Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

[Abby Normal]

I’ve never specifically called him a Prime Suspect. All that I’ve ever said is that in my opinion he’s the likeliest of the named suspects. He’s a suspect because he’s been suspected. Firstly by Sir Melville MacNaghten. How do you know that he didn’t see incredibly strong evidence for Druitt’s guilt? You don’t. Just like I don’t know that he did because we don’t know what his information/evidence was. Just parroting ‘unsafe to rely on’ is as pointless as me saying ‘well if MacNaghten thought Druitt was guilty then he must have been.’ You have shown how we would ‘rate’ Druitt. You’ve just expressed doubts.

I’ll make my point one last (hopefully?) time about terminology.


We know that in an ongoing police investigation the use of person of interest, suspect and prime suspect is important because the police have to focus their limited resources. Time spent following the wrong person might lead to the loss of life or to the guilty party escaping justice but those kind of pressures don’t apply to us though. What we do on here is of no importance in the real world. We can ‘waste’ as much time as we like discussing anything and no one will suffer, no one will die or escape justice and every poster can simply decide whether they want to take part in the discussion or not. We know that words can have different uses and meanings in different contexts and so for us the term ‘suspect’ simply means someone that someone suspects might have been the ripper. We can easily differentiate between those that were suspected at the time and those that have been suspected in the preceding years so that’s no problem. And individuals decide who they feel are the stronger or weaker suspects and how strong or weak they are. Trying to divide people into categories of suspect though is a waste of time and effort. It achieves nothing as it’s still down to the individual on how they rate that persons likelihood of being guilty.

Then we have to ask how we would decide who is a person of interest, who is a suspect and who is a prime suspect? Who would make the decision? Would we appoint a panel of judges? And how would we arrive at our decision? What criteria would we use and how would we agree on them? Would we create a table of points for each person and then spend days quibbling over each point with the aim of giving each suspect a rating and then probably never arriving at a consensus?

Can anyone seriously think that there’s any point in this except for some who want to see certain names at the bottom of the table and others at or near the top? Quibbling over whether someone is a person of interest, a suspect or a prime suspect is about as pointless an exercise as I can imagine. There is zero need for it and it would serve zero purpose. No one would benefit. And even if we wanted to do this it would be next to impossible to achieve because we would end up quibbling for years over each point. Then we would be accusing each other of skewing assessments to boost one suspect at the expense of another.

Feigenbaum is a case in point. How do we get consensus to decide how we rate him. You rate him a prime suspect whereas I say that someone can’t be a suspect if you have no evidence that he was in the country at the time of the murders. Some might agree with you; some would agree with me. So who decides what we call him? He’s been suspected by you therefore he’s a suspect. It’s the only workable way.

As far as armchair detectives on a Forum are concerned a suspect is a term for a person who has been suspected by someone. It’s as simple as that and there’s no need for pointless complications. We decide as individuals on their strengths and weaknesses. To the police these terms have significance but not to us. Why do we even have to waste time discussing this excruciatingly obvious point?

feigenbaum isnt even a person of interest. he cant even be placed in the country let alone the city. hes nothing-except a suspect in trevors eyes. Druit and koz were at least suspects to the police at the time.

[The Baron]

The gone with the wind classification strikes again!

According to it, any person that can be shown was in London 1888, be it a Queen, a Police officer, a Pope, anyone, is a beter suspect than a convicted murderer whose wherabout during the murders were unknown!

This old classifications and the minds behind it hadn't been updated since the Neanderthal!

Nevertheless it has a historical value, that shows the development of logical thinking!



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Absolutely, Herlock.

In my book, the dictionary definition of 'sexually insane' includes a photo of Ray Alan, with one hand up Macnaghten's bottom, while throwing a toasted cheese sandwich in the bin with the other.

