What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[JeffHamm]

Right, but all of them killed themselves after prolonged suffering. That is normally what leads people to the ultimate solution.
With Montie, we have no idea that he suffered from any mental illness.
All we have with Montie is this idea that he suddenly decided to kill himself, people don't normally just decide to kill themselves.
Either, considerably more was going on with Montie in his personal life (pain, suffering, dementia?), or the whole idea is a sham.

Pure speculation, of course, but MJD could easily have been suffering from depression. He could keep up outward appearances, etc, it wouldn't result in bizarre behaviour, and so forth, but it might lead him to suicide. The negative thoughts towards himself (end up like mother), could easily reflect the negative thoughts one with depression might have. His successful functioning in court seems to rule out any sort of psychotic break. He could appear to function quite well, despite a serious depressive episode that led to his taking his own life.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

Anyway, who first set in stone that the C5 were victims of a serial killer?

Simon

Doctor Thomas Bond on 10 Nov. 1888.

"1. All five murders were no doubt committed by the same hand". (ie; Bucks Row, Hanbury Street, Berner Street, Mitre Square, Dorset Street).

[GUT]

Druitt's family didn't know much about his movements, he was absent from his room for more than a week and his brother didn't know until someone told him so. He didn't even know his brother was dismissed from school, furthermore he said he had no other relative.

How could they suspect him being the ripper then?!

There is no base for such a claim.


The Baron

Well if the North Country Vicar is talking about Druitt he could have confessed to one of his clergy relatives. Who was bound by confidentiality till after Montie died or released him from his confidentiality requirements.

pretty logical explanation I’d think, may not be right but at least a perfectly acceptable answer to your question.

[Wickerman]

Druitt's family didn't know much about his movements, he was absent from his room for more than a week and his brother didn't know until someone told him so. He didn't even know his brother was dismissed from school, furthermore he said he had no other relative.

How could they suspect him being the ripper then?!

There is no base for such a claim.


The Baron

You don't remember Montie spent some time with William in Bournemouth at the end of October 1888.
Who knows what Montie may have let slip, or what he may have alluded to, if anything.

[The Baron]

Doctor Thomas Bond on 10 Nov. 1888.

"1. All five murders were no doubt committed by the same hand". (ie; Bucks Row, Hanbury Street, Berner Street, Mitre Square, Dorset Street).

Since you've mentioned Dr. Bond then add to them McKenzie. or?!


The Baron

[The Baron]

You don't remember Montie spent some time with William in Bournemouth at the end of October 1888.
Who knows what Montie may have let slip, or what he may have alluded to, if anything.

So, it gets back to the confession theory.

Montie tells William that he is Jack the Ripper.

William doesn't do anything serious.

Montie strikes again in November.

William doesn't move a thing.

Then they pick Montie from the Thames.

William thinks, it is better to tell someone that he was the Ripper!


Not Bad, well done William, the family is proud of you!

The Ripper strikes again in June!

William thinks, was he really the ripper?! of course he was, my brother is without any doubt the ripper, this is just a copycat!


The Baron

[harry]

It is quite evident that MM was focussed on the Sunday paper article and on Cutbush,and that the other three named persons were included in an attempt to show the weakness of the case against Cutbush.
'A much more rationable and workable theory to my way of thinking',appears to indicate MM was not relying on evidence gathered from an investigation.If it was,I would have expected MM to have said so.
'From private information I have little doubt but that his own family suspected this man of being the Whitechapel murderer; It was alledged that he was sexually insane' So it was private information and not the results of an investigation that MM was quoting,and the suspicion of being the murderer was held by the family only.
That is the only information I can find in the memorandem that links Druitt in any way,as of being of interest,and that interest was limited,it does not show a general police interest or involvement.

[Simon Wood]

The Sun's six-part story ran between Tuesday 13th and Monday 19th February 1894.

The Sun concluded— ——-

“"We understand that the attention of the highest police authorities has been called to our statements, and we confidently look forward to our story being subjected to the closest and most searching investigation.”"

Of course they did.

[John G]

Is there any evidence that he did rent a room? ....

What type of evidence would you expect to see?
He isn't likely to make a record of it in some diary, neither is he likely to discuss living among the dregs of humanity with his siblings. If we are going to ask for evidence, there must be some reasonable expectation behind the request.

Couldn't it be quite reasonably argued that a killer of strangers might rent a room because he knows his presence would be hard to trace?

