Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Harry D
    started a topic What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

    What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

    Have to admit, Druitt has never really appealed to me as a suspect. I'm just wondering what it is about him that leads certain Ripperologists to hang their hat on him being the Ripper? Prima facie, it comes down to the Macnaghten memo and the time of his death. But Macnaghten gets even the most basic details about Druitt wrong, so how much stock can be put in his words? Does Druitt fit any of the witness descriptions? Did he even possess the kind of skill required for the murders? Can he be placed at Whitechapel when the killings took place?

  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Wolf Vanderlinden View Post

    However:

    Macnaghten wrote his Memoranda in 1894.

    In 1895 Forbes Winslow said that the Ripper was “a young medical student living in lodgings” and that “the body of this medical man was found in the Thames. He had drowned himself.”

    Late in 1898 Griffiths published Mysteries of Police and Crime. In its almost 1400 pages there is one tiny section on the Whitechapel Murders and that tiny section is mostly a reprint of the Macnaghten Memoranda (Aberconway version) which Griffiths could only have got from Macnaghten himself.

    Early in 1899 Sims starts to write about the “drowned doctor” theory taken, very likely, from Griffiths’ book. However within a few years Sims knew much more than had appeared in Griffiths’ book, like the fact that the list of three suspects came from a report found in the Home Office files (very likely true) and, apparently, the names of the three suspects.

    In 1908 Frank Richardson had published his comic novel The Worst Man In The World. In it Richardson had written “Doctor Bluitt, whose fantastic ability was so strikingly exhibited in his admirable series of Whitechapel murders, flung himself raving into the Thames.

    None of these men were members of the police and, according to you, none of them should have been “privy to internal memos sent to the Home Office” or “to be briefed about a flap involving The Sun” yet all of them seem to have known at least part of the content of the Macnaghten Memoranda. But perhaps it is only retired Scotland Yard Chief Inspectors who had actually worked on the Whitechapel Murders Investigation, and who had retired two whole years before the writing of the MM, who had no hope in hell of ever learning about it?

    Wolf.
    Farquarson?

    Leave a comment:


  • mpriestnall
    replied
    Did the writings of Griffiths or Sims present any actual evidence to support their assertions regarding to JTR's identity?

    Martyn

    Leave a comment:


  • mpriestnall
    replied

    Was the only reason why MM selected his particular 5 victims, was because certain facts/circumstances about the other victims would undermine the candidacies of his chosen three?

    Martyn

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Herlock,

    Not so much disregard as recalibrate.

    You should try it.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Jon,

    If you're asking me how Bond arrived at his conclusion, the only answer can be that it was the conclusion Anderson requested.

    It's all quite simple once you shrug off all the Ripper baggage we've been shouldering for years.

    Regards,

    Simon
    Everything is simple if you disregard everything anyone ever said. You’re left to just make up your own scenario.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wolf Vanderlinden
    replied
    Having a glass of ale and talking shop with your old comrades is a far cry from being privy to internal memos sent to the Home Office after one’s retirement. I still visit my old boss and go to his barbeques. He doesn’t find it necessary to send me confidential memos meant for the Corporate Headquarters! There was no need for Abberline, a retired officer, to be briefed about a flap involving The Sun. Your suggestion doesn't have a heck of a lot of merit.
    However:

    Macnaghten wrote his Memoranda in 1894.

    In 1895 Forbes Winslow said that the Ripper was “a young medical student living in lodgings” and that “the body of this medical man was found in the Thames. He had drowned himself.”

    Late in 1898 Griffiths published Mysteries of Police and Crime. In its almost 1400 pages there is one tiny section on the Whitechapel Murders and that tiny section is mostly a reprint of the Macnaghten Memoranda (Aberconway version) which Griffiths could only have got from Macnaghten himself.

    Early in 1899 Sims starts to write about the “drowned doctor” theory taken, very likely, from Griffiths’ book. However within a few years Sims knew much more than had appeared in Griffiths’ book, like the fact that the list of three suspects came from a report found in the Home Office files (very likely true) and, apparently, the names of the three suspects.

    In 1908 Frank Richardson had published his comic novel The Worst Man In The World. In it Richardson had written “Doctor Bluitt, whose fantastic ability was so strikingly exhibited in his admirable series of Whitechapel murders, flung himself raving into the Thames.

    None of these men were members of the police and, according to you, none of them should have been “privy to internal memos sent to the Home Office” or “to be briefed about a flap involving The Sun” yet all of them seem to have known at least part of the content of the Macnaghten Memoranda. But perhaps it is only retired Scotland Yard Chief Inspectors who had actually worked on the Whitechapel Murders Investigation, and who had retired two whole years before the writing of the MM, who had no hope in hell of ever learning about it?

    Wolf.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wolf Vanderlinden
    replied
    Recently I had some time on my hands and wrote a long response to RJ Palmer’s post # 1958. Things seem to have moved on a pace since page 131 and so the post seems to me to be out of context so I’ll shelve it (unless Mr. Palmer wants me to post it). However there are a couple of points I wanted to address:

    As intimate as Wolf suggests Abberline was with the theories of his cronies at Scotland Yard, they do not appear to have reciprocated, for they entirely ignored his Klosowski suggestion. Fred Abberline vigorously promoted the Poisoning Pole in the PMG on March 31st; Klosowski is hanged by the neck a week later, April 8th, never seriously investigated as Jack the Ripper.

