What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Herlock Sholmes]

this isnt a modern court case. its history. good grief why cant you understand?

Staggering isn’t it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

We have one source for Druitt,and that was MM."H e was sexually insane,and from private info I have little doubt that his own family believes him to be the murderer"
His own family.No evidence Druitt was sexually insane ,and the wording clearly indicates MM was not talking about his (MM)'s belief of Guilt,but the family's.
Yes it has been gone over many times and still, the same untrue and misleading claims that it was MM who had the beliefs of guilt.Well tell me the words that MM used to describe his(MM)'s beliefs,or the words that others used.Anyone?
My jargon,,and I am entitled to it,is preferable to the jabber constantly sprouted by those supporting Druitt as suspect,and being as I was never in the police,it isn't police jargon I use.They are so wrong again.
Well AbbyI suppose it's your own condition that allows you to speak of dementia,but keep it up,personell abuse seems to be the last desperate attempt to sell the Druitt non starter.Damn,that jargon again.

Even when Mac retired in 1913 he said in the press about the ripper:

“Of course he was a maniac but I have a very clear idea of who he was and how he committed suicide, but that with other secrets will never be revealed by me.”

He then went on to mention the “...secret information that came into my possession....”

Its very obvious Harry that Sir Melville Macnaghten believed that he had received valid evidence pointing to Druitt’s guilt. Do we know what that evidence was? No we don’t. But does that give us the right to assume that Mac was a liar or an idiot? No it doesn’t.

So this leaves us with a highly regarded police officer (the second highest in the country) strongly suspecting (and with good reason according to him) that Druitt was guilty and that the information originated with Druitt’s family.

I, and others, choose not to dismiss that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

the last desperate attempt to sell the Druitt non starter.

If there’s one criticism that I regularly mention in terms of ripperology it’s over-confidence. It’s about stating unfounded certainties. The above is an example Harry.

Show me the proof exonerating Druitt and I’ll be the first in the queue to shake your hand.

[PaulB]

We have one source for Druitt,and that was MM."H e was sexually insane,and from private info I have little doubt that his own family believes him to be the murderer"
His own family.No evidence Druitt was sexually insane ,and the wording clearly indicates MM was not talking about his (MM)'s belief of Guilt,but the family's.
Yes it has been gone over many times and still, the same untrue and misleading claims that it was MM who had the beliefs of guilt.Well tell me the words that MM used to describe his(MM)'s beliefs,or the words that others used.Anyone?
My jargon,,and I am entitled to it,is preferable to the jabber constantly sprouted by those supporting Druitt as suspect,and being as I was never in the police,it isn't police jargon I use.They are so wrong again.
Well AbbyI suppose it's your own condition that allows you to speak of dementia,but keep it up,personell abuse seems to be the last desperate attempt to sell the Druitt non starter.Damn,that jargon again.

Harry,
It's not in dispute that Macnaghten deduced the beliefs of Druitt's family from 'private information'. That isn't all that Macnaghten wrote on the subject though. in the Aberconway version he wrote, 'Personally, and after much careful and deliberate consideration, I am inclined to exonerate the last two, but, I have always held strong opinions regarding no. 1, and the more I think the matter over, the stronger do these opinions become.' In a Daily Mail interview in 1913 he said, ‘Of course he was a maniac, but I have a very clear idea who he was and how he committed suicide...' and in Days of My Years he wrote, 'Although the Whitechapel Murderer, in all probability, put an end to himself soon after the Dorset Street affair in November 1888, certain facts, pointing to this conclusion, were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer.'

It is obvious that Macnaghten was talking about his own beliefs and not just those of Druitt's family.

Furthermore, it is possible (or probable) that the information implicating Druitt was received by the police 'some years after' mid-1889 and was entirely different to the private info on which Macnaghten concluded that Druitt's family thought he was the murderer too.

Of course you are entitled to use whatever jargon you like, but in so doing you are spreading confusion and misunderstanding. People know what a suspect is and the dictionary clearly defines what a suspect is, yet you and Trevor want to use a definition that has no currency outside the police service, doesn't have the same meaning to the man in the street, and has no relevance to the 19th century. Moreover, neither of you have given a good reason why this 21st century jargon makes anything clearer or more understandable, or why it is preferable. All that comes across is that you both appear hostile to sensible consideration of Druitt as a suspect and happy to argue the hind-legs off any obstruction you can throw in the way of doing so.

The bottom line if that Druitt was suspected by Macnaghten and that Macnaghten suspected him for twenty or more years.

[PaulB]

This talk of the use of the word ‘suspect’ is a meaningless quibble Harry. It’s achieving nothing. whether we feel that Druitt should be considered as one or a person of interest or any other title that we decide to bestow. So why is it so important to you and Trevor that we should call Druitt a person of interest? As I’ve said, you and Trevor and anyone else are free to do so and I won’t even comment on it. I don’t see why you should insist that everyone else follow suit though Harry? Does whatever title we select for Druitt affect how we treat his candidature or discuss matters? I really can’t see how? This isn’t a police investigation where a more rigorous kind of classification would have been necessary. As I said in my earlier post Harry, a suspect can turn out to be innocent and yet a person of interest can turn out to be guilty. This isn’t personal Harry. I’m not criticising you because you see Druitt as a poor candidate. I happen to disagree...so what. All I’m saying is that an inordinate amount of time on here is being wasted on an issue that’s completely trivial.

It's outrageously trivial, Herlock, but it is important in one respect: the message boards are open to everyone, but not everyone understands specialist terminologies. If we want to be understood, we should use the language everyone understands. And it is also important to understand what those living in the late 19th century meant when they did and said things, and not to judge them by modern standards or apply modern definitions to their words. Most people on the boards understand this, most people understand it better than me, but there may be some who don't, who'll get suckered in.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's outrageously trivial, Herlock, but it is important in one respect: the message boards are open to everyone, but not everyone understands specialist terminologies. If we want to be understood, we should use the language everyone understands. And it is also important to understand what those living in the late 19th century meant when they did and said things, and not to judge them by modern standards or apply modern definitions to their words. Most people on the boards understand this, most people understand it better than me, but there may be some who don't, who'll get suckered in.

True of course Paul. Why complicate matters unnecessarily? Should we next try to apply gradations of likeliness for suspects or persons of interest? Much better to use suspect as meaning one who is suspected by someone and then debate the pro’s and con’s.

[Trevor Marriott]

If there’s one criticism that I regularly mention in terms of ripperology it’s over-confidence. It’s about stating unfounded certainties. The above is an example Harry.

Show me the proof exonerating Druitt and I’ll be the first in the queue to shake your hand.

Lets go one better and eliminate Druitt, and all the other named suspects

1890

James Monro following his resignation as Metropolitan Police Commissioner, November 1890 stated:

“The police had nothing positive in the way of clues about the identity of the Ripper.”

February 15th 1891

Sir Edward Bradford, by this time, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, felt convinced from evidence of previous murders in Whitechapel that the murdered woman (Coles) was a victim of the same killer responsible for the Ripper murders two years previously.
February 4th 1912

Detective Inspector Reid speaking in Lloyds Weekly:

“I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence of any kind against anyone. The earth has been raked over, and the seas have been swept, to find this criminal 'Jack the Ripper’, always without success. It still amuses me to read the writings of such men as Dr. Anderson, Dr. Forbes Winslow, Major Arthur. Griffiths, and many others, all holding different theories, but all of them wrong. I have answered many of them in print, and would only add here that I was on the scene and ought to know.”

Major Henry Smith City of London Police Commissioner in his memoirs published 1910 wrote

“The Ripper,completely beat me and every Police officer in London." and that "...I have no more idea now where he lived than I had twenty years ago."

Knowing how the police work I would put my faith in the officers who were on the ground working the case to know more than those senior officers who sat in palatial officers shuffling papers who only thought they knew.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

It is obvious that Macnaghten was talking about his own beliefs and not just those of Druitt's family. .

His wording does not suggest that ! He is acting on information passed to him by someone who had it passed to them by the family.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

It's outrageously trivial, Herlock, but it is important in one respect: the message boards are open to everyone, but not everyone understands specialist terminologies. If we want to be understood, we should use the language everyone understands. And it is also important to understand what those living in the late 19th century meant when they did and said things, and not to judge them by modern standards or apply modern definitions to their words. Most people on the boards understand this, most people understand it better than me, but there may be some who don't, who'll get suckered in.

Lets look at it another way in 1888 all persons who came under suspicion by whatever means were categorized as likely suspects irrespective of the reliability, or the quality of that information. As we know the term person of interest doesn't seem to have been used back then but that's not to say it wasn't.We know that this term is now used widely. So why is it wrong for us now look at those categorized likley suspects from 1888, and say to ourselves hang on there is no evidence/real facts to show that person is a suspect in the true sens of a suspect, and so I believe it is right and proper for us to categorize them as persons of interest.

The same principle applies to prime suspects the term prime suspect was not used in 1888 so why are we seeing the term prime suspect being used in todays world of ripperology, especially when there is no evidence against anyone to justify them being labelled a prime suspect

You cant have it both ways by rejecting the term person of interest, and in the next breath accepting the term prime suspect.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Lets go one better and eliminate Druitt, and all the other named suspects

1890

James Monro following his resignation as Metropolitan Police Commissioner, November 1890 stated:

“The police had nothing positive in the way of clues about the identity of the Ripper.”

February 15th 1891

Sir Edward Bradford, by this time, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, felt convinced from evidence of previous murders in Whitechapel that the murdered woman (Coles) was a victim of the same killer responsible for the Ripper murders two years previously.
February 4th 1912

Detective Inspector Reid speaking in Lloyds Weekly:

“I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence of any kind against anyone. The earth has been raked over, and the seas have been swept, to find this criminal 'Jack the Ripper’, always without success. It still amuses me to read the writings of such men as Dr. Anderson, Dr. Forbes Winslow, Major Arthur. Griffiths, and many others, all holding different theories, but all of them wrong. I have answered many of them in print, and would only add here that I was on the scene and ought to know.”

Major Henry Smith City of London Police Commissioner in his memoirs published 1910 wrote

“The Ripper,completely beat me and every Police officer in London." and that "...I have no more idea now where he lived than I had twenty years ago."

Knowing how the police work I would put my faith in the officers who were on the ground working the case to know more than those senior officers who sat in palatial officers shuffling papers who only thought they knew.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And your point is?

You seem to be equating 'suspect' with being guilty. The point is that it doesn't matter whether these suspects were Jack the Ripper or not, what matters is trying to understand why and how and when they became suspects. It's all about trying to understand why Macnaghten or Anderson of Smith or Reid or whoever said what they said. I appreciate that doesn't interest you in the least, that you're just interested in who the Ripper was, which is fine, but at least try to understand what others are trying to do and why.

Also, we don't know why these suspects were suspected, so it's entirely possible that some were suspected for very good reasons that proved unpersuasive to, say, Smith or Monro. We might find it very persuasive, however, or we may have information that came to light after Monro or Smith wrote that changes the whole perspective. You don't know. And nobody will ever know unless we look at the source material with care and intelligence.

As an officer who worked cases you would place your faith in those officers who, like you, worked the case, and your description of the senior officers in 'palatial offices' and 'shuffling papers' shows the disdain you have for them. A cynic might think you were primed to be biased! The thing is, though, that the senior officers would have had access to information from foreign and provincial forces, people on the same social level, from Special Branch and other intelligence sources, and so on. There's no reason to suppose that all of that need have filtered down the ranks.

[Simon Wood]

Neither Druitt, nor Kosminski, nor Ostrog, nor Tumblety, nor anyone else you care to name could have been the Jack the Ripper, because there was no Jack the Ripper. All we know for a fact is that there were five murders, an unknown number of perpetrators and a lot of official shenanigans.

In his memorandum Macnaghten told us that the non-existent Jack the Ripper was not Thomas Hayne Cutbush; that the non-existent Jack the Ripper was, or might have been, somebody else: somebody whose identity could not be agreed upon. This was important. Consensus might have led to a demand for proof of guilt, whereas uncertainty lent weight to the idea that the non-existent Jack the Ripper may have conveniently died, been incarcerated before his identity was suspected, or perhaps been too shrewd for the police, avoided arrest and was possibly still at large.

James Monro—

“The police had nothing positive in the way of clues about the identity of the Ripper.”

How true.

[PaulB]

His wording does not suggest that ! He is acting on information passed to him by someone who had it passed to them by the family.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,
"I have always held strong opinions...", "the more I think the matter over..." - Macnaghten is talking about his own opinions and how those opinions had become stronger the more he thought the matter over; the wording can't possibly mean anything other than that he is expressing his own opinion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lets go one better and eliminate Druitt, and all the other named suspects

If we include Feigenbaum in that then I have no issues.

[Trevor Marriott]

And your point is?

You seem to be equating 'suspect' with being guilty. The point is that it doesn't matter whether these suspects were Jack the Ripper or not, what matters is trying to understand why and how and when they became suspects. It's all about trying to understand why Macnaghten or Anderson of Smith or Reid or whoever said what they said. I appreciate that doesn't interest you in the least, that you're just interested in who the Ripper was, which is fine, but at least try to understand what others are trying to do and why.

Also, we don't know why these suspects were suspected, so it's entirely possible that some were suspected for very good reasons that proved unpersuasive to, say, Smith or Monro. We might find it very persuasive, however, or we may have information that came to light after Monro or Smith wrote that changes the whole perspective. You don't know. And nobody will ever know unless we look at the source material with care and intelligence.

As an officer who worked cases you would place your faith in those officers who, like you, worked the case, and your description of the senior officers in 'palatial offices' and 'shuffling papers' shows the disdain you have for them. A cynic might think you were primed to be biased! The thing is, though, that the senior officers would have had access to information from foreign and provincial forces, people on the same social level, from Special Branch and other intelligence sources, and so on. There's no reason to suppose that all of that need have filtered down the ranks.

It ususally works the other way the officers on the ground seek out the information and channel it upwards !!!!!!!!!!

Can you see MM or Monro or anyone else of high rank going out on the streets of Whitechapel doing house to house enquiries ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

As we should be rigidly using police jargon I have this to say:

Delta Foxtrot Charlie:

I was proceeding across my living room in a Northerly direction in the pursuit of my usual habit when I came upon a book left unattended on a table. I thought to myself “hello, hello, hello what’s all this then?” I proceeded with due caution to examine the offending item only to discover that within it were certain statements that I found problematical. I felt it my sworn duty to read the said item before deciding my next course of action. I found the contents to be no risk to the public so I continued on my way.

Evening all

Cue the music and the shot of the feet of a male and female officer walking the beat.

How’s that.