What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Wickerman]

Thats why we cannot grant Druitt the suspect status based on the MM.

The Baron

You're just a little too late, that train left the station a 125 years ago.

[PaulB]

Because Herlock intoduced the School element, which Macnagten didn't know since he thought Druitt was a doctor.

So the first meaning of 'his People' as his family is the logical one.


The Baron

That doesn't answer my question. Don't you think Herlock simply meant by 'his people' that Macnaghten was the referring to the people with whom Druitt was living?

[PaulB]

What I have written,in no way implies I believe MM was lying.It is simply that the information he writes of does not make Druitt a suspect.It is hearsay,and only suggests a family belief of guilt.Further there is no information that the family's belief was investigated and proven to be fact,so as evidence against Druitt it is wortless.In no other way can Druitt be associated with the Ripper murders,on the basis of information,so no matter how much interest is shown in the MM memorandum,it contains no proof Druitt killed anyone.
I wasn't aware that one persons alledged knowledge and superiority over that of another person was a deciding factor,Herlock,in a case where that superiority is not proven.
So you see,proof does mean something.There is a need for it.

Harry,
How do you define 'suspect'?

A suspect is someone on whom suspicion has fallen. Macnaghten clearly suspected Druitt (his suspicions amounting to near certainty) and so, apparently, did Druitt's family. If a suspect is someone on whom suspicion has fallen, Druitt is obviously a suspect. Whether he was or was not a good suspect is another matter. In the case of Druitt, we don't have the remotest idea of the evidence on which Macnaghten and Druitt's family based their suspicions and beliefs, so how can you so confidently declare is it worthless?

[Trevor Marriott]

Harry,
How do you define 'suspect'?

A suspect is someone on whom suspicion has fallen. Macnaghten clearly suspected Druitt (his suspicions amounting to near certainty) and so, apparently, did Druitt's family. If a suspect is someone on whom suspicion has fallen, Druitt is obviously a suspect. Whether he was or was not a good suspect is another matter. In the case of Druitt, we don't have the remotest idea of the evidence on which Macnaghten and Druitt's family based their suspicions and beliefs, so how can you so confidently declare is it worthless?

Because the information is not known, to be able to asses whether it was, or is good enough to label Druitt a suspect.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Exactly Trevor.
Technically,in a murder case, a person can only be classified a suspect by a police officer,or by a person authorised to do so.
In the case of Druitt,it is the information supplied by MM that is questionable.At it's best,it is clearly hearsay.It may point in a direction where it might be proven to be of value,the family,but in no way does it suggest such proof was gained.

[harry]

Of course,if you adopt the schoolboy claim of mine is bigger or better than yours,everything becomes evidence.

[GUT]

Exactly Trevor.
Technically,in a murder case, a person can only be classified a suspect by a police officer,or by a person authorised to do so.
In the case of Druitt,it is the information supplied by MM that is questionable.At it's best,it is clearly hearsay.It may point in a direction where it might be proven to be of value,the family,but in no way does it suggest such proof was gained.

But MM was a police officer and classified Druitt as a suspect, so I don’t get your point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Actually, Herlock, it's a fair bet that he didn't. Otherwise, why "said to be a doctor" and not "was a lawyer/teacher"?

Fair point of course Sam. I posted in haste. Unlike Baron, I’ll admit to an error.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But MM was a police officer and classified Druitt as a suspect, so I don’t get your point.

That’s because there really isn’t one GUT.

The fact that Mac said that Druitt was likely suspect and that he’d received information that he was guilty is all we need to say that Druitt has to be considered a suspect. Everything else is blather. And in some cases, blatantly dishonest blather.

As Paul has said, of course this doesn’t mean that Druitt had to have been the ripper. If he wasn’t then either Mac lied, the person giving him the info lied or either party misinterpreted the facts to arrive at the erroneous conclusion that Monty was guilty.

This leaves questions:

Why would Mac lie when he could have chosen from any number of dead or incarcerated criminals or lunatics to add to his 2 suspects on the MM?

Why would a third party make up a horrible lie about Monty and why would an intelligent, educated (and from all the available evidence) decent man like Macnaghten believe the drivel?

Why would a family member make up a lie about Monty being the ripper and so connect a respectable family to the name of the most loathed man in the country?

What information could possibly have been misinterpreted by the family or associates and had led them to believe that Monty was the ripper? And why would Mac believe something so tenuous and baseless?

These explanations shouldn’t satisfy anyone.

Therefore it is a reasonable suggestion that Sir Melville Macnaghten had indeed received very convincing evidence that Druitt was the ripper. Otherwise he wouldn’t have mentioned him in his Memorandum. Simples.

[The Baron]

You're just a little too late, that train left the station a 125 years ago.

Wrong.

