaghten possessed was some private information about what Druitt's family believed? I want to clearly establish what it is that you believe, free from any ambiguity.

Yes, exactly that that the way it reads he mentions nothing about his own personal suspicions other than to lump them all together in the original version, and use the term "more likely to have been the killer than Cutbush" Thats doesnt say much because Cutbush was a non starter other than in the press, and we know that the details of the other suspects as he described are incorrcet.

1894 version "I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer"

AV "Personally, after much careful & deliberate consideration," Nothing about investigation, or enquiries conducted, he simply considered what he
had been told

Is simply a name sufficient to categorize that person as a suspect ?

If you or any others want to continue to prop up Druitt as a suspect based on what is know then thats fine your prerogative. but at least take the blinker off and assess an evaluate all that has been said not just by me but others on here who dispute his suspect viability.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

He killed women on the streets. I can recall one of his victims that wasn’t a prostitute and there was an uproar about it but surely this can possibly be explained by suggesting the obvious - that Sutcliffe mistook that victim as a prostitute. Either way the Feigenbaum’s Murder was committed under completely different circumstances so there is no good reason to connect them. A man cutting a woman’s throat is not an individualistic murder. It’s sadly common place.

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.

And so Simply due to the fact that, in the case of Mac there is one person in the chain extra you dismiss him? How is that even on the same planet as reasonable. Feigenbaum-Lawton-Press is ok and yet Druitt family member- say, Majendie- Macnaghten is unreliable! Especially when we at least have information about Mac and Majendie. Lawton isn’t based on any evidence at all Trevor. He’s saying “”this is true because I say it is.”” There is no corroboration. He could have been lying. Feigenbaum could have been lying. It’s far less likely that Mac was or the Druitt family would.


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

Firstly, ‘so what’ and secondly does the line “not known to” mean that he didn’t. If someone carries a knife for sinister reason they hardly going go waiving it around like some demented musketeer.

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

Were talking about Jack The Ripper, not Raffles. The fact that he was a thief is as irrelevant as the fact that Druitt had no criminal record. The world is, and always has been, full of undetected criminals.

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

No one of course. But that might have been because he’d escaped detection as we know the ripper actually did. Sadly thousands of women get killed by having their throats cut but Feigenbaum killed under circumstances that in no way at all resemble the ripper murders.

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.

So we know that he was somewhere in London (which is a big place) after the ripper murders had, in all likelihood, ended. Is it possible that he could have been in London at the time? Yes it is. And so if you could prove that he was in London at the time he would become a person of interest.

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.

No Trevor. It’s obvious that Mac strongly felt that Druitt was the ripper. The chain of information weakens nothing. Why do we compare first to third hand?? For Feigenbaum it was the source to the ‘revealer (Lawton.) with Druitt it was source-link-revealer (Macnaghten.) Theres only one extra link in the chain whereas your trying to make it appear that there were two extra links.

Corroboration to Lawtons statement-No corroboration to MM

what we can say is that Sir Melville Macnaghten was a highly respected police officer with absolutely nothing to suggest that he was a liar or a fool (likewise the possible original source of his info - Majendie.) Feigenbaum was, according to you, a compulsive liar. Lawton was a Lawyer that didn’t go to the police with his info rather to the Press. He also ended up committing suicide which might suggest an imbalance. You ask why he would have gone to the police?! a) because he was a Lawyer and b) because he’d have known that the police would still be interested in the fact that the ripper was in town!

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

[B] Considerably better. He was mentioned as a likely suspect by Macnaghten and he was provably in London at the time./B]


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’ll give you “person of interest” but “very likely suspect”........not even close

[The Baron]

Macnaghten had evidence. Macnaghten is classifying Druitt as a suspect.

So is Ostrog.

Should we label any person as a Jack the ripper's suspect just because an unexperienced Officer said so?!

Even his daughter discredited his theory.



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

So is Ostrog.

Should we label any person as a Jack the ripper's suspect just because an unexperienced Officer said so?!

Even his daughter discredited his theory.



The Baron

Since when has Macnaghten’s daughter been considered an expert on the case? Can you explain her role in the investigation? Can you provide evidence that Macnaghten was in the habit of consulting his daughter or his Aunt Mabel or the man that made his shoes on any of his cases?

Macnaghten’s level of experience is irrelevant. The relevant facts are that he was in a position to have been privy to information that wasn’t available to everyone else (including us 130 years later.)

And so, yet again, we ask what evidence (and let’s face it, you keep mentioning it) do we have that Sir Melville Macnaghten was either liar or a fool? If you are suggesting that the family didn’t feel that Monty was guilty then he couldn’t have been mistaken and would have to be labelled a liar. What reason would Mac have had for falsely naming Druitt when he could have taken other far easier, less damaging to himself or his good friend, options? Would the family have been likely to lie about Monty being the ripper? No one can possibly believe that. So could Mac have been mistaken? It’s difficult/impossible to see how Mac could have gotten the wrong end of the stick here.

And so it’s an entirely reasonable position to take to say that Macnaghten, a man of apparently good character, respected by all that knew him and worked with, was in possession of evidence that led him to strongly feel that Druitt could have been the ripper.

The unreasonable position is to just assume that Macnaghten was a liar or a fool based on thin air. For the millionth time, there is no issue with someone saying “I don’t think that MJD was Jack.” Only with bloody-minded dismissal based on bias.

[Trevor Marriott]

So is Ostrog.

Should we label any person as a Jack the ripper's suspect just because an unexperienced Officer said so?!

Even his daughter discredited his theory.



The Baron

Some people are so desperate to keep the old theories alive, it amazes me, and in reality its the same ones all the time. When a challenge is made to the old accepted theories, the knives are drawn, they grind their teeth, sharpen their pens, remove the dust that has gathered in their library of ripper books that line their shelves, open up the newspaper reports file in readiness to quote from them, puff up their chests, and they are primed and ready for action, with their ammunition consisting of "What if`s" "Maybe`s" Perhaps" and "I think" never to rest until the person making that challenge has been ground down into submission.

But of course some stand their ground and will not be bullied or intimidated into backing down. I have to ask why we see so few new posters coming on here. and of those that do they very soon leave. Leaving the army of "whitewalkers" to sit back take a few more Phyllosan tablets and wait to be reborn yet again.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

But of course some stand their ground and will not be bullied or intimidated into backing down.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I thank you from the bottom of my heart for that late but welcome recognition, Trevor!