What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Trevor Marriott]

This is tiresome.

I don't need any evidence that Macnaghten's information wasn't hearsay because I’m not saying that his information wasn’t hearsay, I’m saying that we don’t know we don't know what Macnaghten's information was, therefore we don't know whether it was hearsay or not. You are the one who is saying the information was hearsay, you are the one who must prove it was, but you can't because you don't know what it is. You seem to have considerable difficulty understanding that no conclusions can be drawn about the information when we know nothing about it. Short of spelling it out to you 'Janet and John' style, I don't know how else to make this clear.

You also seem unable to grasp that nobody is readily accepting Druitt’s candidacy as a Ripper suspect. This is a favourite accusation of yours and insulting, but all this discussion is because Druitt is being questioned, it's just that you keep blocking the progress of that discussion with your nonsense. The bottom line is that you are readily dismissing Druitt. You have no idea what the information was that he/the police received, yet you are drawing conclusions based what you imagine it was.

Once again you fall back on the old can't be 'relied upon with any certainty’ argument, but nobody is relying on it.

All your arguments have been discussed to death.

But there are those who have him as their prime suspect, based on what evidence I ask ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

But there are those who have him as their prime suspect, based on what evidence I ask ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That's up to them. And it is irrelevant to what I have said regarding your arguments. Do you accept that you were wrong? If not, why do you think you're right? Let's progress this discussion.

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

To my mind, it's fairly obvious that the blessed Sir Robert Anderson took his Polish Jew from Macnaghten's Memorandum.

Which doesn't speak volumes for the Swanson marginalia.

Who else is in your race?

Regards,

Simon

[Herlock Sholmes]

But there are those who have him as their prime suspect, based on what evidence I ask ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

‘I believe he’s the best of the named suspects. That is my own personal opinion. It is based on an accumulation of things which I feel are interesting and, in the absence of certainty, those individual things might have been explained by a guilty Druitt. There is no proof of course even though posters appear to keep demanding it. Apparently Druitt’s candidature requires a greater level of evidence than other candidates.

We have a Macnaghten. Which on its own propels Druitt to the top part of the suspect tree alongside Kosminski.

We have zero reason, apart from personal convenience, to assume that Macnaghten lied.

The idea that Mac casually accepted any old nonsense about the most notorious case in police history makes no sense.

The idea that someone (family?) made up some lie about Druitt is nonsense.

The fact that Macnaghten simply picked on Druitt because he died when he did (even though he wouldn’t have been short of better options) doesn’t hold water for me.


And so, from the above, I don’t see why we should dismiss Macnaghten (so I don’t.) I think that he genuinely believed that Druitt was a likely candidate because he’d received persuasive (though not conclusive) evidence.


Ill ask again - why wasn't Macnaghten reliable and yet Lawton was? I’d say that Mac was the more reliable of the two.

[Trevor Marriott]

That's up to them. And it is irrelevant to what I have said regarding your arguments. Do you accept that you were wrong? If not, why do you think you're right? Let's progress this discussion.

There is nothing to discuss the facts are there plain and simple.

I dont think MM was lying, and to whether he was gullible, well that a different story you have heard the saying b....t baffles brains.

MM penned a document some years after he joined the police, and some years after the murders apparently ceased.

He was not involved in the investigation of any of the murders

Just because he was a senior officer as SY in 1889 onwards counts for nothing because Monro in 1890 states they had no clues as to the identity of the killer, and nor does his successor thereafter.

The suspect details of those he mentions in the memo. could only have been obtained by him researching himself, or getting someone to do it on his behalf. Either way it doesn't say much for how those suspects came to be mentioned in the first place if their details were incorrect in the suspect files.

There are glaring errors with regards to what he writes about the suspects, errors which I would not expect to be there, if first of all the suspect details as recorded were accurate, and that may not be the case., and he clearly didn't check on what he was putting forward in the memo

We know there was another similar murder is 1891 which it would seem the police were suggesting was the work of the same killer. In 1894 MM knew Druit was dead and therefore could not have been the 1888 killer but he still refers to him as a likely suspect. Why di he not interject in the proceeding and volunteer his private information? he stays silent. that also tells me that the information was not very good.

His private information which led him to suggest Druitt, we dont know what it is and I accept we dont know the strength of its accuracy. But we can analyze what he writes and assess its potential evidential value in the grand scheme of things and come to a reasoned judgment.

Now if we look at what he wrote "He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer"

Where could the information have come from? I doubt from the family direct to him, but perhaps from a friend of the family. But of course the family were not living with him in London, so how would they have been able to form a belief that their son was JTR?

Where is there any evidence to show Druitt suffered from any mental illness, or was insane sexually or otherwise or that he was anything other than an upright citizen so where did he get sexually insane from? So there is no corroboration from that angle.

