Could we prove any suspect guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt?"

[Michael W Richards]

Its funny that people consider speculation as "evidence". I saw a show the other day that was made recently, included Mike Covell, and was a study of Deeming to see if he actually was incarcerated at the time of the murders. This was being done to assess if he should be considered as suspect for the crimes.

Its now come to the point where merely discovering that someone was in London at the time of the crimes is enough to add them as a legitimate Suspect.

Being in London, or In Spitalfield, or in George Yard, or in Whitechapel, or anywhere within walking distance of the crimes proves only the close proximity to them, not the likelihood of criminality.

Its clear lots of people lived nearby, and its clear that few of them would have done something like these crimes.

[Hunter]

[B]The clue is surely in the word "perhaps". Prove the diary genuine - THEN let's consider Maybrick a tenable suspect.

You would think that would be the logical thing to do if one is to implicate a person for the committal of heinous crimes. But Ripperology operates by a different standard.

Its now come to the point where merely discovering that someone was in London at the time of the crimes is enough to add them as a legitimate Suspect.

Its been to that point for a long time... even for people who were likely somewhere else.

If the police at the time possessed nothing to indict anyone (since most of the evidence was compiled by them and the medical examiners) we will always be left with assumptions when it comes to specific individuals - some maybe appearing more credible than others.

[RavenDarkendale]

And James Maybrick has the same reasonable doubt of his innocence, perhaps the Diary is genuine.

The clue is surely in the word "perhaps". Prove the diary genuine - THEN let's consider Maybrick a tenable suspect.

Phil H

Hi Phil

I have no intention of trying to prove the Diary genuine. I believe it was a clever forgery, although I cannot prove that either. The very question of validity of the diary would be enough to INVESTIGATE Maybrick, whereupon I sincerely believe he would be eliminated. To investigate someone for a crime, you must show sufficient cause, reasonable doubt of their innocence due to evidence that at least SUGGESTS they may be a person of interest.

No, Sickert was not a suspect at the time. Police often solve cold cases years after the crime and determine the culprit to be someone not suspected at the time. Since Sickert is claimed to be part of the so-called "Royal Conspiracy" as well as Patrica Cornwell's work with letters, paper watermarks, the paintings, this gives sufficient cause for Sickert to be reasonably suspected. Again, I believe he would be cleared.

An example:

Let us suppose a coworker has been found stabbed to death in the supply room. Upon investigation, it is stated that I came from that direction last with a fresh supply of paper, and I have blood on my sleeve. That is going to get me taken in for questioning. Under questioning I point out that I borrowed the paper from a coworker because I was too lazy to go to the supply room, that I was coming back from the bathroom which is in the same direction as the supply room, and I cut my arm on a sharp corner of one of the neighboring cubicles. I prove all of this, and am eliminated as a suspect. This doesn't mean that there wasn't reasonable doubt as to my innocence.

We just want the Ripper suspects to answer a few questions. Then we may eliminate them under reasonable doubt of guilt. But things under question however bizarre, should be seriously considered before dismissal. As I believe I stated: No one could be convicted beyond reasonable doubt on evidence we currently possess.

@Michael W Richards

Yes it is amazing that people take speculation as fact. That is why we have so many suspects, and innumerable books on them.

I personally lean towards Druitt, as I don't take the word of a senior police officer actually involved in the investigation lightly. But under evidence, that's probably all we have: THE MACNAGHTEN MARGINALIA, and his suicide after the MJK crime scene. Result, has to be passed over due to lack of compelling evidence. But suspected-- yes, indeed!

God Bless

Raven Darkendale

[Phil H]

I personally lean towards Druitt, as I don't take the word of a senior police officer actually involved in the investigation lightly. But under evidence, that's probably all we have: THE MACNAGHTEN MARGINALIA, and his suicide after the MJK crime scene. Result, has to be passed over due to lack of compelling evidence. But suspected-- yes, indeed!

RD, I think there's an important intellectual point here - related more to the methodolgy of historical study rather than JtR.

Druitt is, and HAS TO BE, a suspect because he was named as such by a senior police official of the time. We cannoy and should not expunge that from the record.

Nevertheless, as I think was broadly agreed in another thread recently, we ourselves have NO evidence whatsoever to link MJD to the murders in Whitechapel, in terms of sightings, behaviour, contacts, motivation, presence in the east End or links to it, etc etc. So we can, as it were put MJD on a back burner unless an individual wants to conduct further research or until additional material comes to light (as it may).