[/QUOTE]

But you could make that argument against any suspect. For instance, James Kelly was on the run from Broadmoor, and was familiar with the East End of London, so Whitechapel would have been an obvious place for him to hide out.

The reality is: Druitt had no known association with Whitechapel. Therefore any suggestion that he rented roons in the area is highly speculative.

Furthermore, there can be no doubt that the killer was psychologically committed to the local area. He didn't even extend the tiny geographical area where he was active, even when it would have made sense to do so, i.e. on account of the greatly increased police presence. Why then would a man like Druitt, who had no known association to Whitechapel, and who could easily have targeted victims over a much wider area, be so committed to the location?

[Phil Carter]

Quite embarrassingly I admit McCormick's book was the first Ripper book I ever read. From a factual basis it ranks among the worst.
It wouldn't be wise to use any uncorroborated stories only found in his book as the basis for an argument. The whole thing is best ignored from a researchers point of view.
Maybe this is why you had no replies.

Hello Jon,

Thank you at least for replying.

It still doesn't answer the questions asked.

Who was this London doctor,
And where does McCormick derive the Karminski name from in the first place?

I've a reason for asking both questions. That's why I'm asking them.


Phil

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, it gets back to the confession theory.

No one is suggesting any certainties here Baron. We discuss possibilities in the absence of knowing for certain and this isn’t something that we do for Druitt alone, we do it with all suspects.

Montie tells William that he is Jack the Ripper.

He might have done. He might not have done. There might have been something that Monty said that made him suspect. There might have been something about his behaviour that made William suspicious. He might have found something among Monty’s possessions that made him suspect. These are just possibilities.

William doesn't do anything serious.

It’s not unusual for someone to have a suspicion but there isn’t enough to make them certain. This can be especially true of a brother as no brother would want to believe the worst.

Montie strikes again in November.

Possibly or possibly he wasn’t guilty.

William doesn't move a thing.

For William to have done something the strength of his suspicion that Monty was the ripper would have had to have increased for some reason. The fact that there was another murder wouldn’t have done that as William obviously knew that the ripper existed. He just couldn’t have been sure that the ripper was his brother.

Then they pick Montie from the Thames.

Yes

William thinks, it is better to tell someone that he was the Ripper!

If the information did come from William we cannot know at what point he told someone. It’s possible that he only became certain that his brother was guilty after he’d searched his possessions at the school. He may have found the knife for example.

Not Bad, well done William, the family is proud of you!

In the circumstances quoted above William did absolutely nothing wrong. Any brother would be reluctant to believe the worst and would need proof and not just a suspicion and if that proof didn’t surface until after Monty was dead then he can’t be blamed for that. How proud of him do you think that the family would have been if he’d have gone to the police and had Monty arrested and then found that Monty wasn’t the ripper?

The Ripper strikes again in June!

And this is one of the problems with you Baron. How many times do I have to explain this? We cannot know for certain that Mackenzie was a ripper was a ripper victim. Some think that she was. I’d say that even more think that she wasn’t. The only thing that we can be certain of is the fact that you cannot use an unknown to disprove something. There is no logic in this approach

William thinks, was he really the ripper?! of course he was, my brother is without any doubt the ripper, this is just a copycat!

I’ll keep this simple. If, for example, William had found proof that Monty was the ripper amongst his possessions (a bloodied knife, a written confession, who knows?) then he would indeed have known that Monty had killed some women. The fact that another murder occurred would have been irrelevant. It wouldn’t have changed the value of the evidence that William possessed. Your point is without value.


The Baron

You’re approach to ripperology appears to be that you look at some aspect of the case, form an opinion and then defend it at all costs. No matter what points are put to you, no matter how obvious and demonstrable they are you feel the need to argue that black is white. Most people arrive at their opinions by a long process of reading, analysing, discussing with others and looking at their points of view. Opinions can change over time, especially if new evidence emerges. Rigid thinking really will get you nowhere. Accepting that you might be wrong would be a start. Or even admitting when you’ve made a mistake.

[PaulB]

Hello Jon,

Thank you at least for replying.

It still doesn't answer the questions asked.

Who was this London doctor,
And where does McCormick derive the Karminski name from in the first place?

I've a reason for asking both questions. That's why I'm asking them.