So when it comes down to it you have to accept that the reality is that what his private information was could have been nothing more than hearsay from a third party and unsafe and unreliable, and I suggest that on that basis alone Druitt should be regarded as a person of interest and not a suspect. But if you want to keep ramping him up as a suspect in the true sense then feel free. But all that is doing is misleading the general public wjo are no so knlwledgavle as us and will belive that Druiit is a real live suspect.

As you say this is becoming tiresome, so I hope now you will now refrain from keep asking questions to which you know there are no definitive answers.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Ill ask again - why wasn't Macnaghten reliable and yet Lawton was? I’d say that Mac was the more reliable of the two.

And as I keep telling you there is corroboration to Lawtons statement there is nothing to corroborate MM

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

And as I keep telling you there is corroboration to Lawtons statement there is nothing to corroborate MM

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And it’s simply untrue of course. There are some very simple questions with very obvious answers.

Did anyone else hear what CF allegedly told Lawton............no.
Can it be proved that CF ever said anything about having murderous feelings towards women.........no.
Is someone that was overwhelmingly likely to hang a definitely reliable source of information........no.
Is someone that was a known compulsive liar a definitely reliable source of information.........no.
Is someone to be considered reliable who apparently has valuable information about the Whitechapel Murders but can’t be bothered to mention it to the police or perhaps even write a letter to The Met detailing his info but rather just goes to the press.....no.
Therefore, can it be corroborated that CF ever said any such thing to Lawton........no.

So again, why is Lawton reliable when The Assistant Commissioner Of The Met isn’t?

Could the fact that CF said that he’d been in London have been told to Lawton at any time whilst he was preparing his defence....yes.
Apart from the fact that it was a knife attack to the neck, did CF’s murder of Mrs Hoffman in any way, shape or form resemble the work of Jack the Ripper........no.
Though it appears that CF was in London in 1891 (or was it 90?) can it be at all shown that he was in London in 1888.....no.(Druitt was)

And yet you call him a very likely suspect but Druitt barely a person of interest.

Again, Macnaghten over Lawton every day of the week.

[Herlock Sholmes]

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

. There is nothing to discuss the facts are there plain and simple.

And yet you keep deliberately missing them.

MM penned a document some years after he joined the police, and some years after the murders apparently ceased.

Its irrelevant when he wrote it.

. He was not involved in the investigation of any of the murders

I wasn’t at The Battle Of Waterloo but I’m capable of analysing the facts about it.

Just because he was a senior officer as SY in 1889 onwards counts for nothing because Monro in 1890 states they had no clues as to the identity of the killer, and nor does his successor thereafter.

Irrelevant. People agree and disagree all the time. You’re cherry-picking to suit. If you believe Monro why don’t you believe Anderson?

.
The suspect details of those he mentions in the memo. could only have been obtained by him researching himself, or getting someone to do it on his behalf. Either way it doesn't say much for how those suspects came to be mentioned in the first place if their details were incorrect in the suspect files.

As he strongly favoured Druitt the other two suspects hardly, for him, would have required any in depth analysis.

.
There are glaring errors with regards to what he writes about the suspects, errors which I would not expect to be there, if first of all the suspect details as recorded were accurate, and that may not be the case., and he clearly didn't check on what he was putting forward in the memo

These errors are insignificant. He was hardly preparing a case to go to court. As long as he felt that the evidence that he was presented with was strong enough to convince himself then Druitt’s age and occupation were irrelevant. Likewise the Cutbush thing. If he’d heard that they were related why would he have bothered to have looked into it further? He simply made the error of assuming. So what?

We know there was another similar murder is 1891 which it would seem the police were suggesting was the work of the same killer. In 1894 MM knew Druit was dead and therefore could not have been the 1888 killer but he still refers to him as a likely suspect. Why di he not interject in the proceeding and volunteer his private information? he stays silent. that also tells me that the information was not very good.

I can think of 2 possible reasons. 1. The evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove for certain that Druitt was guilty, and 2. He also wanted to protect the family

.
His private information which led him to suggest Druitt, we dont know what it is and I accept we dont know the strength of its accuracy. But we can analyze what he writes and assess its potential evidential value in the grand scheme of things and come to a reasoned judgment.

That Macnaghten was an intelligent, highly respected man. Not a liar or an idiot. It’s difficult to think of another occasion when someone’s reputation can be trashed on the basis of 3 insignificant errors.

Now if we look at what he wrote "He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer"

Where could the information have come from? I doubt from the family direct to him, but perhaps from a friend of the family. But of course the family were not living with him in London, so how would they have been able to form a belief that their son was JTR?

Conjecture of course. How can you know that it didn’t come from the family in some way? It might have come from Valentine who presented the evidence to William? What if Druitt confessed (The Priest?)

