What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[PaulB]

My final say on this thread, and on this topic is that i reiterate that the MM is unsafe and unreliable. I have wasted hours of my life which I will never get back on trying to explain simple logic to those who dont seem to understand the concept of simple logic.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You know, you come on these message boards and it doesn't matter what the topic is you come out with some opinion that sets almost everybody against you. Hardly ever do supports pop up with explanations to help you out of the holes into which you dig yourself, and no matter how much effort is made to explain why you are talking twaddle, you just ride off into the sunset with absolutely nothing changed. Does it never occur to you that people like Herlock, Wickerman, Sam, Roger, me, and almost everyone else, don't agree with you because you are wrong? That it is us who understand simple logic and that it is you who doesn't? It's sad.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Show me the evidence that proves Druitt killed anyone,and i'll shake everyones hand Herlock. If no evidence exists, that is enough in itself to accept innocense.the situation doesn't require proof.It is also the case for suspect status.If no evidence or proof exists,one cannot be considered suspect.That is the case with Druitt,and even MM himself can be quoted as writing there was no proof against anyone..What more do posters want? If no one understands, why are there replies to our posts?,and it's an insult to the many viewers who do not post,to insinuate, without cause,their inability to understand.
Druitt's family had suspicions.Fine.I have suspicions.Neither their suspicions or mine carry weight.Theirs apparently went uninvestigated.Me, i'm too lazy to research,so in each case there is no right to consider guilt,and no right to class anyone a suspect,and I don't.

Sorry Harry but for someone that has been defending sticking to the use of word ‘suspect’ in its legalistic, police definition then this sentence defeats logic.

If no evidence exists, that is enough in itself to accept innocense.

No it’s not. In court, if the jury arrives at a a ‘not guilty’ verdict due to there being insufficient evidence they are not accepting that the accused was innocent; only that the evidence wasn’t persuasive enough for them to consider him guilty. It’s a big difference.

. I do not accept that Trevor or myself write in a style or jargon that is not easily understood.

No one has said that you or Trevor do. It’s just the issue of the word suspect where you are both, for some inexplicable reason, insisting on the police jargon definition rather that the dictionary definition. This couldn’t be simpler Harry. We are not part of a police enquiry. We are looking back and debating events of 130 years ago. What is your definition of suspect? If it’s someone that was suspected by the police then 99% of the names in the suspects section of both forums should be removed. What would that achieve? Or is your definition based on the level and value of the evidence (whether circumstantial or otherwise)? If so, who is the to be the judge of that when people interpret events and words in different ways. This would be unnecessary complication Harry. It would achieve nothing beneficial to anyone. The only thing that I can think of is that it’s purely a personal thing. It would satisfy some to, in some way, demote or relegate Druitt. This would change nothing though as I’ve said before - a suspect can turn out to be guilty and a person of interest can turn out to be guilty. The police in an investigation would benefit from a filtering process. We wouldn’t because posters are free to discus any suspect or person of interest. It’s not a hindrance and there’s no league table of suspects. This should really be obvious to everyone Harry.

Druitt's family had suspicions.Fine.I have suspicions.Neither their suspicions or mine carry weight.Theirs apparently went uninvestigated.Me, i'm too lazy to research,so in each case there is no right to consider guilt,and no right to class anyone a suspect,and I don't.

Sorry Harry but this is staggering. The Assistant Commission Of The Met felt that Druitt was a likely suspect from information that he’d received. He also said that Druitt’s family felt him guilty. That fact alone makes him a worthwhile suspect. Easily. I don’t mind repeating myself but:

Do we have any evidence that Sir Melville would have lied about something this important? The notion is ludicrous.

Were the Druitt family likely to have made up a story about one of their own being the loathed Jack The Ripper? This is also ludicrous.

On an issue this important was Sir M likely to have just casually accepted some vague story casually passed on to him with nothing to back it up and then without a moments thought put that information into the MM to be passed on to his superiors? This beggars belief.

Is it likely that the Druitt family would have suspected/accused Monty of these horrible crimes on flimsy evidence? Of course not.

Therefore it’s entirely reasonable to suggest that Sir Melville actually received very good evidence that Druitt was guilty? Yes it is.

We can’t claim to be fair if we just dismiss this out of hand because it’s inconvenient.

[Wickerman]

One mistake,is that he(MM) didn't have to wait untill the 23rd February,1994,to make the comparison.I doubt we would be discussing Druitt if it hadn't been for the Sun articles,If the information on Druitt was so compelling that he was elevated to suspect,the least I would expect would be a file on him alone.The police could have done that.Should have if he Druitt,w as suspect.

You're falling into the old trap which suggests that because 'it doesn't exist, then it never did', like Abberline's interrogation report of Hutch.

My only reservation about whether the police had a file on Druitt was that in my view IF they were on to him before he died I'm sure there would have been a Scotland Yard detective at his inquest. And, if there had been one present the press coverage of this suicide would have been national news.
That said, the possibility the police began looking for him, and various files created (unknown man in Berner St., unknown man in Mitre Square, unknown man in Dorset St.?) before or after he had died, is still not ruled out. They just lacked a name.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We are talking about a high profile series of murders, which the police were under pressure to solve, any information confidential or not would have been investigated and acted upon, and any information obtained by those in high places would have found its way down to the likes of Abberline and Reid to investigate. Again you seem to be speculating that there was such information, but if there was you dont seem to realize how it would have been dealt with.

