What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[JeffHamm]

...
I wonder if his description as a sexual maniac might have to do with pedophilia.

Hi Abby Normal,

I don't think Druitt was ever described by MacNaughten as being a sexual maniac (or even as having "sexual mania"), he used the more general term of "sexual insanity" when talking about Druitt. He used sexual mania with reference to JtR. Now, that could be splitting hairs, but I think it is an important distinction for the following reason. MacNaughten indicates he believes that JtR had sexual mania, which describes getting sexual pleasure from causing or observing violence against others. So, MacNaughten will tend to favour as suspects those who definately are, or whom he might suspect could be, suffering with sexual mania.

Now, we don't know what information MacNaughten had, but in one version of the MM (AV I believe), he indicates that Druitt was alledged to be sexually insane; he states that as an unqualified fact in other versions but we don't know if that's just editing out the more cautious wording or if that was a change based upon further evidence. For present purposes it doesn't matter and I'm not suggesting one or the other.

Sexual Insanity is much broader, and included things other than sexual mania (Tumblety, who was homosexual, for example, was also described as sexually insane; Kosminski was described as becoming insane through years of "solitary vice", which could be taken as a more round about way of saying he was "sexually insane" and that chronic masturbation was a sign of that, etc).

So, if MacNaughten had some information that allowed him to suspect Druitt of being sexually insane, but not information that would define him as having sexual mania specifically, we have something like this:

Druitt -> sexual insantity (alledged/confirmed)

and

JtR -> Sexual Mania (presumed) -> is a form of sexual insanity

Now, all that's missing to make the "link", is the belief of "people with sexual mania will show other signs of sexual insanity" and his belief system becomes:

JtR -> Sexual Manai (presumed) -> is a form of sexual insanity -> people with sexual mania will show other signs of sexual insanity-> Druitt died and the murders stopped -> Druitt is alleged/confirmed to be sexually insane -> he may therefore also have sexual mania -> he could be JtR

It's not "proof" because the link in bold was, in my presentation, not something he had any proof of, it's an inference (i.e. his private information didn't allow him to say "Druitt was alleged/confirmed to have sexual mania", if he had that, given he knows the definition of sexual mania, he would have said that I think. Sexual insanity, I would argue, means whatever it was it wasn't him being known for getting sexual thrills from violence.

Pedophilia is currently (and rightly) viewed as violence against children, but I'm not sure if MacNaughten in the Victorian era would have considered it as the type of violence that is intended to be described in sexual mania.

Anyway, this is why I think keeping his "sexually insane" free of him saying "Druitt had sexual mania" separate is important. I think his "private information" might have included something about Druitt's sexual habits, but it doesn't appear to be something that directly linked Druitt to deriving sexual enjoyment from violence (because he didn't say sexual mania). But, it might help understand how the information he had led him to conclude that Druitt was the best suspect of the lot, through something like the above. With two bits of information (death at the right time, and a tenuous inferential but unproven link to sexual mania), one could see how, over time, that line of thought might appear to be more and more compelling.

Also, if the information that MacNaughten had about Druitt's "sexual insanity" was such that other police at the time did not think allowed that bolded link to be made, then the disagreements with MacNaughten's conclusion at the time is also understandable. That too makes me think this sort of formulation of what we do know is probably worth more than a passing thought, even if you don't fully agree with me (and yes, what I'm presenting is entirely challengable).

Anyway, what we don't know, or seem to have any evidence for, is what it was about Druitt that might have led someone to consider him "sexually insane"? It has been speculated it could be homosexuality, or pedophilia, but those are just speculations for which we have no actual proof, anymore than it appears MacNaughten actually had for Druitt having "sexual mania". Depending upon what speculation one draws, though, can greatly influence where one's own thinking ends up, and it either ends up making that link to JtR, as MacNaughten appears to have done, or it ends up making that link untennable, as others have done. But either way, the destination in those "thought trains" are based upon unproven speculations. That's why I believe the link between Druitt and being JtR cannot be made safely, but I also believe it is important to continue to research him as a suspect.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Oh, in re-reading that I realized I present the AV version as the earlier draft, but as I know there is debate upon that, if it is the later draft, then he softened his presentation of Druitt's "sexual insanity". Either order could reflect what I suggest in the 2nd last paragraph, he either increased his argument for Druitt being sexually insane as his belief strengthened because of being argued with (how often do we see that happen here?) or he softened it in recognition of those challenges (something I suggest we see less often than the former, but fortunately, not all that rarely either). In other words, the order of writing doesn't really make a difference for this purpose.

- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

Hi Wickerman -- If you haven't seen this website, you might enjoy it. It shows the houses and buildings along the Thames as viewed from the river. I have it keyed up for "The Osiers" at Chiswick, not far from where MJD was found, and the building mentioned in a previous post by Trevor. If you click or hover over the houses it gives the name of each building, and you can also scroll up and downstream, all the way to Hammersmith Bridge and beyond. You can see it's not all that far from Hammersmith Bridge, as no doubt you know. Cheers.


http://www.panoramaofthethames.com/p...ersmith/osiers

[Joshua Rogan]

http://www.panoramaofthethames.com/p...ersmith/osiers

What a brilliant site, great find rj.

If you scroll just a few buildings to the right, there's one called "Miller's Court". Coincidence or magic? You decide.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,
If you want to put it to bed(Where have I heard that expression before)do not address your posts to me.Don't use my name in your headings and quotes,then I will not be obliged to reply.
Attitudes and over confidence would apply to you as well as any other poster on this thread Herlock.It is remarks like that, that inflame. Who are you refering to?
So every person that has been mentioned as being a suspect should be accepted as one.Every single one of them.Is that a sensible assessment.I doubt you will have a single poster back you on that,even the persons you name.I know some of them wont,as even they have rubbished persons that have,over time, been named.
No I do not remember everything I post,but I refer back if need be.
I'll repeat,I haven't told you anything as to what term you should use.I have repeatedly given my reasons why I use the terms I do. Those terms have a source,but I am not the source.They are legitimit.Funny that you should use present day sources though,text and dictionary,then say I shouldn't use my present day law enforcement terminology.
As for a poster referring to Druitt as gay,I think that is mild compared with Homicidal Maniac and sexual maniac.Where was the evidence for that. Was that fair on the part of MM.You appear a little bit onesided Herlock.
A hundred and thirty years ago.Is that ancient history,another era? The ripper could still have been alive in my lifetime.Aberline was alive when I was born.Walter Dew had not yet written his memoirs when I was abroad as a serving soldier.MM's daughters didn't die until I was nearing middle age.I write and think different to them?I don't think so Herlock.

I believe that my statement the every person mentioned as a suspect should be called a suspect is perfectly reasonable because we don’t just leave it at that do we? We follow this up with our own judgment on their relative merits - reasonable suspect, strong suspect, likeliest suspect, unlikely suspect, ludicrous suspect! So there’s no point using a different name or phrase to begin with. The point that we keep making Harry is that it’s not important; it will change nothing about how we look at the case. So why change? Especially when individuals are at liberty to use ‘person of interest’ if they prefer. But it’s an unnecessary complication if we’re not all using the same definition.

My use of the phrase over-confidence Harry was intended for any that claim certainty like The Baron for example, saying that Mackenzie was a definite ripper victim so we can discount Druitt. I don’t think that I’m over-confident about anything. Actually I’d say that I’m pretty cautious.

No I do not remember everything I post,but I refer back if need be.

But I had no cause to refer back before you mentioned the dementia comment.

s for a poster referring to Druitt as gay,I think that is mild compared with Homicidal Maniac and sexual maniac.Where was the evidence for that. Was that fair on the part of MM.You appear a little bit onesided Herlock.

Im sorry Harry but there’s a world of difference between the two. One is a question of Mac’s use of terminology. The ripper was homicidal. He obviously had some mental issues hence maniac. Plus there was a high chance that the murders were sexual in nature. Mac just used phrases inaccurately. Using the ‘if Druitt was gay then he was unlikely to have been the ripper” is just not being honest as there’s no evidence that he was gay.

A hundred and thirty years ago.Is that ancient history,another era?

Its not classed as Ancient History but it undoubtedly History. I’m surprised to say the least that you're questioning this. Do we really need to emphasise that things were different in the Victorian era.

Look Harry, I certainly don’t think that you’re in any way an idiot. I simply think that your mistaken as you believe that I’m mistaken. As far as I can recall (and you may recall differently of course) I don’t think that we’ve had any acrimonious exchanges in the past so I certainly don’t have a personal feelings against you Harry. We can both continue to discuss the case but I think (hope) that you will agree that on the issue of the use of the word suspect we are not going to change each other’s minds. Each poster is free to interpret the word as he or she sees fit. I hope you’ll agree that there’s no point in continuing discussion the correct definition? Life’s too short Harry.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh, in re-reading that I realized I present the AV version as the earlier draft, but as I know there is debate upon that, if it is the later draft, then he softened his presentation of Druitt's "sexual insanity". Either order could reflect what I suggest in the 2nd last paragraph, he either increased his argument for Druitt being sexually insane as his belief strengthened because of being argued with (how often do we see that happen here?) or he softened it in recognition of those challenges (something I suggest we see less often than the former, but fortunately, not all that rarely either). In other words, the order of writing doesn't really make a difference for this purpose.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