.
Where is there any evidence to show Druitt suffered from any mental illness, or was insane sexually or otherwise or that he was anything other than an upright citizen so where did he get sexually insane from? So there is no corroboration from that angle.

Sexually insane is just a phrase.

Is there any evidence to show that he suffered from mental illness?! He committed suicide. There was mental illness in the family.

So when it comes down to it you have to accept that the reality is that what his private information was could have been nothing more than hearsay from a third party and unsafe and unreliable, and I suggest that on that basis alone Druitt should be regarded as a person of interest and not a suspect. But if you want to keep ramping him up as a suspect in the true sense then feel free. But all that is doing is misleading the general public wjo are no so knlwledgavle as us and will belive that Druiit is a real live suspect.

The only person doing the misleading is you. Virtually ever time that you post your bias shows. We have absolutely no reason at all to consider Macnaghten unreliable. None. Druitt is and will remain a suspect.

I’ll mention yet again Lawton’s entirely, absolutely, unequivocally uncorroborated statement allegedly taken from a compulsive liar due to be hanged!! And you have the nerve to call Macnaghten unsafe and unreliable! It beggars belief!

.
As you say this is becoming tiresome, so I hope now you will now refrain from keep asking questions to which you know there are no definitive answers.

And yet you seem strangely confident that Macnaghten is unreliable but Lawton is reliable. I wonder why.

And why didn’t you just ask Paul over a week ago to stop asking you perfectly reasonable questions that you can’t answer? It would have saved you the job of limbo dancing under and tap dancing around them.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Herlock,

Forgive my butting in. Feigenbaum is a nice try, but no cigar.

However, using the Sholmes formula—

Did anyone else hear what the Druitt family allegedly told Macnaghten . . . no.

Can it be proved that the Druitt family ever said anything about MJD having murderous feelings towards women . . . no.

Is someone to be considered reliable who apparently has valuable information about the Whitechapel Murders but can’t be bothered to mention it to the police or perhaps even write a letter to The Met detailing his info but rather just goes to the press . . . Yes: how about Farquharson?

Therefore, can it be corroborated that the Druitt family ever said any such thing to Macnaghten . . . no.

Regards,

Simon

[rjpalmer]

Hi RJ,

Who else is in your race?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

For some years I've felt that Sir Robert Anderson might be making an oblique reference to the murderer in The Lighter Side of My Official Life.

Just not in the passage that is usually cited.

But who cares about the Ripper?

Cheers, RP

[Abby Normal]

Hi Simon,

For some years I've felt that Sir Robert Anderson might be making an oblique reference to the murderer in The Lighter Side of My Official Life.

Just not in the passage that is usually cited.

But who cares about the Ripper?

Cheers, RP

st Lucia?

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

I'm with you.

Who gives a poop?

Now, tell me where this is and I'll be right there.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Jon,IT IS what my dictionary is telling me ,word for word.

Harry,
I accept what you wrote when you posted this line:
"My dictionary defines proof as'Evidence that establishes the truth'."
That's fine, I trust what you say. But, you carried on to draw a conclusion from that first line ("So,there was no evidence,circumstantial or otherwise"). which is what I was referring to - that your dictionary did not say that.
You/we cannot draw that conclusion from what the dictionary said.

Even circumstantial evidence has to have proof.What interpretation are you using?What circumstantial evidence are you using?

You asked for my interpretation, didn't you?
Any circumstance that will attach a person to the crime must be proven, they must be factual, yes. But that circumstance in itself is not proof of guilt.
Mac. is talking about proof of guilt, not proof these 'stories' were true.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
If I may interject, there seems to be some confusion here: ‘Proof’ is evidence that establishes the truth. That is, truth is based on evidence, but evidence does not always lead to the truth. Evidence is not proof, as Harry seems to be suggesting, no matter what kind of evidence it is. There could have been a ton of evidence against Druitt, but no proof. All of which I know you know.

Thankyou Paul, yes. And, evidence takes many forms. Evidence is not proof, but evidence requires proof in order to be evidence.
In circumstantial evidence, the circumstance must be factual - provable.
In statistical evidence, the statistics must be factual.
In testimonial evidence, the testimony must be truthful.

There was evidence associated with Druitt, but no proof of guilt.

Oh how we tie ourselves up in semantics

[PaulB]

There is nothing to discuss the facts are there plain and simple.

I agree that the facts are plain and simple, so why is it so important to you to argue against them?

I dont think MM was lying, and to whether he was gullible, well that a different story you have heard the saying b....t baffles brains.

You don’t think Macnaghten was lying and you have no evidence that he was gullible. So what precisely are you saying and what evidence or halfway decent argument do you have to back it up?

