What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Herlock,

No.

With respect to Ostrog, I don't think there's much doubt about Macnaghten's employment of the phrase ‘homicidal maniac.’

On 18th April 1891 Ostrog was charged at Bow Street Magistrates Court for failing to report himself whilst under police supervision. It was also alleged at the time that he was in the habit of feigning insanity when in custody.

Macnaghten wrote, [Ostrog was] "detained in a lunatic asylum as a homicidal maniac."

And [he was] "unquestionably a homicidal maniac. This man was said to have been habitually cruel to women . . ."

Druitt: "He was sexually insane."

Kosminsky: [he] "had strong homicidal tendencies."

Macnaghten was painting a portrait of the non-existent Ripper. It would have been fairly difficult for him not to use the phase "homicidal maniac."

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi Herlock,

The six-part Sun story was an ingenious attempt to cause maximum political damage.

How was it going to be demonstrated that Thomas Cutbush was not the non-existent "Ripper"?

Equally, had Macnaghten's memorandum ever seen the light of day, how was it going to be demonstrated that Druitt was the likeliest suspect to have been the non-existent "Ripper"?

Regards,

Simon

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Simon,

But even if those phrases weren’t entirely accurate I don’t see how they can show that Mac was painting a portrait of a non-existent ripper? As we don’t know what evidence Mac saw that led him to believe Druitt to have been a likely suspect isn’t it possible that he was simply using that phrase to describe what he’d discovered about him?

When we’re faced with 5 murders, from the same group of victims, in a small area, over a two month period with so many similarities like throat cutting and mutilation the overwhelming likelihood has to be that one person was doing the killing. Even with advanced modern methods the police today would be looking for a serial murderer. How do we arrive at a different scenario?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Hi Simon,

. The six-part Sun story was an ingenious attempt to cause maximum political damage.

But how can you be sure about that Simon?

. How was it going to be demonstrated that Thomas Cutbush was not the non-existent "Ripper"?

By discovering an alibi for one of the murders Perhaps?

.
Equally, had Macnaghten's memorandum ever seen the light of day, how was it going to be demonstrated that Druitt was the likeliest suspect to have been the non-existent "Ripper"?

Perhaps it couldn’t be demonstrated. Macnaghten only said that he was a likely suspect and not definitely guilty. This doesn’t prove that the ripper didn’t exist though.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Herlock,

How can I be sure the Sun story was an ingenious attempt to cause maximum political damage?

By examining the timing, the people involved, The Morning Leader counter story and Macnaghten's reactive memorandum.

Only two murders resembled each other — Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes.

There may be another factor linking the five women. I don't want to jump the gun, so I'm saving it for later.

Regards,

Simon

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

How can I be sure the Sun story was an ingenious attempt to cause maximum political damage?

By examining the timing, the people involved, The Morning Leader counter story and Macnaghten's reactive memorandum.

Only two murders resembled each other — Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes.

There may be another factor linking the five women. I don't want to jump the gun, so I'm saving it for later.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

But by reading between lines how can you be sure that you aren’t seeing something that isn’t there? If it’s by implication then surely you are open to misinterpretation?

I don’t understand how only the murders of Chapman and Eddowes resembled each other? Of the 5, all were prostitutes (whether part-time or full-time)and all were killed in a small area over two months. All had their throats cut. All mutilated except one. This doesn’t get more obvious for me.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Herlock,

You're the one starting from the premise that there was a person known as Jack the Ripper who was responsible for the murders of five women.

However, once the mythical homicidal maniac had served its purpose, he could never be arrested, officially declared dead or otherwise identified. All he could do was slowly melt into the mists of time as mysteriously as he had first appeared.

Which is exactly what happened.

Are you certain it isn't you who is seeing something that isn't there?

Regards,

Simon

[packers stem]

When we’re faced with 5 murders, from the same group of victims, in a small area, over a two month period with so many similarities like throat cutting and mutilation the overwhelming likelihood has to be that one person was doing the killing. Even with advanced modern methods the police today would be looking for a serial murderer. How do we arrive at a different scenario?

Evening Herlock

Unless you have a collection of people killing people in the same form to make it appear to be one killer .
Similar with the torso murders .
...... or gangs calling cards

[Wickerman]

There may be another factor linking the five women. I don't want to jump the gun, so I'm saving it for later.

Regards,

Simon

You realize I won't sleep tonight.....

[Simon Wood]

Night, night, Jon



Regards,

Simon

[John G]

To quote Carl Sagan: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

But who needs Occam's razor when you've got a good conspiracy theory. Yes, it currently has no evidential basis whatsover, but that's obviously a somewhat trivial point becuse, of course, something is bound to just turn up. Maybe I should start to re-watch the X-Files...

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Simon,



But how can you be sure about that Simon?



By discovering an alibi for one of the murders Perhaps?



Perhaps it couldn’t be demonstrated. Macnaghten only said that he was a likely suspect and not definitely guilty. This doesn’t prove that the ripper didn’t exist though.

Well if the police in 1888 accepted that there was no Jack the Ripper because they knew that the letter that started it all of was a hoax, then hypothetically there was no Jack the Ripper, simply a killer or killers who killed in what could be described as ripper like fashion, and if you remove the term ripper, you are left with simply "a series of similar murders" all of which do have similarities and also dissimilarities.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Simon,

But by reading between lines how can you be sure that you aren’t seeing something that isn’t there? If it’s by implication then surely you are open to misinterpretation?

I don’t understand how only the murders of Chapman and Eddowes resembled each other? Of the 5, all were prostitutes (whether part-time or full-time)and all were killed in a small area over two months. All had their throats cut. All mutilated except one. This doesn’t get more obvious for me.

The cutting of a person throat in Victorian times was the main method used to kill a person. Unlike today when more people die from stab related injuries than by having their throats cut. So to caution should be excercised when linking them all together.

I belive that he evidence points to Chapman Eddowes and Nichols killed by the same hand. The evidence points to Kelly and Stride by different killers.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

Well if the police in 1888 accepted that there was no Jack the Ripper because they knew that the letter that started it all of was a hoax, then hypothetically there was no Jack the Ripper, simply a killer or killers who killed in what could be described as ripper like fashion, and if you remove the term ripper, you are left with simply "a series of similar murders" all of which do have similarities and also dissimilarities.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I would tend to agree with this, Trevor. I mean, I certainly don't believe that there was a crazed serial killer, wearing a cape and calling himself JtR!.

Dr Biggs made clear when reviewing the Torso murders, that there is no hard forensic evidence linking those crimes, which is hardly suprising when you consider that modern forensics involves things like bone scans and tool mark analysis, which in turn requires X-rays MRI scanners and CT scans-I'm assuming this technology hadn't been invented in the latter part of the nineteenth century, or if prototypes existed they must have been on the blink!

Of course, the same is true of the Whitechapel murders. There not going to be solved by forensics. Like the aforementioned Torso cases we can only rely on criminal profiling, geo profiling and statistical analysis, which essentially amounts to exercising our own intution. This, of course, is not a pure scientific approach, and therefore there is a risk of error.

The main difficulty is that there were a large number of rare,violent crimes during this period: The Torso crimes, C5, Tabram, Smith, McKenzie, Coles, Mylett, Ronan, Austin etc. And it's clearly not as simple as roping in as many of these unusual cases as you can find and attributing them all to your favourite suspect; nor do I believe in some sort of grand conspiracy, lead by Lord Chief Freemason. However, attempting to determine who killed who is no easy matter, and an absolute minefield for the uninitiated.

[mpriestnall]

"uninitiated"? Non-freeemasons?