What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Herlock,

Give me one piece of hard evidence or, if you can't manage that, a whisper of truth in support of the proposition that the same person murdered all five women.

One caveat. Please, none of your usual twaddle.

Regards,

Simon

Twaddle Simon?
and here you and packer on a druitt thread offering up police conspiracy or some such nonsense without any evidence at all or indeed any kind of specifics, names reasons or solutions. Talk about twaddle.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Give me one piece of hard evidence or, if you can't manage that, a whisper of truth in support of the proposition that the same person murdered all five women.

One caveat. Please, none of your usual twaddle.

Regards,

Simon

I’ll ignore the twaddle insult.

In the absence of a proven culprit we cannot prove that there was one culprit. Just like, as Bertrand Russell said, we cannot prove that there isn’t a Magic Flying Teapot out in space but we can deduce that it’s unlikely in the extreme.

If we look at these crimes as a modern police force would we can’t fail to see this. Five throat cutting murders of prostitutes over a 2 month period within a few streets of each other. Apart from Stride, who may or may not have been a victim, they all had vicious abdominal mutilations. These kind of murders were not common place. They were the opposite of common place. They were unique in their viciousness. Yet they all occurred in a small area over a two month period. This might be considered a clue. Even the most Clouseau-like detective would have failed to have arrived at the inescapable conclusion that they were overwhelmingly likely to have been committed by the same man. No police officer would have said “looks like a conspiracy to me Guv let’s haul in The Freemasons for questioning” This is common sense. This is based on everything that we have come to learn about these type of murders. How often have we come across a series of apparently similar murders and subsequently discovered that they were done by different people as part of a plan to discredit some group or to make some political point? I’d say never.

Where is the hard evidence in favour of a conspiracy? There is none. What we do have is a massive investigation that we are looking at 130 years later. Of course there are going to be unanswered or debated points. There are quibbles over the accuracy of timings. There are contradictory witness statements and potentially wildly inaccurate TOD estimations. These are bound to have occurred at that time but provide the fertile breeding ground for conspiracy. To quote again, this time Carl Sagan, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” That these murders were a conspiracy is the definition of an extraordinary claim so I’ll ask you “where is you’re extraordinary evidence?” Not minor timing issues or an Assistant Commissioner getting a suspects age and occupation wrong or two witnesses contradicting each other. Or even the perception that a newspaper proprietor might have had reason to tell lies.

Ive explained why I and the vast majority of those that are interested in the case have come to the inescapable, and entirely logical and reasonable conclusion that these murders were committed by a serial killer who became known as Jack the Ripper. I’ve had to employ no leaps of faith to get there either. So can you or Packers Stem provide the extraordinary evidence (not hints or winks or trivial errors or disputed points) to show that these murders were part of a conspiracy?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,



The first is clearly more likely, particularly given that Dr. Phillips himself points out that the morning was cool, and there was a great loss of blood, which could cause the body to cool more quickly. I believe in one of the recorded statement he goes so far as to say that if the evidence of the other witnesses (Long and Cadoche) proves correct that he would recognize he underestimated those influences (that's missing from The Times coverage, but it's recorded somewhere). Note that the coroner in his summing up also phrases things this way, suggesting he's repeating Dr. Phillips original phrasing as well.

Basically, even Dr. Phillips tells us that his estimation of the TOD is questionable.

- Jeff

Exactly Jeff. It doesn’t fit the plan though

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=packers stem;n713150[/QUOTE]

.
But for the majority who think like you , only after the inquiry told you so .Some of us were sure in 1990 and
not when some inquiry tells us were allowed to believe it .
It was the large number of people affected that would not let go that brought it to a head .
Majority of cover ups or indeed conspiracies don't have that number of determined people ready to fight them .
So they remain intact

The difference is of course childishly obvious to see. The reason is that I didn’t look into it at the time. If I had and I’d seen the evidence I’d have accepted it. The enquiry wasn’t kicked of by conspiracy theorists it came from families and friends listening to what they were being told by the people that were actually there.

And Hillsborough is vastly different to the Whitechapel Murders. No one conspired to kill those people then seek to cover it up. It was a case of trying to cover up errors and incompetence which cost people their lives. No one planned those events beforehand.

No one would suggest that people in power don’t lie and cover things up. It happens of course but we have to view each event in isolation and not get carried away, which is what you are doing. This is why I’ve mocked conspiracy theorists. Yes I’ll admit that I’ve gone over the top. They’re not all loonies of course. But concluding that these murders were part of a conspiracy betrays all the hallmarks of looney conspiracy theory thinking (not that I’m calling you or Simon loonies of course)

[PhiltheBear]

At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious - can people limit the discussion to Druitt. I've wasted too much time reading arguments between Herlock and Trevor that have 3/4 of 2/5 of f*** all to do with the subject.

The simple question is whether or not anyone should take notice of MacNaghten's memo. That defines whether or not Druitt should be a suspect. Nothing else. Because there is nothing else.