In a previous post I listed, purely as an exercise, 10 possible reasons why Druitt was sacked. Reading you’re post with its mention of Kosminski and his solitary vices might we add another possible reason for Druitt’s sacking? - might he have been caught masturbating? Maybe in a public area? Maybe he was discovered by a group of boys?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Wickerman -- If you haven't seen this website, you might enjoy it. It shows the houses and buildings along the Thames as viewed from the river. I have it keyed up for "The Osiers" at Chiswick, not far from where MJD was found, and the building mentioned in a previous post by Trevor. If you click or hover over the houses it gives the name of each building, and you can also scroll up and downstream, all the way to Hammersmith Bridge and beyond. You can see it's not all that far from Hammersmith Bridge, as no doubt you know. Cheers.


http://www.panoramaofthethames.com/p...ersmith/osiers

Excellent find Roger. Even the ripper gets a mention at the site of Thorneycrofts.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Herlock/Joshua - it's also interesting to the note the "Bell Steps" (close the Hammersmith Terrace and near the White Lion pub) as one walks back towards the bridge. A possible entry point into the river?

I agree that it is a brilliant site. They really put a lot of work into it, and it's a great resource.

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Herlock/Joshua - it's also interesting to the note the "Bell Steps" (close the Hammersmith Terrace and near the White Lion pub) as one walks back towards the bridge. A possible entry point into the river?

Maybe....it would have had to be at low tide though, otherwise, with those rocks in his pockets, he'd just have sunk to the bottom near the bank and been exposed when the tide went out, so I figure his body must have been in the deep channel below the low water line. There is also a causeway right by Church Wharf where he was found, which would have made his last walk a little less muddy, but again would only really work at low tide.
Naah, I'd opt for a short drop off the centre of a bridge, i think.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock/Joshua - it's also interesting to the note the "Bell Steps" (close the Hammersmith Terrace and near the White Lion pub) as one walks back towards the bridge. A possible entry point into the river?

I agree that it is a brilliant site. They really put a lot of work into it, and it's a great resource.

I’m hopeless with geography but is there any reason why we can’t see the opposite side of the river?

[Joshua Rogan]

I’m hopeless with geography but is there any reason why we can’t see the opposite side of the river?

Nothing much to see, I suspect. At the time it was a reservior and waterworks. Today the reservoir is still there, but the waterworks has been replaced by a couple of schools and playing fields. All screened by the trees on the bank though, I think.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nothing much to see, I suspect. At the time it was a reservior and waterworks. Today the reservoir is still there, but the waterworks has been replaced by a couple of schools and playing fields. All screened by the trees on the bank though, I think.

Ok. So that’s why they didn’t bother with the view of the other side then. Thanks Joshua

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

In a previous post I listed, purely as an exercise, 10 possible reasons why Druitt was sacked. Reading you’re post with its mention of Kosminski and his solitary vices might we add another possible reason for Druitt’s sacking? - might he have been caught masturbating? Maybe in a public area? Maybe he was discovered by a group of boys?

Hi Herlock,

I suppose so. The possibilities are limited only by one's creativity as we do not have any data to constrain us. The problem is that there are an infinite number of possibilities to explain why he was sacked, so the chance of us guessing the correct one are pretty slim. Remember, there is nothing in the MM that specifically links his getting sacked to his "sexual insanity", that's been an assumption made by many, but the two need not be related. So maybe he ....

- Jeff

[Jude53]

Re: the term "person of interest" In current usage, at least in the area I live, the term is not interchangeable with "suspect". Sometimes the "person of interest" might be someone who was in the area where the crime was committed, who might have seen something, but they do not fit the description of the person who committed the crime. For example, the 9-year-old rapper who would sell the boy's CD in the parking lot of the gas station was never a suspect, but he was a person of interest when we got robbed. On the other hand, one of my co-workers was a suspect, because he fit the description of the robber, and I could not say for sure it wasn't him, because I'd never worked with him directly.

So to me, using the term person of interest just confused the issue for some of us. Person of interest might mean a witness, and there are a lot of times more than one suspect, that have to be eliminated. Once it gets to court, the person is called "the accused".

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman -- If you haven't seen this website, you might enjoy it. It shows the houses and buildings along the Thames as viewed from the river. I have it keyed up for "The Osiers" at Chiswick, not far from where MJD was found, and the building mentioned in a previous post by Trevor. If you click or hover over the houses it gives the name of each building, and you can also scroll up and downstream, all the way to Hammersmith Bridge and beyond. You can see it's not all that far from Hammersmith Bridge, as no doubt you know. Cheers.


http://www.panoramaofthethames.com/p...ersmith/osiers

Thankyou RJ., no I had not seen that before.

In a later post you mentioned the Bell Steps (I didn't see them on my first pass through that video), but Roy Corduroy posted a photo of some steps near Black Lion Lane. Could this be where Druitt walked to his death?

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/druitt-montague-john/2499-does-anyone-believe-mjd-was-murdered?p=111153#post111153