What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course.

Druitt is the child of MacNaghten imagination.

Even those who support Druitt are using the same 'methodology' as Mac, searching rumors!


The Baron

Are you happy that you can now jump back onto Trevor’s shoulder

Again we are not using the rumour as proof of anything. We are simply saying that it is a point of interest and that rumours occasionally contain some truth.

You might now want to ask Trevor what to say next.

[Herlock Sholmes]

without corroboration totally unsafe and unreliable

Like the uncorroborated confession of a compulsive liar you mean?

[Trevor Marriott]

Like the uncorroborated confession of a compulsive liar you mean?

Grow up ! Stick to the matters being discussed

If thats all you have to put forward in your defense of The MM, then there is no hope for you.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Are you happy that you can now jump back onto Trevor’s shoulder

Again we are not using the rumour as proof of anything. We are simply saying that it is a point of interest and that rumours occasionally contain some truth.

You might now want to ask Trevor what to say next.

and a rumor is not sufficient to label a person a suspect in a murder case !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Grow up ! Stick to the matters being discussed

If thats all you have to put forward in your defense of The MM, then there is no hope for you.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There is no hope of honest discussion from someone that applies different criteria simply to suit their own argument. You have no corroboration that Feigenbaum ever made his confession to Lawton. Lawton could have been lying. Why is Lawton more believable or reliable than Macnaghten? It’s as simple as that.

[The Baron]

There is no hope of honest discussion from someone that applies different criteria simply to suit their own argument. You have no corroboration that Feigenbaum ever made his confession to Lawton. Lawton could have been lying. Why is Lawton more believable or reliable than Macnaghten? It’s as simple as that.

You don't have any proof whatsoever that Druitt ever had made a confession, nevertheless you use this to support Druitt.

Who is the one that applies different criteria here except you I wonder.

I advice you to learn from Trevor, he has better experience than you and MacNaghten, instead of your arbitrary responds to him.


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

and a rumor is not sufficient to label a person a suspect in a murder case !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No it’s not. And as I’ve explained to your parrot no one is claiming that it is. There are many rumours and stories concerning this case and so they get discussed because posters are interested in the case in broad terms and not just in terms of confirming there own suspect. Rumours can be true or false. Or they can contain a kernel of truth. And here we have a story from a Rear Admiral (not some gossiping, superstitious housewife or a pub drunk) that says that, at the time of the murders, there was talk of the ripper living in Blackheath. Why Blackheath when there was no mention of it anywhere in relation to the crimes? This is a point of interest. No one has claimed it as proof that Druitt was guilty. What we can say for certain though is that Druitt lived at Blackheath.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You don't have any proof whatsoever that Druitt ever had made a confession, nevertheless you use this to support Druitt.

Who is the one that applies different criteria here except you I wonder.

I advice you to learn from Trevor, he has better experience than you and MacNaghten, instead your arbitrary responds to him.


The Baron

More lies.

Show me the post where I have said that Druitt definitely made a confession.

If you do manage it I’ll do something that you refuse to do. Admit to being wrong. Off you go.

[PaulB]

Well, doesnt that speak volumes for suggesting that the information that MM was relying on was simply hearsay and without corroboration totally unsafe and unreliable, and proof that Druitt never found his way onto the suspect list.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No. Think about it. The file was created early in 1889, Macnaghten joined the Met in mid-1889, and Macnaghten said information implicating Druitt wasn't received until a couple of years or even several years after. So, why should Druitt's name feature in a suspects' file pre-dating suspicions against him? And we know from the few copies made by Bonner and Knight that the so-called 'suspects file' consisted of non-starter suspects, not any serious suspect, either suspected before or after mid-1889. If one were to reasonably postulate that the files on serious suspects were seperate, it could argue the opposite to what you want it to.

Anyway, until you can demonstrate that Macnaghten was the sort of man who would plump for a suspect on the basis of uncorroborated hearsay that was unreliable and therefore unsafe, I'm afraid it's a purely academic question to which any answers are wholly speculative.

[Scott Nelson]

'The Daily Express', Aug 1st 1904: --An interview with Sims :

‘... Mr. Sims said that he had not the slightest doubt in his mind as to who the “Ripper” really was. “Nor have the police”, he continued, “In the archives of the Home Office are the name and history of the wretched man. He was a mad physician belonging to a highly respected family. He committed the crimes after having been in a lunatic asylum as a homicidal maniac.”

Interesting that this description lacks the drowning in the river. I wonder if Sims had read Griffiths' 1898 book by then.

[mpriestnall]

Anyway, until you can demonstrate that Macnaghten was the sort of man who would plump for a suspect on the basis of uncorroborated hearsay that was unreliable and therefore unsafe, I'm afraid it's a purely academic question to which any answers are wholly speculative.

What evidence is there to show wasn't the sort of man who wouldn't plump for a suspect on the basis of uncorroborated heresay?

[Simon Wood]

In an interview with the Daily Express, 1st August 1904, George R. Sims said that he had not the slightest doubt in his mind as to who the Ripper really was. Nor have the police, he continued, In the archives of the Home Office are the name and history of the wretched man. He was a mad physician belonging to a highly respected family. He committed the crimes after having been in a lunatic asylum as a homicidal maniac.

A 'homicidal maniac' is a mentally unstable person who kills people. If Druitt was the person Sims was talking about, who had Druitt killed prior to his incarceration? And why wasn't he locked up permanently?

The story makes no sense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

More lies.

Show me the post where I have said that Druitt definitely made a confession.

If you do manage it I’ll do something that you refuse to do. Admit to being wrong. Off you go.

No response from Baron I see. Hardly surprising.

[PaulB]

What evidence is there to show wasn't the sort of man who wouldn't plump for a suspect on the basis of uncorroborated heresay?

We've been through that several times on this thread, but one is looking at his career for examples of him doing that, whether or not he was respected by his colleagues or had a reputation for jumping too quickly to rash conclusions; his intelligence, education, experience in and out of the job... all the usual ways we have of judging the probability of someone being informed enough to know what they're talking about. History is chock full of uncorroborated statements by people in diaries, assorted private papers, and so forth.

[Wickerman]

and a rumor is not sufficient to label a person a suspect in a murder case !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Therefore, as he was indeed labelled a suspect, by your own admission,there had to be more to the accusation.
Glad we have that sorted.