The proposers argue that we should accept MacNaghten's word because

• He was a senior police officer at the time - no he wasn't. He didn't arrive on the scene until later.
• He wasn't a liar - yes he was. His autobiography says:"In 1884 Mr. Monro was appointed to succeed Sir C.E.Howard Vincent as Assistant Commissioner of Metropolitan Police in charge of the Criminal Investigation Department. Four years later, on my return from India, he asked me if I was prepared to take up work as his Assistant Chief Constable at Scotland Yard. Flattering though the proposal was, I was not in a position to accept it at the moment, as family work and private interests claimed my whole attention, but, when the offer was again made a year later, I gladly answered in the affirmative". The facts, on the other hand are: It is a matter of fact that after leaving Eton he neither went to university nor trained for any profession. He was simply sent to India to 'manage' the family estates there. On his return to England Munro recommended him for a position as an assistant chief constable in March 1888. Warren initially put him forward but noted that he had no previous military, police or political experience. Warren became appraised of an incident in MacNaghten's past in Bengal in which MacNaghten and many of his 'servants' were attacked and beaten by the local peasantry. Apparently Munro was involved in sorting the situation and it was at that time that their friendship began. On learning of this Warren withdrew his support: 'it is going very far to select a man who has no qualifications of any kind … and who in addition … is the one man in India who has been beaten by Hindoos' (TNA: PRO, MEPO 1/55, 11 April 1888). MacNaghten has to wait until Warren retired and Munro took his place before the post was opened to him. Therefore - this is a lie.
• He was asked to provide the memorandum - There is nothing to support this. It appears that he saw another chance of self-glorification. Why should someone who wasn't, in any way, involved in Jack the Ripper cases otherwise take it upon himself to send Scotland Yard a memo about a case he had nothing to do with? Indeed, it appears that his memorandum was simply 'parked' by Scotland Yard.

He was a self-publicist who cultivated the press to make sure he was portrayed in a favourable light. Sims, for example, became a friend. Griffiths's Mysteries of Police and Crime was facilitated by MacNaghten (in return for which there is a fulsome exposition of his merits). Both Adam and Dilnot, who both provided works favourable to the police, were known to have had his patronage. "I can safely say," he remarked on Wednesday in the course of interview, "that in seventy-five cases out of a hundred the Press has been exceedingly useful, and its value in those cases quite outweighed the nuisance which it sometimes was in the others." (Derby Daily Telegraph 29 May 1913)

Within the police force, however, the view wasn't nearly so rosy. When he retired the Police Review said: "His rule did not enhance the proficiency or reputation of the CI Department. He carried on the work of his office with the assistance of an experienced staff, the leading members of which are debarred from filling positions for which they act as expert advisers." In short, he took all the credit for actions of his underlings.

The memorandum is full of holes. He named 3 suspects but clearly states that these three "were more likely than Cutbush" to have committed the murders. If his main suspect was Druitt, why did he even bother with the other two? He is often quoted as the originator of the 'canonical five' but that isn't true either. Factually, his case against Druitt appears to come from Farquarson, who said that the son of a surgeon committed suicide on the night of the last murder. How does MacNaghten translate that into Druitt being a doctor, 41 years old who committed suicide in December and make him his main suspect?

Ah yes - the family 'information'. All we have here is MacNaghten's statement (depending on which version of his memorandum you prefer) that "... from private info. I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer" or " From private information I have little doubt but that his own family suspected this man of being the Whitechapel murderer". His own family. That would be his elder sister Georgina and his elder brother William. The only likely source would be William, who perjured himself at the inquest. Could he have started such a rumour to point the police away from himself? The other suggestions of distant cousins marrying other distant relatives and passing the information along a long chain of relatives are so far-fetched as to be instantly dismissed. It is very unlikely that any 'fairly good' Victorian family would start rumours that one of their own was Jack the Ripper unless there was an ulterior motive. We come back in full circle to William.

We know MacNaghten was wrong about Montague being a doctor and we know he was wrong about his age. Yet people are happy to accept that those are just errors which should be ignored but that Druitt's name must be considered gold plated. The problem is that MacNaghten made error after error in his autobiography when it came to identifying names of people, places and dates. For example, the graffito was written in "Goulburn Street". Or the finding of pieces of a woman (cf Torso killings) on Monday 3rd June when it was actually 4th June, a Tuesday. Or the execution of Louise Masset who was hung at the end of 1899. In fact Louise Masset was famed for being the first woman executed in the twentieth century on 9th January 1900. Or the 2 Italians who had the idea of bombing the Stock Exchange; Polti and Ferrara. Actually Polti and Fomara. Or the murder of Amelia Jeffs, aged 12, who was reported missing on the 29th January 1890. She wasn't. She was reported missing by her father on the 31st January. There are more. Yet these things happened while MacNaghten was in office and surely he must have had access to notes of his own or sight of Scotland Yard files while constructing his autobiography. Why then, should we accept that he was correct in naming Druitt?

It would, of course, suit MacNaghten to say that a doctor committed suicide after what he thought of as the 'last' murder. It would hang nicely with the suspicion that Jack had medical knowledge when he carried out his butchery. But it's a simple matter of fact that Druitt wasn't a doctor. He never had any training to be a doctor. He was a school teacher who later became a barrister. His only crime was that of committing suicide (which was a crime).

In order to further incriminate Druitt theorists have proposed that because he was a cricketer and played 'fives' he would have developed a lot of upper body strength that would have enabled him to subdue the victims quickly or strike then across the throat with a knife with a great deal of power. I went to a public school. We had two fives courts and I played several games there. I am not and never have been sporty. Indeed, a game of chess with the window open is more than enough exercise for me. But I played fives, a game which essentially consists of hitting a small ball with a gloved hand in a court which is encompassed by concrete walls on three sides. Fives does not involve great strength, indeed probably much less than that needed to play tennis so please dispose of that argument.

My old school also has a boathouse right beside Barnes Bridge and I, like Phil Carter, have witnessed the state of the flow and rise and fall of the water level (Barnes Bridge being comparatively close to where Druitt's body was discovered). I am somewhat perturbed by the idea of Druitt walking into the Thames with stones in his pockets trying to drown himself. It's not impossible but it seems unlikely. Could he have jumped off Hammersmith Bridge? Yes, he could. Tidal movement could have carried him to Chiswick. But it's not very likely.

Having got that off my chest - can we please get this thread back where it belongs?

[packers stem]

No you’re not wrong of course. It’s simply not relevant.

Only in that I asked what was two or three feet behind Eddowes .
It's relevant because you asked for the alternative to a cart

[Herlock Sholmes]

At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious - can people limit the discussion to Druitt. I've wasted too much time reading arguments between Herlock and Trevor that have 3/4 of 2/5 of f*** all to do with the subject.

The simple question is whether or not anyone should take notice of MacNaghten's memo. That defines whether or not Druitt should be a suspect. Nothing else. Because there is nothing else.

The proposers argue that we should accept MacNaghten's word because

• He was a senior police officer at the time - no he wasn't. He didn't arrive on the scene until later.
  Do you think that none of us noticed that he hadn’t joined the force until 1889?
• He wasn't a liar - yes he was. His autobiography says:"In 1884 Mr. Monro was appointed to succeed Sir C.E.Howard Vincent as Assistant Commissioner of Metropolitan Police in charge of the Criminal Investigation Department. Four years later, on my return from India, he asked me if I was prepared to take up work as his Assistant Chief Constable at Scotland Yard. Flattering though the proposal was, I was not in a position to accept it at the moment, as family work and private interests claimed my whole attention, but, when the offer was again made a year later, I gladly answered in the affirmative". The facts, on the other hand are: It is a matter of fact that after leaving Eton he neither went to university nor trained for any profession. He was simply sent to India to 'manage' the family estates there. On his return to England Munro recommended him for a position as an assistant chief constable in March 1888. Warren initially put him forward but noted that he had no previous military, police or political experience. Warren became appraised of an incident in MacNaghten's past in Bengal in which MacNaghten and many of his 'servants' were attacked and beaten by the local peasantry. Apparently Munro was involved in sorting the situation and it was at that time that their friendship began. On learning of this Warren withdrew his support: 'it is going very far to select a man who has no qualifications of any kind … and who in addition … is the one man in India who has been beaten by Hindoos' (TNA: PRO, MEPO 1/55, 11 April 1888). MacNaghten has to wait until Warren retired and Munro took his place before the post was opened to him. Therefore - this is a lie.
  I’ve already mentioned this on this thread. This was a simple exercise in face-saving. By that judgment every single person on the planet should be categorised as a liar. It’s incredibly simplistic if you believe that if someone tells one lie (no matter how harmless) then they should be branded as a liar and everything that they say and do afterwards should be mistrusted or disregarded.
• He was asked to provide the memorandum - There is nothing to support this. It appears that he saw another chance of self-glorification. Why should someone who wasn't, in any way, involved in Jack the Ripper cases otherwise take it upon himself to send Scotland Yard a memo about a case he had nothing to do with? Indeed, it appears that his memorandum was simply 'parked' by Scotland Yard.
  As far as I can recall no one has stated as a fact that Macnaghten was asked to provide a Memorandum. Your accusation of self-glorification is utterly baseless and transparently biased.

He was a self-publicist who cultivated the press to make sure he was portrayed in a favourable light. Sims, for example, became a friend. Griffiths's Mysteries of Police and Crime was facilitated by MacNaghten (in return for which there is a fulsome exposition of his merits). Both Adam and Dilnot, who both provided works favourable to the police, were known to have had his patronage. "I can safely say," he remarked on Wednesday in the course of interview, "that in seventy-five cases out of a hundred the Press has been exceedingly useful, and its value in those cases quite outweighed the nuisance which it sometimes was in the others." (Derby Daily Telegraph 29 May 1913)
There is absolutely no evidence at all that he was a self publicist. In actual fact people that actually knew him describe his modesty. The police have in the past and still use the press. It serves both parties in different ways but certainly not to portray him in a favourable light. I’m wondering what the reason is for this unfounded character assassination?
Within the police force, however, the view wasn't nearly so rosy. When he retired the Police Review said: "His rule did not enhance the proficiency or reputation of the CI Department. He carried on the work of his office with the assistance of an experienced staff, the leading members of which are debarred from filling positions for which they act as expert advisers." In short, he took all the credit for actions of his underlings.
Not, in short, at all. That’s your biased interpretation. What they are obviously saying is that he did nothing to improve the force. Simple as that.
The memorandum is full of holes. He named 3 suspects but clearly states that these three "were more likely than Cutbush" to have committed the murders. If his main suspect was Druitt, why did he even bother with the other two? He is often quoted as the originator of the 'canonical five' but that isn't true either. Factually, his case against Druitt appears to come from Farquarson, who said that the son of a surgeon committed suicide on the night of the last murder. How does MacNaghten translate that into Druitt being a doctor, 41 years old who committed suicide in December and make him his main suspect?
The Memorandum is not full of holes. The errors are insignificant. Macnaghten is very obviously talking about Druitt which is all that matters. Who said that Macnaghten translated Farquarson? Where do you come by these sweeping judgments?
Ah yes - the family 'information'. All we have here is MacNaghten's statement (depending on which version of his memorandum you prefer) that "... from private info. I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer" or " From private information I have little doubt but that his own family suspected this man of being the Whitechapel murderer". His own family. That would be his elder sister Georgina and his elder brother William.
Utterly irrelevant. If you can prove to us all how Macnaghten lied or why his family couldn’t have suspected him of being guilty I’m sure that we’d all be grateful for the enlightenment?
The only likely source would be William, who perjured himself at the inquest.
Probably to protect his family’s reputation. Then again, by your judgmental standards this condemns him for life as a wretched perjurer!
Could he have started such a rumour to point the police away from himself? The other suggestions of distant cousins marrying other distant relatives and passing the information along a long chain of relatives are so far-fetched as to be instantly dismissed.
No they can’t be dismissed. Especially by resorting to dishonestly exaggerating the length of the chain which could simply have been - family member to Majendie to Macnaghten. So in future I better not give you a message to pass on to someone else as that kind of three person chain is obviously an non-starter.
It is very unlikely that any 'fairly good' Victorian family would start rumours that one of their own was Jack the Ripper unless there was an ulterior motive. We come back in full circle to William.
Who said anything about a rumour? How many Straw Man arguments can you come up with? If the family had suspicions against Druitt that might not have known how to proceed in dealing with the problem whilst avoiding a scandal. Majendie would have been the ideal person for the family to have confided in.
We know MacNaghten was wrong about Montague being a doctor and we know he was wrong about his age. Yet people are happy to accept that those are just errors which should be ignored but that Druitt's name must be considered gold plated.
Was he talking about Montague John Druitt or a 41 year old Doctor called Michael Jeffrey Druitt? These errors are irrelevant especially when we know that he didn’t come into his info until years after Druitt had died.
The problem is that MacNaghten made error after error in his autobiography when it came to identifying names of people, places and dates. For example, the graffito was written in "Goulburn Street". Or the finding of pieces of a woman (cf Torso killings) on Monday 3rd June when it was actually 4th June, a Tuesday. Or the execution of Louise Masset who was hung at the end of 1899. In fact Louise Masset was famed for being the first woman executed in the twentieth century on 9th January 1900. Or the 2 Italians who had the idea of bombing the Stock Exchange; Polti and Ferrara. Actually Polti and Fomara. Or the murder of Amelia Jeffs, aged 12, who was reported missing on the 29th January 1890. She wasn't. She was reported missing by her father on the 31st January. There are more. Yet these things happened while MacNaghten was in office and surely he must have had access to notes of his own or sight of Scotland Yard files while constructing his autobiography. Why then, should we accept that he was correct in naming Druitt?
Because there was no other MJ Druitt for him to have gotten confused with. Nothing that you’ve quoted above shows that Macnaghten was wrong or that he lied.
It would, of course, suit MacNaghten to say that a doctor committed suicide after what he thought of as the 'last' murder.
Of course that’s nonsense because others, like Munro, felt that Mackenzie might have been a victim and so the ripper would have been at large after Druitt had died. If Mac had been on the ball he’d have chosen some criminal that Died or some lunatic that was incarcerated after Mackenzie or Coles. With all the resources that he had available to him Why pick the seemingly unlikely Druitt? Someone who’s movements were far easier to track than your average Joe. Therefore someone for whom an alibi for any of the murders might have been found.
It would hang nicely with the suspicion that Jack had medical knowledge when he carried out his butchery. But it's a simple matter of fact that Druitt wasn't a doctor. He never had any training to be a doctor. He was a school teacher who later became a barrister. His only crime was that of committing suicide (which was a crime).
His father was a surgeon. He was brought up in a house full of medical books. He might even have studied the subject if his father had quite naturally hoped that he’d followed in his footsteps. Monty May have decided against it though. No one has claimed for certain that he had medical/anatomical knowledge but he had a far better chance of gaining that knowledge than the vast majority of suspects.
In order to further incriminate Druitt theorists have proposed that because he was a cricketer and played 'fives' he would have developed a lot of upper body strength that would have enabled him to subdue the victims quickly or strike then across the throat with a knife with a great deal of power. I went to a public school. We had two fives courts and I played several games there. I am not and never have been sporty. Indeed, a game of chess with the window open is more than enough exercise for me. But I played fives, a game which essentially consists of hitting a small ball with a gloved hand in a court which is encompassed by concrete walls on three sides. Fives does not involve great strength, indeed probably much less than that needed to play tennis so please dispose of that argument.
I’m afraid that arguments won’t be disposed of on your say so. This as not in anyway been used as proof of guilt. It’s a very minor point proving that Druitt was physically fit, that’s all.
My old school also has a boathouse right beside Barnes Bridge and I, like Phil Carter, have witnessed the state of the flow and rise and fall of the water level (Barnes Bridge being comparatively close to where Druitt's body was discovered). I am somewhat perturbed by the idea of Druitt walking into the Thames with stones in his pockets trying to drown himself. It's not impossible but it seems unlikely. Could he have jumped off Hammersmith Bridge? Yes, he could. Tidal movement could have carried him to Chiswick. But it's not very likely.
He was found in the Thames. How he got there we don’t know. Suicide is overwhelming the likeliest.
Having got that off my chest - can we please get this thread back where it belongs?
But apparently you’ve just disproved Druitt as a suspect. Your mind is made up so why would you care about the thread going back to where it belongs

I have to admit to finding it more than a little strange when someone that has taken no part in the debate/discussion swoops in to tell us all how stupid we have been for looking at Druitt as a possible candidate. If I’m stupid enough to consider the possibility then so are, according to you, researchers like Wickerman, Roger Palmer, Paul Begg and others. Thankfully we have you to put us right.

[Phil Carter]

At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious - can people limit the discussion to Druitt. I've wasted too much time reading arguments between Herlock and Trevor that have 3/4 of 2/5 of f*** all to do with the subject.

The simple question is whether or not anyone should take notice of MacNaghten's memo. That defines whether or not Druitt should be a suspect. Nothing else. Because there is nothing else.

The proposers argue that we should accept MacNaghten's word because

• He was a senior police officer at the time - no he wasn't. He didn't arrive on the scene until later.
• He wasn't a liar - yes he was. His autobiography says:"In 1884 Mr. Monro was appointed to succeed Sir C.E.Howard Vincent as Assistant Commissioner of Metropolitan Police in charge of the Criminal Investigation Department. Four years later, on my return from India, he asked me if I was prepared to take up work as his Assistant Chief Constable at Scotland Yard. Flattering though the proposal was, I was not in a position to accept it at the moment, as family work and private interests claimed my whole attention, but, when the offer was again made a year later, I gladly answered in the affirmative". The facts, on the other hand are: It is a matter of fact that after leaving Eton he neither went to university nor trained for any profession. He was simply sent to India to 'manage' the family estates there. On his return to England Munro recommended him for a position as an assistant chief constable in March 1888. Warren initially put him forward but noted that he had no previous military, police or political experience. Warren became appraised of an incident in MacNaghten's past in Bengal in which MacNaghten and many of his 'servants' were attacked and beaten by the local peasantry. Apparently Munro was involved in sorting the situation and it was at that time that their friendship began. On learning of this Warren withdrew his support: 'it is going very far to select a man who has no qualifications of any kind … and who in addition … is the one man in India who has been beaten by Hindoos' (TNA: PRO, MEPO 1/55, 11 April 1888). MacNaghten has to wait until Warren retired and Munro took his place before the post was opened to him. Therefore - this is a lie.
• He was asked to provide the memorandum - There is nothing to support this. It appears that he saw another chance of self-glorification. Why should someone who wasn't, in any way, involved in Jack the Ripper cases otherwise take it upon himself to send Scotland Yard a memo about a case he had nothing to do with? Indeed, it appears that his memorandum was simply 'parked' by Scotland Yard.

He was a self-publicist who cultivated the press to make sure he was portrayed in a favourable light. Sims, for example, became a friend. Griffiths's Mysteries of Police and Crime was facilitated by MacNaghten (in return for which there is a fulsome exposition of his merits). Both Adam and Dilnot, who both provided works favourable to the police, were known to have had his patronage. "I can safely say," he remarked on Wednesday in the course of interview, "that in seventy-five cases out of a hundred the Press has been exceedingly useful, and its value in those cases quite outweighed the nuisance which it sometimes was in the others." (Derby Daily Telegraph 29 May 1913)

Within the police force, however, the view wasn't nearly so rosy. When he retired the Police Review said: "His rule did not enhance the proficiency or reputation of the CI Department. He carried on the work of his office with the assistance of an experienced staff, the leading members of which are debarred from filling positions for which they act as expert advisers." In short, he took all the credit for actions of his underlings.

The memorandum is full of holes. He named 3 suspects but clearly states that these three "were more likely than Cutbush" to have committed the murders. If his main suspect was Druitt, why did he even bother with the other two? He is often quoted as the originator of the 'canonical five' but that isn't true either. Factually, his case against Druitt appears to come from Farquarson, who said that the son of a surgeon committed suicide on the night of the last murder. How does MacNaghten translate that into Druitt being a doctor, 41 years old who committed suicide in December and make him his main suspect?

Ah yes - the family 'information'. All we have here is MacNaghten's statement (depending on which version of his memorandum you prefer) that "... from private info. I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer" or " From private information I have little doubt but that his own family suspected this man of being the Whitechapel murderer". His own family. That would be his elder sister Georgina and his elder brother William. The only likely source would be William, who perjured himself at the inquest. Could he have started such a rumour to point the police away from himself? The other suggestions of distant cousins marrying other distant relatives and passing the information along a long chain of relatives are so far-fetched as to be instantly dismissed. It is very unlikely that any 'fairly good' Victorian family would start rumours that one of their own was Jack the Ripper unless there was an ulterior motive. We come back in full circle to William.

We know MacNaghten was wrong about Montague being a doctor and we know he was wrong about his age. Yet people are happy to accept that those are just errors which should be ignored but that Druitt's name must be considered gold plated. The problem is that MacNaghten made error after error in his autobiography when it came to identifying names of people, places and dates. For example, the graffito was written in "Goulburn Street". Or the finding of pieces of a woman (cf Torso killings) on Monday 3rd June when it was actually 4th June, a Tuesday. Or the execution of Louise Masset who was hung at the end of 1899. In fact Louise Masset was famed for being the first woman executed in the twentieth century on 9th January 1900. Or the 2 Italians who had the idea of bombing the Stock Exchange; Polti and Ferrara. Actually Polti and Fomara. Or the murder of Amelia Jeffs, aged 12, who was reported missing on the 29th January 1890. She wasn't. She was reported missing by her father on the 31st January. There are more. Yet these things happened while MacNaghten was in office and surely he must have had access to notes of his own or sight of Scotland Yard files while constructing his autobiography. Why then, should we accept that he was correct in naming Druitt?

It would, of course, suit MacNaghten to say that a doctor committed suicide after what he thought of as the 'last' murder. It would hang nicely with the suspicion that Jack had medical knowledge when he carried out his butchery. But it's a simple matter of fact that Druitt wasn't a doctor. He never had any training to be a doctor. He was a school teacher who later became a barrister. His only crime was that of committing suicide (which was a crime).

In order to further incriminate Druitt theorists have proposed that because he was a cricketer and played 'fives' he would have developed a lot of upper body strength that would have enabled him to subdue the victims quickly or strike then across the throat with a knife with a great deal of power. I went to a public school. We had two fives courts and I played several games there. I am not and never have been sporty. Indeed, a game of chess with the window open is more than enough exercise for me. But I played fives, a game which essentially consists of hitting a small ball with a gloved hand in a court which is encompassed by concrete walls on three sides. Fives does not involve great strength, indeed probably much less than that needed to play tennis so please dispose of that argument.

My old school also has a boathouse right beside Barnes Bridge and I, like Phil Carter, have witnessed the state of the flow and rise and fall of the water level (Barnes Bridge being comparatively close to where Druitt's body was discovered). I am somewhat perturbed by the idea of Druitt walking into the Thames with stones in his pockets trying to drown himself. It's not impossible but it seems unlikely. Could he have jumped off Hammersmith Bridge? Yes, he could. Tidal movement could have carried him to Chiswick. But it's not very likely.

Having got that off my chest - can we please get this thread back where it belongs?

Hello PhiltheBear,

Thank you for an excellent post.

I too attended a public school, with 2 enclosed Fives courts and 4 two walled courts (on the four outside walls of the two enclosed), at Hampton.
You are completely correct about physical ability playing Fives. The courts are relatively small and each square the players stand in are again, small.
No great physical ability is needed, but a sharp eye more so.

Now. The ebb and flow of the Thames at Chiswick has been listed on this thread, with tidal times and depths, low and high tide. In order for a weighted, dead body to be transported, under the water, from Hammersmith Bridge to Chiswick Bridge and beyond is highly dependant on when, and where, the body entered the water. A jump, or push, from Hammersmith Bridge, would have to be at a time of medium to high tide, because medium to low tide would not have the required flow to carry the body at all straight after the person entered the water. Hammersmith, Chiswick, Putney, Richmond are all reknowned for being extremely muddy at low tide.
So, at some time in the first 12 hours, the weighted body would be stranded in the mud.. IF, and I stress this... IF the body was in the centre "lane" of the river.
Now at Chiswick itself has a gradual slope towards the centre of the river. Not a "steep" drop off towards the centre. I repeat from an earlier post. Low tide there can be as low as 9" of water only there in December. Althouth this is extreme, 18" is not uncommon.
So we are talking about a body laying in the water upward of 30 days before being seen, bloated.( Low tide 60 times during that time. High tide 60 times during that time. I refer all back to the chart for December I posted many pages ago.)
We are expected to believe, that under such conditions, the body was not seen in daylight on 30 plus days... A bloated body at low tide? Personally, I find this incredulous. But like all things Ripper, we are fed this information and expected to swallow it hook line and sinker. Talking of which..
Northern Pike are a native species in the Thames, and have been for hundreds of years. At low tide, they stay in the centre of the river, and are known to be territorial. The largest females of the species (the males are smaller) mate in December-March, and spawn March - April. During the winter months, they remain as stationary as possible (females) in order to conserve energy for spawning when they travel to the banks, looking for reeds. Any other entity that enters their territory during winter months, if not a mate seeking male, will be attacked and eaten, without much movement used, to conserve energy.
A dead, rotting body, will most likely be scavanged upon by both pike, and eels. Perch are know to eat dead meat as well. So we must consider the scenario that a body in the middle of the Thames for 30 plus days just happens to be ignored as lunch for 30 days by the aquatic residents of the Thames.
Oh, and by the way, rats can swim too....

I'm just posting this because it needs to be understood by every Druittist. Not only are there many holes in the Memoranda, not only are there countless exaggerations and falsities in MM's words in his autobiography, but the likelihood of a dead body going unseen in daylight, at low tide, in the Thames, is very unlikely in itself.

Thank you again Philthebear for the excellent post.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Herlock,

I quote you..

.... I have to admit to finding it more than a little strange when someone that has taken no part in the debate/discussion swoops in to tell us all how stupid we have been for looking at Druitt as a possible candidate. If I’m stupid enough to consider the possibility then so are, according to you, researchers like Wickerman, Roger Palmer, Paul Begg and others. Thankfully we have you to put us right.

I thought, a long while ago, that you write in the style of an ex policeman. The above confirms my suspicions.
So let's just get a few things crystal clear here shall we?
The Whitechapel Murder series are NOT the sole property of, nor in any control of, the Metropolitan, City, or any other police force. The Met police do NOT need defending ad hoc, nor the policemen of yesteryear in that force. Loyalty to one's "brother" officers does not come above "without fear nor favour"... A thing that is sadly forgotten by many many policemen and ex policemen, and women.

An ex policeman does not know it all, and because members of the lay public happen to sit and wait to comment, as IS THEIR Right, to write when they so wish, it certainly isn't not for you, nor anyone, to disparage a first post because they haven't posted previously. That comment comes over as pompous. I DO hope I'm wrong, and you are not an ex or serving policeman?

I do realise that for anybody to be systematically countered in discussion can be hard to take.
However, because you do not know the person, it is no reason to respond with that last comment.

Just my opinion.

And no doubt you will by now be trying to take apart my previous post. I hope you can show a little more respect towards me. Unless, of course, like me, you happen to be a life long pike fisherman, and know the waters of the Thames and its movements. I do hope so. As I've lived in that area for the first 22 years of my life.. I hope you know it better than I do.


Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Herlock,

"So can you or Packers Stem provide the extraordinary evidence (not hints or winks or trivial errors or disputed points) to show that these murders were part of a conspiracy?"

I don't think I ever stated that the murders were part of a conspiracy.

In my book, I wrote—

"The truth we have been left with is that Jack the Ripper—psychopath, schizophrenic, sexual sadist, gentile, Jew, lunatic, society doctor, crazed midwife, impressionist painter, Russian secret agent, politician, Portuguese sailor, the Elephant Man, philanthropist, convicted murderer, heir to the British throne and darkly jocular letter writer—murdered five, maybe seven or perhaps as many as eleven prostitutes, outwitted two London police forces and established the benchmark for all subsequent serial killers.

"Anyone who does not subscribe to this pick-and-mix assortment or who questions the integrity of the authorities during the Whitechapel murders is branded by the hardcore Ripper community as a conspiracy theorist."

Thank you for demonstrating I was right.

Regards,

Simon

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Herlock,



Phil

.
I thought, a long while ago, that you write in the style of an ex policeman. The above confirms my suspicions.
So let's just get a few things crystal clear here shall we?
The Whitechapel Murder series are NOT the sole property of, nor in any control of, the Metropolitan, City, or any other police force. The Met police do NOT need defending ad hoc, nor the policemen of yesteryear in that force. Loyalty to one's "brother" officers does not come above "without fear nor favour"... A thing that is sadly forgotten by many many policemen and ex policemen, and women.

A brilliant piece of deduction Phil. I’ve worked my entire life in the Foundry industry (partly iron but mainly aluminium) I’ve never so much as stepped inside a police station though I did have a great uncle that I never met who was a village Bobby.

I don’t assume that all policeman were always correct or honest but what we are constantly faced with on this subject is the almost default position that all senior policeman were moustache-twirling Victorian villains. It’s not beyond the bounds that some of them were intelligent, decent, honourable men. We have no evidence that Macnaghten was corrupt or a liar (and that doesn’t mean, as PhiltheBear appears to suggest) that someone that tells one proven lie that they should be tarred as unreliable.

An ex policeman does not know it all, and because members of the lay public happen to sit and wait to comment, as IS THEIR Right, to write when they so wish, it certainly isn't not for you, nor anyone, to disparage a first post because they haven't posted previously. That comment comes over as pompous. I DO hope I'm wrong, and you are not an ex or serving policeman?

As above.

Id also ask how you could even say that given the disagreements that I’ve had with Trevor?

I wasn’t at all pompous or was I suggesting that someone shouldn’t post for the first time. What I objected to was that, rather than enter the debate/discussion with his points, PhiltheBear waded in to tell any of us that are open-minded when it comes to Druitt’s candidature that we are pretty much gullible idiots. If that’s not pompous then what is? That’s just a blanket dismissal of anyone else’s opinion. I don’t profess to be an expert on this subject but many are. So if Phil is happy to make those comments about Paul Begg and others then that’s up to him. I prefer to listen to their opinions with respect and then come to my own.

. I do realise that for anybody to be systematically countered in discussion can be hard to take.
However, because you do not know the person, it is no reason to respond with that last comment.

Ive never complained about debate so please don’t try painting a false portrait. I’ve just systematically responded to the post and there were no tears in my eyes.

Neither Sam Flynn or Abby Normal believe Druitt to be a particularly good suspect but have I had any dispute with them? No. They give their opinions without telling me that I’m a fool for holding my own.

And no doubt you will by now be trying to take apart my previous post. I hope you can show a little more respect towards me. Unless, of course, like me, you happen to be a life long pike fisherman, and know the waters of the Thames and its movements. I do hope so. As I've lived in that area for the first 22 years of my life.. I hope you know it better than I do.

Perhaps you mean the kind of respect PhiltheBear employed when he implied that some of us on here are gullible fools? Or is there another kind of respect? I always try and show respect but respect is earned.

