What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[PaulB]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,
Druitt is a suspect irrespective of the quality of the information available to Macnaghten. Macnaghten suspected Druitt, therefore Druitt is a suspect. It's no a complicated concept.

[The Baron]

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.

And who said that the aim of discussion was to change each others mind?!

We are presenting and discussing ideas, evidences and their quality, thats our purpose Mr Begg.

I am sure you wouldn't have written the above if you just counted to 10.


The Baron

[PaulB]

And who said that the aim of discussion was to change each others mind?!

We are presenting and discussing ideas, evidences and their quality, thats our purpose Mr Begg.

I am sure you wouldn't have written the above if you just counted to 10.


The Baron

I don't know. Who did say the aim of the discussion was to change each others mind? I didn't.

You are stating what you think, and Herlock and Jeff are stating theirs. There is little or no discussion. And, as said, there is nothing to be gained from an exchange that's going nowhere.

Druitt is not 'a clean man' just because Macnaghten destroyed his papers. If Macnaghten suspected Druitt, then Druitt is a suspect irrespective of whether we know why he was suspected or not. And there is absolutely no reason to doubt that Macnaghten suspected Druitt, so Druitt was and is a suspect. It's ridiculous to keep arguing otherwise unless you are using some specialist, jargonistic definition of 'suspect' like Harry and Trevor. If you are, then you might consider sticking to using words as they are defined by the dictionary and are commonly used by people in everyday speech. Or, establish precisely how you are defining 'suspect'. The point is that Jeff made a perfectly correct rebuttal of your one-liner statement, but if you're using a definition of 'suspect' that nobody but Harry and Trevor are using then this exchange is going to go nowhere. Until one sorts out what you and others actually mean, it seems unlikely that there is anything to be gained. I did, therefore, count to ten.

[Abby Normal]

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.

"It's history. "

exactly! and here is where a lot of the misunderstanding comes in me thinks.

[Abby Normal]

And who said that the aim of discussion was to change each others mind?!

We are presenting and discussing ideas, evidences and their quality, thats our purpose Mr Begg.

I am sure you wouldn't have written the above if you just counted to 10.


The Baron

I for one keep an open mind and thus my mind is constantly being changed about the validity of suspects. some go up, some go down-usually based on the quality of discussion, research and debate that goes on here.

[The Baron]

The point is that Jeff made a perfectly correct rebuttal of your one-liner statement, but if you're using a definition of 'suspect' that nobody but Harry and Trevor are using then this exchange is going to go nowhere.

Jeff wrote : "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."


Is that whats you call the perfect rebuttal, then Wow!! just Wow!


Do we have to lebel a person a suspect based on what we may discover in future investigations as Jeff suggested?

Or just because an unexperienced police officer who said so, and who destroyed everything related, then we have to label him a suspect?

The past informations had been destroyed, and we know its full of error quality.

The future informations haven't surfaced yet.

This is why Druitt is a clean person, not a suspect.



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I fail to see how any intelligent, knowledgable, fair-minded person could possibly, under any circumstances, dispute the contents of this post.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Ditto my previous post.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And who said that the aim of discussion was to change each others mind?!

We are presenting and discussing ideas, evidences and their quality, thats our purpose Mr Begg.

I am sure you wouldn't have written the above if you just counted to 10.


The Baron

And you should try reading your own posts Baron.

We cannot know whether Druitt was or wasn’t the ripper. Paul has simply suggested that we remain open-minded. I’m open-minded, Paul, and Wickerman are open-minded, posters that don’t feel that Druitt is a good suspect like Jeff, Sam and Abby are open-minded. Someone that says that Druitt should simply be dismissed is not being open-minded. It’s very simple.

You should read again Paul’s post on the pitfalls of treating this case as if we are hunting an active serial killer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Jeff wrote : "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."


Is that whats you call the perfect rebuttal, then Wow!! just Wow!


Do we have to lebel a person a suspect based on what we may discover in future investigations as Jeff suggested?

Or just because an unexperienced police officer who said so, and who destroyed everything related, then we have to label him a suspect?

The past informations had been destroyed, and we know its full of error quality.

The future informations haven't surfaced yet.

This is why Druitt is a clean person, not a suspect.



The Baron

. This is why Druitt is a clean person, not a suspect.

Sir Melville disagrees with you and he was there at the time.

Or just because an unexperienced police officer who said so, and who destroyed everything related, then we have to label him a suspect?

Yes.....that’s exactly the case.


You’re simply wasting everyone’s time. It’s impossible to be this ignorant. You’re points are childish and overly simplistic. Laughable in fact.

Sir Melville Macnaghten named Montague John Druitt as a likely suspect. He said that he had evidence for this at the time. This is all that we need to know to consider Montague John Druitt a suspect. It doesn’t mean that he was the ripper but it does mean that Mac felt that he was. You really can witter on as much as you like but you are categorically wrong. A child could understand this and I’m beginning to think that you do understand but just want to continue being an irrelevant annoyance. No one could be this dense.

Its a complete waste of time discussing the case with you.

[The Baron]

Mr Begg want us to deal with the case using different criterias, to be gentle with an evidence if it was historical, and not beating it to death like 21th century investigations!

Are we helping history by convicting or labeling a peron a suspect of murders based on weak indications just because they are of a historical value?

Macnaghten suspected Ostrog, according to your arguments, Ostrog will remain forever a suspect, just because the armchair officer said so!


This is not an antiquarian!


The Baron

[The Baron]

Sir Melville Macnaghten named Montague John Druitt as a likely suspect. He said that he had evidence for this at the time.

Wrong again! You realy need to read more about Druitt Herlock!

Macnaghten said : No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer; many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one. I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders:


Read again Herlock, its better than: (I wish I haven't said that)



The Baron

[PaulB]

Mr Begg want us to deal with the case using different criterias, to be gentle with an evidence if it was historical, and not beating it to death like 21th century investigations!

Are we helping history by convicting or labeling a peron a suspect of murders based on weak indications just because they are of a historical value?

Macnaghten suspected Ostrog, according to your arguments, Ostrog will remain forever a suspect, just because the armchair officer said so!


This is not an antiquarian!


The Baron

No. I said you should establish the terminology you are using. You are grossly misrepresenting what I said.

Nobody is convicting anyone, and Macnaghten has already labelled Druitt a suspect according to how most people understand 'suspect' to mean.

Macnaghten said Ostrog was a suspect, he didn't say he suspected him. And if someone suspected Ostrog, he was a suspect. That's not my argument, by the way. That's what 'suspect' means.

Try addressing the point made.

[PaulB]

Jeff wrote : "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."


Is that whats you call the perfect rebuttal, then Wow!! just Wow!


Do we have to lebel a person a suspect based on what we may discover in future investigations as Jeff suggested?

Or just because an unexperienced police officer who said so, and who destroyed everything related, then we have to label him a suspect?

The past informations had been destroyed, and we know its full of error quality.

The future informations haven't surfaced yet.

This is why Druitt is a clean person, not a suspect.



The Baron

The dictionary defines a suspect as someone who is suspected. Druitt was suspected. If you have a different definition of 'suspect', as you obviously do, then give it. Then we'll all know what you mean.

[Trevor Marriott]

"It's history. "

exactly! and here is where a lot of the misunderstanding comes in me thinks.

Yes and history is there to be challenged, and not readily accepted as being the truth !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk