What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[FISHY1118]

Wow, just read the last 50 post on this thread .....and you lot think the people whos opinion on the royal conspiracy is crazy , at least there not chasing 100 jack the rippers . shissssssssh. by the way, Druitt is not JTR.

[Wickerman]

I think you're getting a little mixed up somehow .

He was asked to look at the inquest reports not the postmortem reports and give his opinion .
Sourcebook 399-400 pb

Had he only looked at the postmortem reports then coming up with such miraculous presumptions as ....

"In all the cases there appears to be no evidence of struggling and the attacks were probably so sudden and made in such a position that the women could neither resist nor cry out "

Or

"in the first four cases the murderer must have attacked from the right side of the victim"

Would be ludicrous

The medical information required to study the mutilations is not contained in the inquest record. It is only to be found in the post mortem examination notes. These are the "notes" Bond refers to when he writes, "I have seen the 'notes' only".
This is what Simon referred to in post 2625 above, where he wrote: "On 25th October 1888 Anderson sent Dr. Bond the medical evidence from four inquests: Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes."

"Medical Evidence" is the Autopsy record of the post mortem examination for each individual victim.

[Wickerman]

Youre right though. I just don’t get why my very mild opinion that Macnaghten wasn’t an idiot or a liar or that he might have had good reason (in his own opinion) to suspect Druitt appears to be such an extremist one? It’s bizarre.

But some theorists depend on Macnaghten being a fool, and you refuse to let these ill-conceived theories go unchallenged. How do you sleep at night....

[Wickerman]

He was asked to look at the inquest reports not the postmortem reports and give his opinion .
Sourcebook 399-400 pb

Instead of paraphrasing, why don't you quote verbatim?

Anderson's letter to Bond provides the reason:
"..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..."

Then, we read:
"...if you will be good enough to take up the medical evidence given at the several inquests".

Bond was asked to take up the medical evidence given at the inquests (not witness testimony), and then provide guidance as to the skill and anatomical knowledge of the murderer.

Not the inquest record, but the medical evidence given AT the inquests.
Do you understand where the confusion lies now?

[Simon Wood]

We've wasted 2660 posts on Druitt, and got absolutely nowhere.

I vote we start a new thread to see if we have any better luck trying to pin Ripperdom on Aaron Kosminski or any other Polish Jew, as proposed by the blessed Robert Anderson.

[PhiltheBear]

We've wasted 2660 posts on Druitt, and got absolutely nowhere.

I vote we start a new thread to see if we have any better luck trying to pin Ripperdom on Aaron Kosminski or any other Polish Jew, as proposed by the blessed Robert Anderson.

Or start a new thread on Druitt that only discusses Druitt and ignores all the stuff that has made up well over 50% of this thread.

[PhiltheBear]

“Look at it on its own and it's patently a work of fiction written with the sol purpose of MacNaghten trying to glorify himself (again)”

“I find it more than a little strange that anyone who looks at this objectively can consider Druitt as a genuine suspect when there is nothing at all to make him an object of suspicion other than the ramblings of a self glorifying ex-police official. No - not strange - sad.”

The implication of just those two quotes is hardly a difficult one to decipher Phil. If, according to you something is obviously a work of fiction, what does that imply about someone that believes that it isn’t?

The second quote adds that anyone believing the Macnaghten might have had good reason to believe Druitt a likely suspect cannot have looked at it objectively. And that their opinions are in some way sad.

And nothing there says anyone is stupid.


And I’ve agreed with you that the thread got sidetracked and that I’m partially to blame for that. But you fail to acknowledge that the initial points which lead to it being sidetracked were introduced by others. And they and I discussed them when those issues should have been taken to another thread. Yet you choose only castigate me. Threads do occasionally get sidetracked. This one is not the first and won’t be the last.

The vast majority of this thread appears to have been side-tracked by you and you alone. As Phil Carter, who has had many years of Ripper investigation behind him, puts it - you are only here to provoke. Indeed many of your posts have the whiff of a 10 year old about them.

Phil you seem to have this fixed ideas of people promoting Druitt. I’d understand your point if I or anyone else had said that it’s game over and that Druitt was the ripper. No one has said that and you did accuse me of that in your last post and I asked you to point out where I’d done it. I simply haven’t. Of the named suspects it’s simply my own opinion that Druitt is the likeliest. I’ve never insulted or called anyone an idiot for disagreeing with me. Whether explicitly or by implication. I have however been critical of people who dismiss Druitt out of hand because they dismiss the MM out of hand simply because of a very few insignificant and inconsequential errors. The fact remains that the MM cannot be shown to be a fantasy. I’m also wary of conspiracy theorist thinking. I’m not saying that the more conspiracy minded posters on here are idiots by the way but I’m very cautious of the habit of seeing the sinister in every error or discrepancy. And also of assuming the default position that all senior police officers were incompetent liars.

MacNaghten didn'y make a 'few, inconsequential errors'. He made lots of errors - some which may have actually been made as deliberate insults - and he told lies. That's a matter of record and it shows that everything he wrote is subject to doubt. In the case of the memo the ONLY thing he got right was Druitt's name. Everything else was either absolutely wrong or his opinion. As an ex fraud investigator if I uncovered even a small lie I'd look very hard at the person who uttered it and in every case I would not be able to trust anything else they said. MacNaghten didn't utter small lies, his were substantial. In today's world he'd be torn apart.

On Paul Begg. Again it’s not a case of throwing anyone’s weight behind Druitt. If you’ve read Paul’s posts on here recently he's argued very convincingly that we have no good reason to dismiss the MM but in fact we have every reason to believe that Macnaghten felt that he had good reason to consider a likely suspect. I’m not an expert but I think that most would agree that Paul might be considered one. Added to this we have experienced and knowledgeable researchers like Wickerman and Roger Palmer who concur. None of whom are Druittists. These people don’t think the MM was an obvious fantasy. Sam Flynn, another experienced and knowledgeable researcher, doesn’t feel that Druitt is a likely suspect but he doesn’t dismiss the MM as a fantasy. I’m only quoting these people to make the point that if this is the obvious fantasy that you claim it to have been then some very knowledgeable people have all been hoodwinked by it. This doesn’t really hold water Phil.

The FACT, though, is that whatever MacNaghten believed appears to have been about a fantasy figure - a doctor who was sexually insane. There is nothing, anywhere, that makes that fit Druitt. As he was patently incorrect about his other suspects and as his later writings show he watered down his opinion (and got the information wrong once again) he should be dismissed as being credible.

I don’t avoid questions Phil. If I can’t answer them I’ll tell you that I can’t answer them. I’ve answered them.

I don’t see why my very mild opinion that Macnaghten genuinely felt that he had reason to suspect Druitt should make you so angry. Your tone from the start has been angry. I’ve simply responded to your posts. Frankly I can’t understand the attitude.

And I can't understand why, if you have no opinion either way on Druitt, you insist on clogging up this thread with your arguments. Like Phil Carter I'm going to put you on ignore. Feeding your vanity isn't worth my time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wow, just read the last 50 post on this thread .....and you lot think the people whos opinion on the royal conspiracy is crazy , at least there not chasing 100 jack the rippers . shissssssssh. by the way, Druitt is not JTR.

Every single human being that ever existed in the Victorian era was more likely to have been Jack the Ripper than Sir William Gull Eten al

[Herlock Sholmes]

Instead of paraphrasing, why don't you quote verbatim?

Anderson's letter to Bond provides the reason:
"..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..."

Then, we read:
"...if you will be good enough to take up the medical evidence given at the several inquests".

Bond was asked to take up the medical evidence given at the inquests (not witness testimony), and then provide guidance as to the skill and anatomical knowledge of the murderer.

Not the inquest record, but the medical evidence given AT the inquests.
Do you understand where the confusion lies now?

I do Wick

[FISHY1118]

I cant believe your so naive as to think that he couldn't have been .Detective Abberline thought him important enough to visit his residents , but then i doubt you even know about that . And by the way junior the Druitt scenario being JTR been done to death . Might as well let that go, it wasn't him

[Herlock Sholmes]

We've wasted 2660 posts on Druitt, and got absolutely nowhere.

I vote we start a new thread to see if we have any better luck trying to pin Ripperdom on Aaron Kosminski or any other Polish Jew, as proposed by the blessed Robert Anderson.

Yes we have Simon. I’m afraid we’ve got the stage where honest and unbiased debate has been utterly discarded in favour of reading between the lines paranoia and crackpot fantasy.

We’ve got to this stage. Where we have 5 throat cutting prostitute murders over a 2 month period and within a tiny area where the victims were left on display in the street (except for one and for this one we have a very reasonable explanation - that the ripper happened to pick up a woman that had her own room.) Where all but one included vicious abdominal mutilations (and even for the one that didn't we have a reasonable, plausible possible explanation) And faced with these exceptionally unusual circumstances some look at these and say - oh there were obviously a few throat cutting abdominal mutilators in town. Or - ahh there was obviously some conspiracy going on.

This is patently ludicrous. If the police looked at these murders today (and they have) they would come to the inescapable conclusion that these were serial murders. And this wouldn’t make them the dupes of the upper classes or gullible fools. It would mean that they were following where the evidence led.

We’re at the stage where it apparently has to be the default position that all authority figures or senior police officers in that period were corrupt, buffoonish Colonel Blimp-type characters despite there being not a solitary shred of evidence for this.

We’re at a stage where every slight or insignificant error is loaded with sinister intent and almost every scenario requires the insertion of some imaginary plot.

And finally, in the case of recent posts, we’re at the stage where someone who merely says that we have no reason to call Macnaghten a liar and that he genuinely felt that he’d good reason to have believed Druitt to have been a likely suspect, someone who hasn’t said anything like - Druitt was definitely the ripper - gets treated like he’s the purveyor of some outlandish theory. And, saddest of all, where someone can pounce on a thread with an angry rant, get responded to then pathetically retreat into victimhood.

That appears to be where we’re at Simon.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I cant believe your so naive as to think that he couldn't have been .Detective Abberline thought him important enough to visit his residents , but then i doubt you even know about that . And by the way junior the Druitt scenario being JTR been done to death . Might as well let that go, it wasn't him

Because when searching for a possible serial murderer the first type that the police should have looked for of course would have been a 72 year old recovering stroke victim who just happened to have been the Queen’s Physician.

Bloody obvious when you think about it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And I can't understand why, if you have no opinion either way on Druitt, you insist on clogging up this thread with your arguments. Like Phil Carter I'm going to put you on ignore. Feeding your vanity isn't worth my time.

I do have opinions. I will and have discussed them but only with occupants of this planet.

Go and sit with Phil in your safe space.

Bye

[Herlock Sholmes]

And I can't understand why, if you have no opinion either way on Druitt, you insist on clogging up this thread with your arguments. Like Phil Carter I'm going to put you on ignore. Feeding your vanity isn't worth my time.

Oh and before you go - did you manage to find where I’d said that Druitt was definitely the ripper?

No?

ok

[FISHY1118]

71 to be exact , ''minor'' stroke in OCT 1887 to be more exact , had recovered by AUG 1888. and Abberline thought him important enough to question about the whitechapel murders . Thats all ill say about that .