Macnaghten clearly states that he had additional information (private) which led him to his conclusions, but he has not shared it with us (a la the Swanson marginalia) and the material has not come down to us. we also know that MM is supposed to have dropped other hints (about connections with the attempt to assassinate Mr Balfour) and we have no known link between that and MJD as far as I am aware.

SO, either Macnaghten was being deceitful (neither version was true) or misleading (for political reasons) or he was absolutely correct but we have no ideas of his reasoning or the supporting evidence.

Further, we know that MJD is named as one of THREE suspects and only stated to be more likely than Cutbush to be JtR. Of the other 2 suspects named, no credible material I have yet seen makes Kosminski a credible Ripper, and Ostrog has been shown to have a cast iron alibi (in prison in France). On top of that, MM makes several important (deliberate or accidental) mistakes in biographical details concerning MJD. While i am prepared to defend MM in his grasp of the bigger picture, those errors of fact have to undermine his knowledge of Druitt for any impartial observer - unless we learn more.

So I conclude that while Druitt has to remain on the list of contemporary suspects, we have today too little factual knowledge to make him a credible suspect and should put him back on the shelf unless and until that situation changes.

Just my tuppence worth,

Phil H

[RavenDarkendale]

True Phil

I wonder if he didn't record his "private information" because of the possibility of scandal or perhaps the revealing of evidence he felt would serve no purpose.

RD

[Phil H]

We can only speculate on MM's motives RD. There are surely many.

He claimed he did not keep notes - and the information was verbal. He said he destroyed all the papers he held - did the private info go up in smoke when he retired.

But also, was MM involved in some deception in fingering MJD - either to protect the legal profession, or using MJD to hide a more political solution (Balfour's assassin?).

We cannot know,which is why I feel - given our present state of knowledge - Druitt has to be placed on a back burner pending any future revelations.

Phil H

[DVV]

Druitt's genius

Druitt is as fascinating as unviable, imo

[Jonathan H]

To Ravendarkendale

I think you are correct, but I have to warn you that I am considered by many here, and on the other site from which I am banned, to be wrong about everything.

All of my stuff is worthless.

I argue that Sir Melville Macnaghten had to tread carefully through a political, legal and social minefield once he had discovered, in 1891, that the late Montague Druitt was 'in all probability' Jack the Ripper.

I believe Sir Melville made a thorough, though discreet, investigation and, rightly or wrongly, believed that this institutionally embarrassing suspect was the the fiend.

For example, the Liberals were back in power in 1894 and so the Tory chief was careful, in his internal Report (official and unofficial versions) not to name Henry Farquharson, backbench Tory M.P., as his original source. In fact Dorset, where the story had originated about M. J. Druitt, is never mentioned at all.

In the end Sir Melville never sent this Report. Yet in 1898 he disseminated a sexed-up version of it to cronies (one a Tory and the other a Liberal) which projected onto the wider public his opinion, albeit anonymously.

Shockingly for the 'better classes' an English gentleman was semi-officially confirmed as the Whitechapel assassin -- 'Jack' was one of 'us', not one of 'them'.

There are no primary sources that Sir Melville ever linked the Ripper with Irish attempts to kill Balfour. The one secondary source which does from the 50's-- this is a much disputed revisionist argument, but so what else is new for me? -- is arguably taking too literally the last lines of Mac's chapter on the Ripper (about the murderer nearly 'settling the hash' of a sec. of state) on a page examining memoirs not secret files. It is also more likely, as the same, lone source is unaware that Sir Melville did not disagree with his successor that the murderer was a man who took his own life, as the writer wrongly asserts.

For fifteen years Sir Melville protected the Druitt family, and Druitt's former students, and the Yard's rep with the 'drowned doctor' tale, a suspect who never literally existed (in 1888 there had been much police agitation over an American quack doctor suspect). Arguably 'Kosminski' and Michael Ostrog -- or rather their fictional counterparts created by Mac -- were red herrings (eg. originally minor suspects, enhanced and enlarged).

In his 1914 memoirs, Sir Melville tried to have it both ways:

On the one hand, to maintain a measure of ambiguity, of discretion, so that what he wrote would not endanger the surviving Druitts. On the other, he wanted to come clean about how the police were not about to arrest this 'Protean' maniac, he was not a Jew, nor a man who had been 'detained' in a lunatic asylum, or been fingered by some terrific witness, or had 'anatomical knowledge' by being a medico, and he did not instantly kill himself within hours of the Kelly atrocity -- oh, and no other suspects are worth mentioning.

You often read that Sir Melville made all these basic mistakes about Druitt, solely because of an internal report; one version of which was never sent and the other was only shown or its details verbally communicated and then propagated anonymously by media pals.

Whereas what he wrote about this subject in a document under his own knighted name, for public consumption and scrutiny, Sir Melville, arguably, makes no 'inaccuracies' about Druitt at all.

I don't think he destroyed anything in 1913. That was just rhetorical reassurance to the Druitts. After all, he left the official version gathering dust in the Scotland Yard archive and the unofficial version was preserved by his family as if it was the formula to Coke.

Fair enough too, as Sir Melville considered the Ripper-Druitt as one of his great detective coups. It is the only case mentioned in the short preface of his memoirs, in which he suggests that he was not entirely too late to 'have a go' at the fiend (eg. he 'laid' to rest his 'ghost' by discovering his true identity).

The old theory asks us to believe that Sir Melville could get it right, in the 'Aberconway' version -- the one that was a sexed-up 'scoop' for cronies -- about the season train ticket, a minor detail, and yet get it wrong about the suspect's age, vocation(s) and date of self-murder?

It's not impossible, but it is not very likely either and his memoir reveals him reshaping the data -- yet again -- and this time more in line with the little known facts about Druitt.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Is Druitt a credible suspect?

I think so

Why? for a few reasons only a couple of which I can mention now
1) he committed suicide after the last canonical victim (to throw the Yard off his trail?)
2) Druitt was an ex surgeon with knowledge of anatomy to my knowledge

[DVV]

Hi Sherlock

Are these credible reasons to make Druitt a suspect ?

Is Druitt a credible suspect?
I think so
Why? for a few reasons only a couple of which I can mention now
1) he committed suicide after the last canonical victim (to throw the Yard off his trail?)
2) Druitt was an ex surgeon with knowledge of anatomy to my knowledge

I don't think so.

[Fisherman]

What David is saying, Sherlock, is - par example - that Druitt was a barrister and not a doctor. It is a common misconception that he WAS a doctor, one that you share with very highranking police officers of the time. Nevertheless, is is wrong.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sherlock Holmes]

why is he not a credible suspect?

regards
Holmes

[DVV]

He's a credible cricketer, I have to admit.

[Sherlock Holmes]

yes but thats not what I was asking

Holmes

[Phil H]

SH - first to correct some misapprehensions:

1) he committed suicide after the last canonical victim (to throw the Yard off his trail?)

Many people commit suicide and not because they are "serial killers. At best this would be a circumstantial reason for suspecting Druitt, hardly making him "credible" per se.

Druitt's suicide is explicable for many reasons, his own mental state - he had just been sacked from his job for unknown but probably serious offences. there was a history of suicide in his family, and his mother's mental state had deteriorated seriously. A note he left is alleged to have stated that "since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother" (or words to that effect). There is absolutely NO reson to connect his suicide with JtR.

2) Druitt was an ex surgeon with knowledge of anatomy to my knowledge

As has been already pointed out to you, Druitt was a barrister legally trained, not a doctor as ERRONEOUSLY state by Macnaghten. There were doctors in his family, but no evidence of MJD ever receiving medical/surgical training. Before his death he was both practising law and teaching in a school at Blackheath.

Old books seek to connect MJD with an uncle who had a medical practice in The Minories - but no such link has ever been demonstrated. I think you should check your sources.

why is he not a credible suspect?

Druitt cannot be connected to any victim, any crime scene or the East End as an area. There is no evidence he even visited the area - he lived south of the river and although the journey would not be difficult, it was not a direct one. His address in the Temple was a business address NOT a residence.

Further, Druitt has a least partial alibis for some of the crimes - he was playing cricket.. Now that does not make it impossible that he was Jack, I think it suggests that his state of mind was reasonably stable and relaxed, at least in the earlier part of 1888.

Druitt is a suspect because, and only because, he was named in a list of three by Melville Macnaghten. MM got several basic facts about Druitt wrong - so we have to ask how much did he really know about the man. Further the two other names in the list look odd. While "Kosminski" is confirmed as a suspect by Swanson, all research on Aaron Kosminski (who I gave information to you on recently) has failed to prove him a realistic suspect and has shown that information given by Swanson is - at least on the basis of what is available to us - plain mistaken. The other candidate, Ostrog has been shown to have been in prison in France and also not a violent man - as MM states. Thus he too can be ruled out.

This is, therefore, not a strong or viable foundation on which to construct a case against MJD. That said, if more material emerges to indicate in detail what MM based his claim on, then MJD might re-enter the frame. But at this time, to any impartial observer, he must be a very weak suspect with only MM's mention of him to have brought him to our attention.

I rest my case,

Phil H