    Why might that be?

    Nor does Abberline appear to have tempted Swanson, Macnaghten, Littlechild, Anderson, or Sagar over at The City away from their own thoughts and theories. After 1903, not one of them appears to have believed Klosowski was the Ripper.
    This is bizarre. You seem to be suggesting that since Abberline wasn’t believed about his Klosowski/Chapman theory he therefore shouldn’t be taken seriously. Was Abberline’s theory given much weight at Scotland Yard and with serving police officers? Obviously not. Was Anderson’s theory given much weight at Scotland Yard and with serving police officers? Other than possibly Swanson, No. Was Macnaghten’s theory given much weight at Scotland Yard and with serving police officers? No. Was Sagar’s ever changing theory given much weight at Scotland Yard and with serving police officers? Again, no. Moore, Leeson? No and no. As for Littlechild, he offered one man (as far as we know) an opinion on a possible suspect but didn’t think that man was the Ripper, so not really a theory per se. In fact, if all the police theorists who weren’t taken seriously are to be disregarded then that leaves who, exactly?

    Wolf.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Jon,

    If you're asking me how Bond arrived at his conclusion, the only answer can be that it was the conclusion Anderson requested.

    It's all quite simple once you shrug off all the Ripper baggage we've been shouldering for years.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Jon,

    No mystery here.

    Anderson got the answer he wanted from Bond.

    Regards,

    Simon
    You might be hinting at why he arrived at that conclusion, but thats not what you asked me.
    So how did he arrive at that conclusion?

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Jon,

    No mystery here.

    Anderson got the answer he wanted from Bond.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Thankyou Simon.
    Though the issue here has been the type of documentation Anderson provided/suggested Bond to use. Though why it's an issue God only knows!!!, it's pretty clear in plain bloody english.

    Nevertheless, you're question was how did Bond ascribe these murders to one hand?
    Is this a leading question?, of course I don't know (as you might imagine), so tell us what you think.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Jon,

    Robert Anderson wrote to Dr. Thomas Bond—

    “In dealing with the Whitechapel murders the difficulties of conducting the inquiry 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.

    "I brought up the matter before Sir C. Warren some time since and he has now authorised me to ask if you will be good enough to take up the medical evidence given at several inquests and favour him with you opinion on the matter."

    This is what Dr. Bond would have learned—

    Polly Nichols: No suggestion of surgical skill involved.

    Annie Chapman: Dr. Phillips agreed that the viscera were extracted with some anatomical knowledge.

    Elizabeth Stride: No suggestion of surgical skill involved.

    Catherine Eddowes: Dr. Brown agreed that the murderer must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs and the way to remove them. Also that the removal of the kidney would have required a good deal of knowledge as to its position.

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

    "In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge . . . In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals."

    So how did Dr. Bond arrive at this conclusion—

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

    Regards,

    Simon
    Last edited by Simon Wood; 06-18-2019, 04:58 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by packers stem View Post

    We're discussing Eddowes
    Let me know when you've found one from Brown so you have something comparable giving your claims some validity .

    There ya go .....reworded
    Oh, right, you think surgeon's made up their own procedures and documentation.

    Do you know the difference between an inquest and a trial?, or the difference between a postmortem for an inquiry, and a postmortem for an inquest?
    Do you know who has charge of the postmortem, and what role the coroner has in the selection of a surgeon to conduct a postmortem?
    What you will find is that there are very rigid rules to be followed by all surgeons involved in a postmortem; Brown, Bond, Phillips, Blackwell, all of them follow the same rules and guidelines.
    What Brown did was the same as Phillips, Bond, Blackwell, in fact any surgeon who came through the Royal College of Surgeon's. They all met the same criteria, the law required uniform observance, but of course this is all way beyond you....all you want to do is argue.


    Keep reading that ..... write it as lines if you prefer seeing as you like to comment on education

    MEDICAL EVIDENCE GIVEN AT THE SEVERAL INQUESTS

    You can thank me when it sinks in .
    Any entry level English student can explain what that means to you.

    You have evidence for Anderson's suggestion and/or supply ?
    You mean you haven't even read that for yourself?
    It's in the "Ultimate", if you care to look.

    Leave a comment:


  • packers stem
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    I pointed you to the McKenzie autopsy by Dr Phillips. If you bothered to read it you would see the description of the victim in situ is at the beginning of the autopsy report.
    So, I know you are either not reading up, or you're just making things up.
    Which is it?
    We're discussing Eddowes
    Let me know when you've found one from Brown so you have something comparable giving your claims some validity .

    There ya go .....reworded

    An inquest record (not report), is not an autopsy report. Anderson said "medical evidence from the inquest", not an "inquest report".
    Semantics.....again



    This is what Anderson wrote:
    "...(to Bond)...to ask you if you will be good enough to take up the medical evidence given at the several inquests"...
    Keep reading that ..... write it as lines if you prefer seeing as you like to comment on education

    MEDICAL EVIDENCE GIVEN AT THE SEVERAL INQUESTS

    You can thank me when it sinks in .

    Anderson suggested Dr Bond use the autopsy reports to analyze the mutilations.

    I'm inclined to think you are not using the correct terminology because you do not understand the issue we are debating.

    You have evidence for Anderson's suggestion and/or supply ?
    Without Brown's autopsy report you provide nothing but assumptions with no basis in fact

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X