What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[PaulB]

Basically it’s in desperation GUT. I’m becoming convinced that some feel that if we stop calling Druitt a suspect he will simply fade away

Mac suspected him therefore he is a suspect. All other quibbling is entirely meaningless.

I can't believe I'm wasting my time with people who can't grasp the excrutiatingly simple concept that a suspect is a person someone has suspected. Trevor is like one of those dolls with a string in its back that recites one of half a dozen stock phrases every time you pull it - pull: 'History is there to be challenged and not readily accepted.' Pull: 'You need to take a trip to Specsavers...' Pull: 'You have your head stuck in the sand...' And on and on, until Pull: 'History is there to be challenged and not readily accepted', and the merry-go-round begins all over again. It's like a really, really bad version of Groundhog Day. You know that painting 'The Scream'? That's a painting of someone confronted with nonsense like this.

[JeffHamm]

He is mentioned in an erroneous document !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, he is mentioned in a document with errors. The vast majority of written documents will have errors. The MM was probably written based upon memory, which we know to be extremely error prone in details (as per the errors in the MM) but less so in gist (making the suspicions worth looking into from a historical perspective). The MM is not, given it's errors, sufficient to exclude all others. It is, however, all that is necessary to validate research into MJD's life. You don't have to think that he's likely to be guilty (and I don't) to still accept that he's worth looking into. I don't think "I'm right" just because I don't think MJD is guilty - prove it to me, please. A few factual errors is not proof of his innocence, it simply means he might not be guilty, but the fact he's mentioned at all proves there was, to some degree, suspicion against him. So, prove that was unfounded, or prove it wasn't. That's what I expect from all suspect based approaches, Druitt or otherwise. My own interest is more, well, boring, I'm mostly trying to figure out where the forks in the road are - how far can we get before we end up hitting the wall of unable to make a call?

- Jeff

PS. Sorry, just back from pub quizz night. We came 6th overall. Unfortunately, there were, apparently, only 6 teams.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can't believe I'm wasting my time with people who can't grasp the excrutiatingly simple concept that a suspect is a person someone has suspected. Trevor is like one of those dolls with a string in its back that recites one of half a dozen stock phrases every time you pull it - pull: 'History is there to be challenged and not readily accepted.' Pull: 'You need to take a trip to Specsavers...' Pull: 'You have your head stuck in the sand...' And on and on, until Pull: 'History is there to be challenged and not readily accepted', and the merry-go-round begins all over again. It's like a really, really bad version of Groundhog Day. You know that painting 'The Scream'? That's a painting of someone confronted with nonsense like this.

We’re down the rabbit hole Paul.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, he is mentioned in a document with errors. The vast majority of written documents will have errors. The MM was probably written based upon memory, which we know to be extremely error prone in details (as per the errors in the MM) but less so in gist (making the suspicions worth looking into from a historical perspective). The MM is not, given it's errors, sufficient to exclude all others. It is, however, all that is necessary to validate research into MJD's life. You don't have to think that he's likely to be guilty (and I don't) to still accept that he's worth looking into. I don't think "I'm right" just because I don't think MJD is guilty - prove it to me, please. A few factual errors is not proof of his innocence, it simply means he might not be guilty, but the fact he's mentioned at all proves there was, to some degree, suspicion against him. So, prove that was unfounded, or prove it wasn't. That's what I expect from all suspect based approaches, Druitt or otherwise. My own interest is more, well, boring, I'm mostly trying to figure out where the forks in the road are - how far can we get before we end up hitting the wall of unable to make a call?

- Jeff

PS. Sorry, just back from pub quizz night. We came 6th overall. Unfortunately, there were, apparently, only 6 teams.

The time to worry Jeff would have been if there were only 5 teams in it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. The vast majority of written documents will have errors.

Exactly. How many worthwhile ripper books would we have to dump if we simply went on the fact of a couple of rather insignificant errors?

[The Baron]

You don't know that.

Yes I know!

I have the words of Abberline "Absolutely Nothing"



The Baron

[JeffHamm]

The time to worry Jeff would have been if there were only 5 teams in it.

How many fingers on one hand? Did I miscount again?

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I can't believe I'm wasting my time with people who can't grasp the excrutiatingly simple concept that a suspect is a person someone has suspected. Trevor is like one of those dolls with a string in its back that recites one of half a dozen stock phrases every time you pull it - pull: 'History is there to be challenged and not readily accepted.' Pull: 'You need to take a trip to Specsavers...' Pull: 'You have your head stuck in the sand...' And on and on, until Pull: 'History is there to be challenged and not readily accepted', and the merry-go-round begins all over again. It's like a really, really bad version of Groundhog Day. You know that painting 'The Scream'? That's a painting of someone confronted with nonsense like this.

Hi Paul,

I understand your frustration. It's "reviewer 2" comments. But seriously, as I see it, this all boils down to definitions, you are insisting suspect means "those who have been suspected" and Trevor means "those form who guilt is likely", and the two definitions clash because the same word is being used for two very different concepts. Those definitions reflect very different ... "starting points"? ... in terms of backgrounds. In the end, though, it boils down to the same thing, everyone admits the MM is not gospel, it has demonstrably been proven to have factual errors. But, everyone also knows it expresses MacNaughten's beliefs, and so reflects his suspicions at the time, or to be even more cautious, what he was willing to state as his suspicions. After that, we're arguing about whether or not the word "suspect" applies, and that depends entirely on things other than the evidence we have, it depends upon the concept we hold the word "suspect" to mean. Trevor, as one example, holds it to mean something very different from what you hold it to mean. You appear to hold it to mean "one against whom suspicion has been laid", and Trevor appears to hold it to mean "one for whom guilt appears likely", and those are not the same concept. The argument reflects differences that arise from the complexity of having a common language.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes I know!

I have the words of Abberline "Absolutely Nothing"



The Baron

And what makes you think that a retired Chief Inspector had greater current knowledge than the man who was the Assistant Commissioner at the time?

If were playing the game of Ripperological Top Trumps then Mac trumps Fred every time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You appear to hold it to mean "one against whom suspicion has been laid", and Trevor appears to hold it to mean "one for whom guilt appears likely",

Perhaps Trevor should contact admin on here and the JTR Forum and get them to change the ‘suspects’ sections to the ‘persons of interest’ sections.

I think that Trevor is obfuscating and time wasting on a quibble. In terms of all of us looking at the ripper case then if someone is suspected by someone then they are a suspect. Maybrick is suspect, Sir William Gull is a suspect, Lewis Carroll is a suspect. Then we, as individuals, weigh up the available information and arrive at an opinion. It’s only those that have set there faces against Druitt as a suspect who are arguing that black is white.

[Trevor Marriott]

You don't know what the evidence was. And it is very likely that we'll never know what the evidence was. But unless Macnaghten based his suspicions on thin air, it's reasonable to conclude that evidence existed.

But you cant conclude it was evidence, it might just have been idle chit chat as I have said before, and that doesn't amount to evidence. You seem hell bent on upholding the belief that what he was told was valuable and potentially damaging evidence, and it might well have been, but again as it seems he did nothing with what he was told, or told anyone about this evidence or abiut his suspicions that might have identified the ripper we can infer that it was nothing of any consequence, because if it was we would be here discussing it in a sensible manner.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Yes I know!

I have the words of Abberline "Absolutely Nothing"



The Baron

And when did Abberline's investigation or the investigation of which he speaks take place? Did he know the information received by the police several years after mid-1889, bearing in mind that he retired two years before the memorandum was written? what evidence do you have that Macnaghten was a fool who plumped for a suspect against whom there was no evidence?

[The Baron]

what evidence do you have that Macnaghten was a fool who plumped for a suspect against whom there was no evidence?

I've told you, but you chose to ignore this, Ostrog!

Read what the historian Sugden wrote about Macnaghten suspecting Ostrog, and tell me if you can find the word Misleading somewhere.

There was absulotely nothing, and please don't tell me that you can judge and evaluate the case now better than Abberline.



The Baron

[Trevor Marriott]

I can't believe I'm wasting my time with people who can't grasp the excrutiatingly simple concept that a suspect is a person someone has suspected. Trevor is like one of those dolls with a string in its back that recites one of half a dozen stock phrases every time you pull it - pull: 'History is there to be challenged and not readily accepted.' Pull: 'You need to take a trip to Specsavers...' Pull: 'You have your head stuck in the sand...' And on and on, until Pull: 'History is there to be challenged and not readily accepted', and the merry-go-round begins all over again. It's like a really, really bad version of Groundhog Day. You know that painting 'The Scream'? That's a painting of someone confronted with nonsense like this.

and I cant understand why you cant understand just what it takes for someone to become a real suspect. You keep banging on about MM thought he was a good suspect but that was only on what he had been told, and that was the family believed him to be, he got it all indirectly which must weaken what he subsequently wrote years later.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

And when did Abberline's investigation or the investigation of which he speaks take place? Did he know the information received by the police several years after mid-1889, bearing in mind that he retired two years before the memorandum was written? what evidence do you have that Macnaghten was a fool who plumped for a suspect against whom there was no evidence?

He was a man with no police or investigative experience, his role when joining the police would not have been an investigative role, but administration as it is still the case today with officers of senior ranks. That lack of experience in policing would perhaps have made him innocently vulnerable to being fed a story and leading him to believe what he was told without question, or further investigation. In fact in the memo he makes no mention of the results of any investigations into the "suspects" he names

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk