What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[harry]

If for instance Paul,information was given to Trevor that I had suspicions that you had lied on a number of occasions,and Trevor indicated he believed I was genuine in my suspicions, would that make you a liar?Would it be sufficient to even brand you a liar suspect? Now there is no jargon associated with what I have written here.Then consider that these words were discussed a hundred and thirty years in the future when none of us were around to answer for what is written.Would you be happy to be remembered as a liar or suspected liar?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I believe it unwise to to interpret a dictionary's definition as referring to all situations, and I do not believe the publishers meant it to be so.Suspicion is a belief that a certain situation might exist.In a case of murder, where suspicion is directed at a certain individual,and by individuals other than police,and the law stipulates only police are empowered to investigate,it is even more important that we accept police evidence as a guide,and respect their way of defining suspect as the proper way.
From experience,I do not believe any law enforcement body would declare a person as suspect on suspicion alone.Only after investigation,and that suspicion being proven,would the term suspect be used.So often suspicion,after investigation,is found to be groundless.So Druitt,in my view,is not a suspect.

So the we are wrong to use a dictionary to find a definition? The fact that a statement refers to all situations is irrelevant I’m afraid. If you look for the definition for the noun ‘favourite’ for example it won’t talk of various situations where favourite would be applicable. It would be a general definition. If ‘suspect’ is defined as ‘one who is suspected’ then that’s good enough. Unless we want to add the variant Police Suspect (which at one time would have included Pizer and Issenschmidt.)

Otherwise If we decide to apply likelihood to whether we label someone a suspect we have more problems. As there’s no real evidence against any suspect it’s down to the individuals interpretation of what we know or think that we might know. So who is to be the arbiter of that Harry?

Much simpler to say that someone is a suspect if he’s suspected by someone.

And I’m sorry but the only reason that so much time has been wasted on this trivial point is due to a concerted effort to ‘demote’ and sideline Druitt.

[Sam Flynn]

I do not dispute MM received information. It is the quality of information that he allegedly received which is under scrutiny

That's fine, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a suspect, at least in the eyes of Macnaghten and his informant(s), or any subsequent advocate of Druitt's candidature.

I still suggest that the hearsay information he obtained was exacly as he penned it in the memo, and he clearly did not do any specific research into it because of all the things about Druitt that he wrote which were wrong.

I incline to the same belief, for what it's worth, but that doesn't mean I don't consider Druitt a suspect. He just is, however ropy the case against him may be.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE]. Just catching up on this tedious board. This is in response to RJ Palmer’s post #1665 (which, if you can believe it, is a response to my post #481.)
[QUOTE]

Just a response on this tedious board to an arrogant poster. Here’s a suggestion - if you find it tedious don’t bother wasting time posting two lengthy posts that try and show that Abberline was more reliable than Macnaghten.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
But Feigenbaum never confessed to any murder or murders to Lawton.

Never said that he did.

What did Feigenbaum lie about?

Never said that he did. Just that a compulsive liars words shouldn’t be trusted unless they can be proved. Why should we trust that he had those impulses - he might have lied - Lawton might have lied. You give more of a benefit of doubt to Lawton and Feigenbaum than you do to Macnaghten.

What do you say nver took place?

As we only have Lawtons word for it we cannot be certain that the conversation that revealed CF impulses ever took place.

Lawtons statement regarding the murders in Wisconsin is confirmed by the fact that there were two murders in Wisconsin

I never doubted that there were murders in Wisconsin.

Lawton states Feigenbaum was a sailor, that is corroborated

And?

Where in Lawtons statement does it show Feigenbaum lied?

You intentionally misunderstand. You called him a compulsive liar and yet you take him to have been honest. His story about murderous urges might have been a fabrication by himself or Lawton.

Lawton in his statement invited the police to investigate Feigenbaums movements

Not directly. Via the press.

. There is more evidential facts against Feigenbaum than any other suspect albeit mainly circumstantial

Good one.

MM it seems did sweet FA with his "private information" other than get all the details of his "suspect" Druitt totally wrong. It would seem that this private information was the same information he was give in the first instance which he transferred to his memo, If so its unrelaible !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

‘He put it into a Memorandum to his superiors

.
And of course the fact that his body was found in Chiswick miles from any of his other addresses, and the house of homosexual activity referred to is also in Chiswick, makes you wonder.

Doesnt make me wonder apart from the desperate lengths that some will go to to eliminate Druitt and promote their own suspect.

[The Baron]

Thanks harry.

The Baron

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n710068][QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n710046



Never said that he did.



Never said that he did. Just that a compulsive liars words shouldn’t be trusted unless they can be proved. Why should we trust that he had those impulses - he might have lied - Lawton might have lied. You give more of a benefit of doubt to Lawton and Feigenbaum than you do to Macnaghten.



As we only have Lawtons word for it we cannot be certain that the conversation that revealed CF impulses ever took place.



I never doubted that there were murders in Wisconsin.



And?



You intentionally misunderstand. You called him a compulsive liar and yet you take him to have been honest. His story about murderous urges might have been a fabrication by himself or Lawton.



Not directly. Via the press.



Good one.



‘He put it into a Memorandum to his superiors



Doesnt make me wonder apart from the desperate lengths that some will go to to eliminate Druitt and promote their own suspect.

[/QUOTE]

No one is doing that, all that is happening is that Druitts suspect status is being discussed. It is you that have side tracked this thread by bringing Feigenbaum into it. I dont know why admin have allowed your off topic delusional ramblings to continue.

Did it ever get to his superiors ?

Now I would suggest you go away and come back when you have some corroboration to your misguided faith in MM and his unsafe and unreliable memo

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[rjpalmer]

Hi Wolf - I’m always impressed by your rhetorical style. Either accuse your opponent of dishonesty, or imply they are accusing someone else of dishonesty. It seldom varies.

Climb down off your high horse, old boy, and I'’ll explain it to you once again.

Unless you think Abberline was lying about this?

Don’t be ridiculous, Wolf. That’s your schtick, not mine. I’'m suggesting the opposite: Abberline'’s fundamental honesty is precisely what makes his statement in the PMG problematic. If he is being honest (and I think he is) then we must explain his ignorance. For ignorant he appears to be.

I'’ll go slowly so you can comprehend.

If Abberline is referring to the Macnaghten Memo, as you claim, (and, once again, this was not filed until 2 years AFTER his retirement) then you must be claiming he is being dishonest. Why? Think it through.


"Yes," said Mr. Abberline, "I know all about that story… but there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him.”

O really? Absolutely nothing beyond the fact he was found drowned?

Is that an honest and fair rendition of the Macnaghten memo from an informed source?


Of course it isn’t.

The timing of Druitt’'s drowning was merely one facet of Macnaghten'’s theory. The memo also refers to “private information.” It refers to the suspicions of Druitt’'s family. It refers to allegations of “sexual insanity.”

It doesn’t matter if we ultimately accept these claims or not. Macnaghten apparently did.

Either Inspector Abberline is seriously misreporting what was in the memo, or he has never read it to begin with!

Unlike you, Wolf, I’m willing to give the old Inspector the benefit of the doubt. I’m not convinced he ever read it. I think it is possible Abberline has misunderstood Sims and is thinking of a different report.

From Abberline'’s vantage point he undoubtedly felt he was in close contact with Scotland Yard. Yet, as Paul B noted earlier, he also seems to be seriously undervaluing the “lunatic in the asylum” theory, which is odd—considering the memo mentions TWO lunatics in asylums, (three if we count Ostrog, but that wouldn’t be known until later) and we know from other sources that Anderson and Swanson seemed to believe the ‘caged’ lunatic was the genuine solution to the case.

That alone puts in jeopardy your claim that Abberline’'s thumb is firmly on the pulse of the opinions of his fellow officers. Not everyone could have known everything. The investigation was very broad.

So, you see, Wolf, in a sense you’re the one implying that Fred is telling porkies. Your implying he has read the memo and is misstating its opinions.

By contrast, I believe Abberline is being honest. To reconcile his apparent ignorance of the memo, and particularly the full thrust of the Druitt theory (which he seems to know nothing about!) we must at least be willing to ENTERTAIN the possibility that his wires are crossed, he has misunderstood Sims reference to the “Police Commissioners’ Report” (sic), and is referring to something entirely different, something that was actually filed when he was at Scotland Yard, 1888-1892.

For instance, a list of suicides, compiled in early 1889.

It’s pretty simple:

Just because Sims is referring to Macnagten’s memo, doesn’t mean Abberline is.

Elsewhere Simon suggests that since both Sims and Abberline refer to a “drowned doctor” this proves the common source. Maybe, but I am not entirely convinced. There are other explanations. Jon Smyth wonders if there was another drowning and a resulting confusion; I suggest the alternative theory that after 15 long years, Sims’ statement has simply led Abberline’s memory astray and he no longer remembers the profession of the 1888 suicide, and just goes along with it being a “doctor,” as stated in the recent newspaper column.

Did Abberline, on retirement, just walk out the door of Scotland Yard never to see or talk to his old friends and colleagues again? Never to discuss old cases or new information regarding those cases?

Having a glass of ale and talking shop with your old comrades is a far cry from being privy to internal memos sent to the Home Office after one’s retirement. I still visit my old boss and go to his barbeques. He doesn’t find it necessary to send me confidential memos meant for the Corporate Headquarters! There was no need for Abberline, a retired officer, to be briefed about a flap involving The Sun. Your suggestion doesn't have a heck of a lot of merit.

I have no idea why he said that the report was made by the Commissioners of Police

I gathered as much.

[rjpalmer]

As intimate as Wolf suggests Abberline was with the theories of his cronies at Scotland Yard, they do not appear to have reciprocated, for they entirely ignored his Klosowski suggestion. Fred Abberline vigorously promoted the Poisoning Pole in the PMG on March 31^st; Klosowski is hanged by the neck a week later, April 8^th, never seriously investigated as Jack the Ripper.

Why might that be?

Nor does Abberline appear to have tempted Swanson, Macnaghten, Littlechild, Anderson, or Sagar over at The City away from their own thoughts and theories. After 1903, not one of them appears to have believed Klosowski was the Ripper.

[PaulB]

If for instance Paul,information was given to Trevor that I had suspicions that you had lied on a number of occasions,and Trevor indicated he believed I was genuine in my suspicions, would that make you a liar?Would it be sufficient to even brand you a liar suspect? Now there is no jargon associated with what I have written here.Then consider that these words were discussed a hundred and thirty years in the future when none of us were around to answer for what is written.Would you be happy to be remembered as a liar or suspected liar?

Harry,
If you had suspicions that I had lied on a number of occasions, that would make me a suspect wouldn't it?

The rest of what you write wouldn't alter that, but would have a bearing on how much value people put in your word and Trevor's. If you knew me well, if you were in a position to know whether I was generally honest or not, and if there was no reason to suppose you were lying, and if Trevor was a responsible person who was capable of assessing your seriousness, then why wouldn't people put credence to what you said?

Some people might believe you, some might disbelieve you, but the majority would hopefully take the middle road and reserve judgement for lack of evidence (because they didn't know your reasons for calling me a liar). But I would still be a suspected liar.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,
Just a passing thought: you brought up Lawton to draw a comparison with accepting an uncorroborated admission by someone you consider a compulsive liar and who cannot certainly be shown to have been in the country when the murders took place, with a statement made by a senior policeman in what appears to be an official document, as well as in other sources, that he strongly believed Druitt to be the murderer, this conclusionbeing based on information received by the police and supplemented by further information personally received suggesting that the suspect's family also believed him guilty.

Now, Trevor has managed to spin that off into an increasingly detailed argument about the merits, as he sees them, of Feigenbaum as a suspect, and you are responding at increasing length. Trevor must be absolutely delighted because not only is discussion of Feigenbaum letting him off the hook of having to defend his indefensible argument that the memorandum is worthless and not worth the paper it's written on (which is what kicked off this interminable thread), but he's also moving his Feigenbaum argument further and further away from your original point that preferring Lawton to Macnaghten is a nonsense. It's Trevor's technique. He makes a statement, somebody challenges it, he neither replies to the challenge nor defends his original statement, but changes the topic and spirals the subject further and further away.

Paul

You’re right Paul. This thread isn’t for discussing the relative merits of Feigenbaum as a suspect. And, as you say, that wasn’t my original intention, it was simply too compare why Trevor believes Lawton more reliable than Macnaghten. I’ve allowed myself to get sucked down the rabbit-hole.