You appear to be saying that this information did not exist. On what evidence do you call Sir Melville Macnaghten a liar?

[Wickerman]

He is stating in an official document that Ostrog and Kosminski were looked upon as suspects, and he is endorsing that suspicion in the original memo.. He then later exonerates them in the AV. Reading between the lines he must have later realized that the information either he had been given, or he found for himself, which he penned in the first Memo was wrong. He then rectified that in the AV, hence the term beating a hasty retreat from what he has wrongly stated in the original.

And does what with it?
What is the point in correcting errors if you do nothing with the correction but stick it in a drawer at home?
The A.V. would be at home if it was his first draft, which apparently it was.
The only reason parts of his memoir reflect details in the A.V. is for the same reason. In 1914 he had no access to his 1894 report, only the A.V. which he kept at home.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

My final say on this thread, and on this topic is that i reiterate that the MM is unsafe and unreliable. I have wasted hours of my life which I will never get back on trying to explain simple logic to those who dont seem to understand the concept of simple logic.

No Trevor you’ve wasted hours of our lives with you biased nonsense. Your constant contortions have been an embarrassment to the subject. Paul has asked you some very specific questions for clarification but you simply refuse to do so which is surprising considering the quantity of posts that you’ve made on this apparent ‘non-suspect.’ All you’ve done is make constant attempts to fix the rules to suit yourself whilst conveniently ignoring those rules whilst promoting your own non-suspect.

Logic, reason and unbiased debate are completely foreign concepts to you. I’ll leave you to go a chat on the thriving Feigenbaum thread.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Reading between the lines he must have later.....

Trevor I’d suggest reading and understanding the lines themselves before reading between them. All you are doing is reading between the lines to get to a position where you want to be.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Therefore it’s entirely reasonable to suggest that Sir Melville actually received very good evidence that Druitt was guilty? Yes it is.

I cannot agree with this. I am not saying Mac is an ardent liar, but if there was very good evidence linking Druitt to the crimes would Anderson have openly blamed a Polish Jew in his Autobiography, and his people from shielding him, knowing the criticism he would come under? When he could have easily said that we had a strong suspect who committed suicide not long after the last murder. And would Swanson in private annotations basically say that if the ID had been successful the suspect would have been hung?
If we argue that Mac kept the very good evidence to himself as I have argued before would this not be a serious dereliction of duty from a man who was a Chief Constable?
Regards Darryl

[Wickerman]

I cannot agree with this. I am not saying Mac is an ardent liar, but if there was very good evidence linking Druitt to the crimes would Anderson have openly blamed a Polish Jew in his Autobiography, and his people from shielding him, knowing the criticism he would come under? When he could have easily said that we had a strong suspect who committed suicide not long after the last murder.

Darryl, there was arguably, 'very good evidence' against a few suspects in the Zodiac case. Yet, they couldn't all be the killer.

If a suspect moves into an area, and murders begin, when he moves out of the area, the murders stop. And, while he lived there he could never satisfactorily account for his whereabouts on the nights in question. And, he was often over heard to voice a intense hatred of that of that kind of woman (the victims). This is all circumstantial, but taken together could be said to be strong evidence in favor of guilt. These detail would make someone a valid suspect, yet no proof exists. And, in this case the suspect was dead by his own hand (presumably).
Mac. might be convinced by what he knows, yet Anderson was not. Is that so unusual?

If you recall medical opinion on the mutilations had already been expressed by Dr Phillips, by Dr Gordon Brown & by Dr's Duke, Blackwell, Llewellyn, etc. yet Anderson chose not to accept professional opinion, and to send in Dr Bond.
So why should we be surprised if Anderson now disagreed with Macnaghten?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

You write that Macnaghten's AV was a first draft of his 23rd February 1894 version.

When do you think it was it written?

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

You write that Macnaghten's AV was a first draft of his 23rd February 1894 version.

When do you think it was it written?

Regards,

Simon

Never gave it any thought, what do you think?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Between Tuesday 13th and Friday 23rd February 1894?

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Simon, so would it be prying to ask why not before the 13th?
You must have seen something that leads you to think that way.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

An assiduous Ripperologist such as yourself must also have noticed what I saw.

Regards,

Simon

[Herlock Sholmes]

I cannot agree with this. I am not saying Mac is an ardent liar, but if there was very good evidence linking Druitt to the crimes would Anderson have openly blamed a Polish Jew in his Autobiography, and his people from shielding him, knowing the criticism he would come under? When he could have easily said that we had a strong suspect who committed suicide not long after the last murder. And would Swanson in private annotations basically say that if the ID had been successful the suspect would have been hung?
If we argue that Mac kept the very good evidence to himself as I have argued before would this not be a serious dereliction of duty from a man who was a Chief Constable?
Regards Darryl

One point that I would make Darryl is that the circumstances required to have made my statement false aren’t believable imo.

Macnaghten lied.
He just believed some baseless fantasy.
The Druitt family made something up about Monty.
Druitt did something (or things) that we’re innocent but looked so suspicious that his family suspected him.

None of these alternative explanations are massively believable imo.

Therefore its plausible that he genuinely received information that appeared to point to Druitt’s guilt and that, for good measure, he also had good reason to believe that Druitt’s own family believed this.

Apologies for the repetition but, why select Druitt? Why not just any incarcerated lunatic or criminal that died after Kelly. No one would have batted an eyelid. But no, he goes for an upper class Barrister/Schoolteacher. Why?