MM penned a document some years after he joined the police, and some years after the murders apparently ceased.

And your point is? Bearing in mind that the information implicating Druitt was received ’some years’ after mid-1889, what difference does it make? For all you know, the information was received close to when he wrote the report.

He was not involved in the investigation of any of the murders

Utterly irrelevant. He was a senior officer with access to the information about murders. He is known to have had an interest in the Ripper case and kept photos of the victims in his desk drawer, he was in office when the information implicating Druitt was received… So, if you have a point, explain it.

Just because he was a senior officer as SY in 1889 onwards counts for nothing because Monro in 1890 states they had no clues as to the identity of the killer, and nor does his successor thereafter.

And Macnaghten states that the information implicating Druitt wasn’t received until some years after mid-1889, so in 1890 Monro wouldn’t have known about it. For goodness sake, Trevor, you have had this explained to you just a little while back. The math surely isn’t beyond you. Are you incapable of taking any information on board?

The suspect details of those he mentions in the memo. could only have been obtained by him researching himself, or getting someone to do it on his behalf. Either way it doesn't say much for how those suspects came to be mentioned in the first place if their details were incorrect in the suspect files.

It depends on what sources were consulted, but it’s irrelevant to the fact that information implicating Druitt was received and that Macnaghten was persuaded by it.

There are glaring errors with regards to what he writes about the suspects, errors which I would not expect to be there, if first of all the suspect details as recorded were accurate, and that may not be the case., and he clearly didn't check on what he was putting forward in the memo

There are some scattered errors which are irrelevant to whether or not information implicating Druitt was received.

We know there was another similar murder is 1891 which it would seem the police were suggesting was the work of the same killer. In 1894 MM knew Druit was dead and therefore could not have been the 1888 killer but he still refers to him as a likely suspect. Why di he not interject in the proceeding and volunteer his private information? he stays silent. that also tells me that the information was not very good.

Macnaghten explains that Jack the Ripper only killed five women, so it is manifestly obvious that he didn’t think the 1891 murder was committed by Jack the Ripper. The idea that Macnaghten stayed silent is yours and unsupported by any evidence.

His private information which led him to suggest Druitt, we dont know what it is and I accept we dont know the strength of its accuracy. But we can analyze what he writes and assess its potential evidential value in the grand scheme of things and come to a reasoned judgment.

What does Macnaghten write that you are analysing?

Now if we look at what he wrote "He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer"

Where could the information have come from? I doubt from the family direct to him, but perhaps from a friend of the family. But of course the family were not living with him in London, so how would they have been able to form a belief that their son was JTR?

I don’t know how or why the family formed an opinion that Druitt was Jack the Ripper, but evidently that is what Macnaghten thought. How they formed that belief needn’t have required that the family lived with him. It could have been based on things he said or how he behaved when they were in his company, or personal papers, or how people said he behaved… We’ve been through this before.

Where is there any evidence to show Druitt suffered from any mental illness, or was insane sexually or otherwise or that he was anything other than an upright citizen so where did he get sexually insane from? So there is no corroboration from that angle.

Where is there any evidence that Druitt wasn’t mentally ill. What do you think Macnaghten meant by ‘sexually insane’?

So when it comes down to it you have to accept that the reality is that what his private information was could have been nothing more than hearsay from a third party and unsafe and unreliable, and I suggest that on that basis alone Druitt should be regarded as a person of interest and not a suspect. But if you want to keep ramping him up as a suspect in the true sense then feel free. But all that is doing is misleading the general public wjo are no so knlwledgavle as us and will belive that Druiit is a real live suspect..

Yes, the information implicating Druitt ‘could’ have been nothing more than hearsay, but you consistently use hearsay in the sense of being ‘unsafe and unreliable’, but hearsay could be safe and very reliable. But you don’t know what the information was, so you can’t say it was hearsay. So, you don’t know what Macnaghten’s evidence was, yet you conclude on no evidence whatsoever that it was hearsay, which in turn you equate with being unsafe and unreliable, ignoring the fact that it could have been solid gold, and on that you advocate that Druitt not be treated as a suspect - although you insist on employing 21st century police jargon that you have been told you can’t use because it involved judging the quality of evidence which you don’t know and which you admit ‘I accept we dont know the strength of its accuracy.’

As you say this is becoming tiresome, so I hope now you will now refrain from keep asking questions to which you know there are no definitive answers.

I’m not asking questions to which there is no definitive answer, I am asking you to support your arguments or abandon them. You claimed that Macnaghten’s information was hearsay, but the reality is that you can’t say that because you don’t know what his information was. Asking you, how can you say the information was hearsay when you don’t know what the information was isn’t a question without a definitive answer, it’s a question which you either answer by explaining how you know the information was hearsay (and unsafe and unreliable)