[PaulB]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n710070]

No one is doing that, all that is happening is that Druitts suspect status is being discussed. It is you that have side tracked this thread by bringing Feigenbaum into it. I dont know why admin have allowed your off topic delusional ramblings to continue.

Did it ever get to his superiors ?

Now I would suggest you go away and come back when you have some corroboration to your misguided faith in MM and his unsafe and unreliable memo


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I once threw into the melting pot a suggestion that Druitt might have been suspected at the time of his suicide because it was so soon after the murder of Mary Kelly. There are hints in what Abberline wrote to suggest that he was possibly refering to an early 1889 investigation. Such a possibility would help to explain some of the problems with Abberline's statement, but not why a commissioner would have written a report about the routine investigation of a suicide. And, of course, it's questionable whether the police would have investigated an otherwise unsuspicious suicide after the murder of Kelly anyway.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n710070]

No one is doing that, all that is happening is that Druitts suspect status is being discussed. It is you that have side tracked this thread by bringing Feigenbaum into it. I dont know why admin have allowed your off topic delusional ramblings to continue.

Did it ever get to his superiors ?

Now I would suggest you go away and come back when you have some corroboration to your misguided faith in MM and his unsafe and unreliable memo


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Druitt is a suspect because he was suspected by Macnaghten. There is no need for any further comments. You’re comments are deliberate and dishonest effort to try and remove Druitt from proper discussion or at least to try and affect some pointless form of relegation. Perhaps you might like to speak to Admin and get them to remove the suspects that you feel aren’t worthy of the title from the ‘suspects’ section? Perhaps we should have 5 sections - police suspects - likely suspects - suspects - unlikely suspects - persons of interest? Would that silence the pointless quibbling? Then we would have to decide who slots into each category. Should we get all members to vote on it or should we just let you be the sole arbiter? Perhaps you can think of more ways to overcomplicate and obfuscate? Or........should we just keep it simple and and give someone the title suspect if they have been suspected by someone? My apologies if the call for common sense is offensive to some.

Hopefully for the final time the MM is more reliable than the uncorroborated statement about revealing ramblings of a compulsive liar (except in MartiottWorld of course.)

Now i would suggest that you go away and........no, ill leave it at that. For the sake of everyone’s sanity.

[John G]

Hi John
As I previously stated I do not dispute MM received information. It is the quality of information that he allegedly received which is under scrutiny, and I still suggest that the hearsay information he obtained was exacly as he penned it in the memo, and he clearly did not do any specific research into it because of all the things about Druitt that he wrote which were wrong.

Paul Begg and his lap dog Herlock are the one banging their heads against a wall, and I fail to see the object of their efforts other than nitpicking.

MM wrote that he had information that Druitt was the killer- There is no dispute over that
He didnt disclose the source- There is no dispute over that
What he wrote about Druitt was wrong-There is no dispute over that
There is nothing today to show that he acted on what he was told-There is no dispute over that

What is in dispute is the validity of Druitt as a viable suspect based on what MM wrote appertaining to his private information and how his suspect status is perceived by each one of us.

These murders are being discussed in the 21st Century, and so it is right to use modern day investigative terminology terms when discussing the viability status of suspects, and to that end my personal perception is based on what is known, based on the fact that if he was a homosexual then he would not be a killer of the opposite sex. I look on Druiit as nothing more than a person of interest, and still say that the MM is unsafe to rely on as being accurate. That should not be in dispute !!!!!!!!!!!!!

If Druit based on what iis known is to be regarded as a suspect in the true sense, then we might as well simply categorize the other 200 names that have been suggested as "suspects" despite most them have nothing against them to show they should be regarded as a suspect.