I know nothing about the waters of the Thames or any other rivers (unless you believe that I was in the Thames River Police?) The only point that I’d make on that subject is that I’d wonder why no one at the time or since ever felt that it was anything extraordinary that the body remained in the water for so long? Couldn’t it have gotten snagged on something or wedged and then unsnagged or unwedged?

[Herlock Sholmes]

‘

Hi Herlock,

"So can you or Packers Stem provide the extraordinary evidence (not hints or winks or trivial errors or disputed points) to show that these murders were part of a conspiracy?"

I don't think I ever stated that the murders were part of a conspiracy.

In my book, I wrote—

"The truth we have been left with is that Jack the Ripper—psychopath, schizophrenic, sexual sadist, gentile, Jew, lunatic, society doctor, crazed midwife, impressionist painter, Russian secret agent, politician, Portuguese sailor, the Elephant Man, philanthropist, convicted murderer, heir to the British throne and darkly jocular letter writer—murdered five, maybe seven or perhaps as many as eleven prostitutes, outwitted two London police forces and established the benchmark for all subsequent serial killers.

"Anyone who does not subscribe to this pick-and-mix assortment or who questions the integrity of the authorities during the Whitechapel murders is branded by the hardcore Ripper community as a conspiracy theorist."

Thank you for demonstrating I was right.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

You asked me a question, with an insult thrown in for good measure, and I responded.

I could also have quoted Dr Bond’s conclusion that “all five murders were no doubt committed by the same hand.”

This is a view that would have been arrived at today given the circumstances. I can’t see how you can portray someone that agrees with this as some kind of gullible fool?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. I'm just posting this because it needs to be understood by every Druittist

And you called me pompous Phil?!

Nice bit of labelling by the way. How do you define a Druittist? As far as I know I’m the only poster on here that feels that Druitt is the likeliest of the named suspects. That’s simply my opinion. I’ve never said that Druitt was definitely the ripper just that he might have been so if you want to label me a Druittist I can live with it. But you used the plural so who are the other ones? Again people like Wickerman or Roger or Paul who don’t favour Druitt but are open-minded and interested in him.

Not only are there many holes in the Memoranda, not only are there countless exaggerations and falsities in MM's words in his autobiography

None of which, in any shape, way or form alter the fact that Macnaghten named him in his Memorandum. He wasn’t lying, he wasn’t confusing him with someone else and he didn’t just hear some vague unsubstantiated rumour and decide to put it in his Memorandum.

but the likelihood of a dead body going unseen in daylight, at low tide, in the Thames, is very unlikely in itself

But not impossible? And, as he was definitely pulled out of the Thames this surely becomes likely? Or is there another explanation?

[Wickerman]

At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious - can people limit the discussion to Druitt. I've wasted too much time reading arguments between Herlock and Trevor that have 3/4 of 2/5 of f*** all to do with the subject.

The simple question is whether or not anyone should take notice of MacNaghten's memo. That defines whether or not Druitt should be a suspect. Nothing else. Because there is nothing else.

The proposers argue that we should accept MacNaghten's word because[LIST][*]He was a senior police officer at the time - no he wasn't. He didn't arrive on the scene until later.
.......

I'd read enough at that point. The thought came to mind that if the poster can't get his first point right then why read anything else?

Macnaghten's 'Memorandum' has been compared with recollections written by Anderson, Abberline, Smith, etc.
The point that Mac. was "a senior police officer at the time" does not refer to the time of the murders, but to the time when the Memorandum was written.
All the other senior officials had retired by the time they chose to put their recollections down on paper.
Macnaghten was the only official who put his thoughts & suspicions down in ink while he was still an active official.

(note: Warren is the only other active official who made a list of suspects which has survived, but his list does not reflect his personal beliefs)

[Simon Wood]

Hi Herlock,

In a 23rd October 1888 report to the Home Office, Robert Anderson mused on the fact “that five successive murders should have been committed, without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime.”

Two days later, on 25th October 1888, Robert Anderson wrote [with Sir Charles Warren’s authorisation] to Dr. Thomas Bond [recently resigned divisional surgeon, ‘A’ Division, Westminster], enclosing copies of the medical evidence from just four inquests: those of Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes.

Anderson’s fifth victim had fallen by the wayside.

His letter to Dr. Bond read—

“In dealing with the Whitechapel murders the difficulties of conducting the enquiry are largely increased by reason of our having no reliable opinion for our guidance as to the amount of surgical skill and anatomical knowledge probably possessed by the murderer or murderers.

“He [Warren] feels that your eminence as an expert in such cases—and it is entirely in that capacity that the present case is referred to you, will make your opinion especially valuable.”

Bond replied on 10th November 1888, having the previous day performed a post-mortem examination of the Millers Court victim—

“All five murders were no doubt committed by the same hand.”

Thus were the canonical five originally cast in stone, with Annie Chapman now officially designated as the murderer’s second victim. But it appears Dr. Bond had not been given access to the full inquest transcripts, for he wrote—

“In the four murders of which I have seen the notes only I cannot form a very definite opinion as to the time that had elapsed between the murder and the discovering of the body.

“In one case, that of Berner Street, the discovery appears to have been made immediately after the deed—In Buck’s Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed.

Taken at face value, Dr. Bond’s comments place a squib under Jack the Ripper’s signature trademark: that of his victims being discovered just minutes after their dispatch.

Regards,

Simon