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caz,

You’ve seen it too

[caz]

No we can’t. We can’t prove he wasn’t a keen ventriloquist either or that he hated cheese or that he had a secret relationship with Sir Melville MacNaghten. The only relevant point is that we have no evidence that he was gay.

Absolutely, Herlock.

In my book, the dictionary definition of 'sexually insane' includes a photo of Ray Alan, with one hand up Macnaghten's bottom, while throwing a toasted cheese sandwich in the bin with the other.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

and how did he know the intimate details of Druitts sexual preferences to opine one way or the other

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Do you remember that David Anderson showed us one of the Tuke employee's, a doctor, had communicated with Scotland Yard.
The list of names of those who wrote to the Yard still exists, though the letters do not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. But what do we have against Druitt? that he was a lawyer?! a teacher?! a sportsman!

And of course Lawyers, teachers and sportsmen cannot commit murder. I really don’t know why you’re not the Commissioner Of The Met.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Absolutely. Feigenbaum is a better suspect than Druitt, there is no comparison.

Feigenbaum is a convicted murderer, and we have the source and information that suggest him as a suspect.

But what do we have against Druitt? that he was a lawyer?! a teacher?! a sportsman!


Or should we take the word of a Tea merchant for it?!



The Baron

The parrot speaks…..

Druitt was in England when the murders took place. Feigenbaum cannot be shown to have been in England.

But being 4,500 miles away isn’t a problem is it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The reality is that there is no one who falls into the prime suspect catergory, Feigenbuam included, and you and others who follow your path to nowhere should realise that by now and stop suggesting there is. The evidence determines who falls into what catergory.

Trevor, for the sake of our sanity, could you please point us all in the direction of the post where I’ve claimed that Montague John Druitt is a prime suspect. All that I’ve said is that IN MY OWN OPINION he’s the best of the named suspect. I’m not stating this as a fact it’s my personal OPINION. Why can’t you simply accept that we all have opinions and that we don’t have to get them rubber-stamped by you first.

To many people playing the game pin the tale on the donkey !!!!!!!!!!!

Even if we were playing ‘pin the tail on the donkey’ why is it your job to tell everyone which suspects that they should be looking into?

As to Feigenbaum and the point you keep mentioning about him being in London at the time of the murders there is a wealth of circumstantial evidence against him

.”when I saw him again I mentioned the Whitechapel murders to which he replied, “The lord was responsible for my acts, and that to him only could I confess.” I was so startled that for the moment I did not know what to do I then looked up the dates of the Whitechapel murders and selected two.When I saw Feigenbaum again and was talking with him I said: "Carl, were you in London from this date to that one," naming those selected. "Yes", he answered, and relapsed into silence.

Again Trevor, you are trusting Lawton’s word. No one else heard this ‘statement.’ And what makes it even worse is that ‘statement’ was made by a man who you yourself in your book called a ‘compulsive liar!’

So was he only a compulsive liar on Wednesdays and Fridays?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Again you put complete faith in a story from a dodgy lawyer talking to a compulsive liar and yet you deride a man (MacNaghten) who appeared to have been highly regarded by all. Not biased at all re you Trevor.

[The Baron]

The reality is that there is no one who falls into the prime suspect catergory, Feigenbuam included, and you and others who follow your path to nowhere should realise that by now and stop suggesting there is. The evidence determines who falls into what catergory.

To many people playing the game pin the tale on the donkey !!!!!!!!!!!

As to Feigenbaum and the point you keep mentioning about him being in London at the time of the murders there is a wealth of circumstantial evidence against him

.”when I saw him again I mentioned the Whitechapel murders to which he replied, “The lord was responsible for my acts, and that to him only could I confess.” I was so startled that for the moment I did not know what to do I then looked up the dates of the Whitechapel murders and selected two.When I saw Feigenbaum again and was talking with him I said: "Carl, were you in London from this date to that one," naming those selected. "Yes", he answered, and relapsed into silence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Absolutely. Feigenbaum is a better suspect than Druitt, there is no comparison.