Macnaghten destroyed his "private information" that led him to suspect Druitt, and by doing that he destroyed the Druitt-suspect-status forever, he is a clean man !!!



The Baron

[PaulB]

Exactly Trevor.
Technically,in a murder case, a person can only be classified a suspect by a police officer,or by a person authorised to do so.
In the case of Druitt,it is the information supplied by MM that is questionable.At it's best,it is clearly hearsay.It may point in a direction where it might be proven to be of value,the family,but in no way does it suggest such proof was gained.

Ah, but we're not using legal or police terminologies and definitions. That's jargon; and jargon often has different meanings to the way the words are otherwise used. In the everyday world a suspect is someone of whom suspicion has fallen. Suspicion fell on Druitt, ergo he is a suspect.

And this isn't a murder investigation, it's an investigation of events that happened over 130 years ago. It's history. Expectations are different. Different rules apply. The quality of evidence often isn't and, indeed, cannot possibly be as rigorous as required in a 21st century court of law. It is hugely important to understanding how past events are approached and treated, what professionals do. It's as wrong to apply legal and police terminologies and requirements to historical events as it would be to put a historian in charge of a modern police investigation.

Macnaghten's evidence isn't 'clearly' hearsay because you don't know what it was, so nothing about it is clear. But even if it was hearsay, that doesn't mean it was valueless. In a court of law, maybe, but in history it isn't. An awful lot of history is hearsay. A lot of the historical sources we have were written long after the events they describe and what they tell us frequently lacks independent corroboration, but they're all we have and historians do the very best they can with them, but it would all be dismissed as worthless by you and Trevor because it is hearsay and doesn't fit your modern, police-orientated expectations of what evidence should be.

A suspect is someone or something on whom or on which suspicion has fallen. That's the everyday meaning of what Druitt was and is.

[PaulB]

Wrong.

Macnaghten destroyed his "private information" that led him to suspect Druitt, and by doing that he destroyed the Druitt-suspect-status forever, he is a clean man !!!



The Baron

By what criteria do you make that claim? Macnaghten suspected Druitt. Druitt is therefore a suspect. If we possessed Macnaghten's papers we might be able to evaluate the evidence upon which Macnaghten based his conclusion, and we might conclude that it wasn't very good evidence, but that wouldn't alter the fact that Macnaghten suspected Druitt.

[JeffHamm]

Wrong.

Macnaghten destroyed his "private information" that led him to suspect Druitt, and by doing that he destroyed the Druitt-suspect-status forever, he is a clean man !!!



The Baron

No, that means research into Druitt's life is necessary to determine if any evidence can be found to corroborate MacNaughton's suspicions of his preferred listed suspect. He indicates he had "private information" that lead him to believe Druitt's family had suspicions against him. Therefore, researching into Druitt's life has the potential for uncovering evidence as to the basis of those suspicions, and, if Druitt were the ripper, the potential to uncover independent evidence that leads to that conclusion. So far, in my view, the research has not done this, and what has been uncovered, such as his cricket matches, tends to suggest the suspicions were erroneous. However, as there are still windows of time available, the investigation is not yet closed because his guilt or innocence has not been proven conclusively. With JtR, there are lots of "suspects", so for those who wish to investigate different lines of investigation that they feel may be more successful then there is certainly no lack of options. But just because Druitt isn't somebody's preferred line of investigation doesn't make it unworthy of being investigated.

- Jeff

[PaulB]

No, that means research into Druitt's life is necessary to determine if any evidence can be found to corroborate MacNaughton's suspicions of his preferred listed suspect. He indicates he had "private information" that lead him to believe Druitt's family had suspicions against him. Therefore, researching into Druitt's life has the potential for uncovering evidence as to the basis of those suspicions, and, if Druitt were the ripper, the potential to uncover independent evidence that leads to that conclusion. So far, in my view, the research has not done this, and what has been uncovered, such as his cricket matches, tends to suggest the suspicions were erroneous. However, as there are still windows of time available, the investigation is not yet closed because his guilt or innocence has not been proven conclusively. With JtR, there are lots of "suspects", so for those who wish to investigate different lines of investigation that they feel may be more successful then there is certainly no lack of options. But just because Druitt isn't somebody's preferred line of investigation doesn't make it unworthy of being investigated.

- Jeff

Correct. Obviously. But there appear to be some people who don't want Druitt to be or even be considered to be Jack the Ripper, and some people who keep an open mind and try to discuss and evaluate the evidence, such as it is. There is nothing to be gained by trying to discuss the case with those who have already made up their mind, for whatever reason they have done so. Like Herlock, I suspect you are going to be hitting your head against a brick wall.

[PaulB]

Of course,if you adopt the schoolboy claim of mine is bigger or better than yours,everything becomes evidence.

i have no idea what you mean by that.