Phil

Phil,
Your posts for some reason passed me by. Efforts were indeed made to find out McCormick's sources, but he stated that his papers had been destroyed. He was too ill to be pressed on the matter.

The identity of the doctor is therefore unknown, but has all the hallmarks being invented. As for the claim that the police told Albert Bachert the Ripper was dead, drowned in the Thames, there is no evidence that this is true and appears to be McCormick's invention. Lots of searches have been done in the newspapers and loads of Bachert claims have been found, not one of which so much as hints at Bachert having been told anything. Furthermore, Bachert said that the Vigilance Committee remained in force until late in 1889, which means it was not disbanded on receipt of police assurances at the start of the year that the Ripper was dead.

[The Baron]

You’re approach to ripperology appears to be that you look at some aspect of the case, form an opinion and then defend it at all costs. No matter what points are put to you, no matter how obvious and demonstrable they are you feel the need to argue that black is white. Most people arrive at their opinions by a long process of reading, analysing, discussing with others and looking at their points of view. Opinions can change over time, especially if new evidence emerges. Rigid thinking really will get you nowhere. Accepting that you might be wrong would be a start. Or even admitting when you’ve made a mistake.

This is why I always disagree with you Herlock, your arguments are not consistent.

If you look back and read your replay, you have started by saying: It’s not unusual for someone to have a suspicion but there isn’t enough to make them certain.

Then, towards the end, and when you have to deal with the McKenzie problem, you say: It wouldn’t have changed the value of the evidence that William possessed


See what I mean?!

"You’re approach to ripperology appears to be that you look at some aspect of the case, form an opinion and then defend it at all costs."


Are you sure you are not describing yourself here Herlock?!

I wish you give more thoughts to the ideas arise, before you rush to give arbitrary respond.


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is why I always disagree with you Herlock, your arguments are not consistent.

If you look back and read your replay, you have started by saying: It’s not unusual for someone to have a suspicion but there isn’t enough to make them certain.

Then, towards the end, and when you have to deal with the McKenzie problem, you say: It wouldn’t have changed the value of the evidence that William possessed


See what I mean?!

"You’re approach to ripperology appears to be that you look at some aspect of the case, form an opinion and then defend it at all costs."


Are you sure you are not describing yourself here Herlock?!

I wish you give more thoughts to the ideas arise, before you rush to give arbitrary respond.


The Baron

The reason that we keep disagreeing Baron is because you won’t even accept things as possible when they obviously are.

And in the post above I just can’t understand how you can be misunderstanding what I’m saying.

If you look back and read your replay, you have started by saying: It’s not unusual for someone to have a suspicion but there isn’t enough to make them certain.

Which is a perfectly reasonable statement.

. Then, towards the end, and when you have to deal with the McKenzie problem, you say: [B]It wouldn’t have changed the value of the evidence that William possessed

Another perfectly reasonably statement. What I was saying was that if William had discovered evidence that categorically proved that Monty was the ripper (say he found a bloody knife, some women’s items and a note confessing to the murders) then the Mackenzie murder wouldn’t have changed the value of his evidence. His opinion would simply have been “well I know that Monty was the ripper because I have this evidence plus his confession so the murder of Alice Mackenzie was simply a murder by someone else.”

I really don’t see how this is difficult to grasp Baron. Ask anyone.

[Phil Carter]

Phil,
Your posts for some reason passed me by. Efforts were indeed made to find out McCormick's sources, but he stated that his papers had been destroyed. He was too ill to be pressed on the matter.

The identity of the doctor is therefore unknown, but has all the hallmarks being invented. As for the claim that the police told Albert Bachert the Ripper was dead, drowned in the Thames, there is no evidence that this is true and appears to be McCormick's invention. Lots of searches have been done in the newspapers and loads of Bachert claims have been found, not one of which so much as hints at Bachert having been told anything. Furthermore, Bachert said that the Vigilance Committee remained in force until late in 1889, which means it was not disbanded on receipt of police assurances at the start of the year that the Ripper was dead.

Hello Paul

Thank you for your reply. Appreciated.
Yes, I feared as much re the London Doctor, and suspected as much re Bachert. Thank you for the confirmation.

You did not however answer the last question.
From where does the name Karmonski derive?

I believe, forgive my absent minded memory, that I've seen this name mentioned elsewhere re the memoranda? I may be wrong.
I note the spelling.. With an R on it, not Kaminski


Phil