Cold case reviews today are carried out as criminal re-investigations, not historical exercises, these such historical exercises as quoted by Paul Begg as we have seen do nothing but muddy the waters, by relying on newspaper reports many which conflict with each other, which may or may not be accurate, and quotes from ageing police officers who give nothing more than uncorroborated opinions, not to mention the many wild speculative opinions thrown into the mix by researchers.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

An important question is what elevated Druitt as a suspect over the countless other individuals who were suspected by their families? In my view, as I indicated in my previous post, it was probably the seriously flawed supporting "evidence" that McNaughton believed he had: doctor, insane, committed suicide shortly after Kelly's murder, "sexual maniac." And when he discovered there was a family history of mental illness (mother confined to an asylum), coupled with the note that was found, " Since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother, and the best thing for me was to die", it must have seemed like manna from heaven. Put simply, I reckon that grom Mac's perspective Druitt simply ticked all the boxes as regards the sort of individual he expected the killer to be.

And, as regards the family suspicions, could there have been an element of snobbery as regards the weight Mac gave to that evidence? I don't say that's the case, but considering this was the seriously class divided nineteenth century, it's at least conceivable that he would have taken testimony from educated, middle class witnesses more seriously than, say, an uneducated, less articulate, lower class Whitechapel witness.

What you say about Druitt being a suspect in the true sense relates to historical perspective. Thus, in the nineteenth century it was much more common for suspects to be arrested based upon circumstantial evidence-hardly suprising since the police didn't have the benefit of the many technological advances we take for granted today. As the Lord Chief Justice put it in Rex v Burdett (4 B.a Ald.95), "If no fact could be ascertained by inference in a court of law, very few offenders could be brought to punishment. In a great number of trials as they occur in practice no direct proof that the party accused committed the crime is or can be given: the man who is charged with theft is rarely seen to break into the house or take the goods; and, in cases of murder, it rarely happens that the eye of any witness sees the fatal blow struck or the poisoness ingredients poured into the cup."

It would therefore be reasonable to conclude that the bar for what constituted a viable suspect would also be significantly lower than today.

Therefore, in fairness to Macnaghten, Druitt probably did represent a viable suspect at the time, particularly if you also add misconceived nineteenth century notions of what drives a serial killer.

Whether a modern police force would arrive at the same conclusion is another matter.

[Herlock Sholmes]

An important question is what elevated Druitt as a suspect over the countless other individuals who were suspected by their families? In my view, as I indicated in my previous post, it was probably the seriously flawed supporting "evidence" that McNaughton believed he had: doctor, insane, committed suicide shortly after Kelly's murder, "sexual maniac." And when he discovered there was a family history of mental illness (mother confined to an asylum), coupled with the note that was found, " Since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother, and the best thing for me was to die", it must have seemed like manna from heaven. Put simply, I reckon that grom Mac's perspective Druitt simply ticked all the boxes as regards the sort of individual he expected the killer to be.

I can’t see how this would have been manna from heaven for Macnaghten when he would have been adding to his current list of an incarcerated lunatic and a known criminal a man of previously unblemished reputation? Someone with no history of violence or criminality. A man from an extremely reputable family; a Barrister and a teacher at a posh school. This would hardly have been the Victorian publics idea of what Jack The Ripper would have looked like. Also, the movements of someone of Druitt’s station in life would have been far easier to trace than someone from the lower classes. How stupid would Mac have looked if he’d passed on his Memorandum and it had been looked into and found that Druitt was out of town on legal business for three of the murders? Macnaghten could easily have found a third suspect to add to his list and one far less problematic than Druitt. I think it was Farson (or maybe Cullen) who said something to the effect of - it’s Druitt’s unlikeliness that makes him such an interesting suspect. I think Mac suspected him because he genuinely felt that he had good reason for doing so.

.
And, as regards the family suspicions, could there have been an element of snobbery as regards the weight Mac gave to that evidence? I don't say that's the case, but considering this was the seriously class divided nineteenth century, it's at least conceivable that he would have taken testimony from educated, middle class witnesses more seriously than, say, an uneducated, less articulate, lower class Whitechapel witness.

We might also add, on the issue of the class divided society, that it had previously been thought that no gentleman could have committed these crimes. Mac and Druitt we’re both gentlemen from families of gentleman. Wouldn’t that have made him less likely to have, without good reason, branded Druitt as the most depraved man in England? We also have to add that, as we know, one of Mac’s closest friends was related by marriage to the Druitt family. How vital was family honour in Victorian high society? How much did they shudder at the thought of scandal and dishonour prompted by events infinitely less serious than being accused of being Jack?

I agree with Farson.