Feigenbaum is a convicted murderer, and we have the source and information that suggest him as a suspect.

But what do we have against Druitt? that he was a lawyer?! a teacher?! a sportsman!


Or should we take the word of a Tea merchant for it?!



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now then Herlock, asking for evidence is considered a reasonable thing to do. Don't deny it my friend, I've seen you ask it of others. .........just a friendly bagging.

This isn’t a response to this post George but the subject of whether there was any proof of Druitt ever being the the East End which I believe you raised in an earlier post. This is a fuller response.

Firstly I’d say that we would have to remember the practice of ‘slumming’, for example. Well-to-do men often went into the East End to sample the pleasures but I’d say that it would be a given that if you’d searched any of their records you would have found no evidence for these sojourns, so I don’t really see any problem or any surprise that we can find no record of Druitt being in Whitechapel 133 years ago. Why would we expect to see a record of this? I’m certain that The Ten Bells didn’t get their patrons to sign a Visitors Book.

Then I’d mention April 1886 when Conservative MP JG Talbot held a meeting at Kings Bench Walk, where Druitt had his chambers, to try to recruit Barristers (especially former Oxford University men like Druitt) to join the mission at Oxford House which was in Bethnal Green. It was a place where the well-off could live (so there were living quarters of some kind) and do charitable work amongst the poor. Do we have proof that Druitt joined? No we don’t. But he was exactly the kind of person wanted for this work and it’s also worth remembering that Druitt’s sister Georgiana (who eventually also committed suicide) was married to the Reverend William Hough and together they ran the Corpus Christi Mission on the Old Kent Road.

Of course this isn’t proof that Druitt was ever in Whitechapel but I’ve never understood why some find this objectionable? Why would he have left evidence of visits to a slum? Whitechapel was within easy walking distance so there’s no geographical objections and it’s entirely possible and plausible that he did charitable work for Oxford House.

[Trevor Marriott]

Because as far as we know he was in America at the time of the murders but that doesn’t bother Trevor of course. Yet it’s an insurmountable obstacle that we have no documentary evidence of Druitt being in Whitechapel.

That’s called ‘fairness’ in Trevor’s world.

Just because a person was in London at the time of the murders does that make them the killer? no it doesnt the fact is that anyone could have been the killer from a local to an itinerant.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I’ve never specifically called him a Prime Suspect. All that I’ve ever said is that in my opinion he’s the likeliest of the named suspects. He’s a suspect because he’s been suspected. Firstly by Sir Melville MacNaghten. How do you know that he didn’t see incredibly strong evidence for Druitt’s guilt? You don’t. Just like I don’t know that he did because we don’t know what his information/evidence was. Just parroting ‘unsafe to rely on’ is as pointless as me saying ‘well if MacNaghten thought Druitt was guilty then he must have been.’ You have shown how we would ‘rate’ Druitt. You’ve just expressed doubts.

I’ll make my point one last (hopefully?) time about terminology.


We know that in an ongoing police investigation the use of person of interest, suspect and prime suspect is important because the police have to focus their limited resources. Time spent following the wrong person might lead to the loss of life or to the guilty party escaping justice but those kind of pressures don’t apply to us though. What we do on here is of no importance in the real world. We can ‘waste’ as much time as we like discussing anything and no one will suffer, no one will die or escape justice and every poster can simply decide whether they want to take part in the discussion or not. We know that words can have different uses and meanings in different contexts and so for us the term ‘suspect’ simply means someone that someone suspects might have been the ripper. We can easily differentiate between those that were suspected at the time and those that have been suspected in the preceding years so that’s no problem. And individuals decide who they feel are the stronger or weaker suspects and how strong or weak they are. Trying to divide people into categories of suspect though is a waste of time and effort. It achieves nothing as it’s still down to the individual on how they rate that persons likelihood of being guilty.

Then we have to ask how we would decide who is a person of interest, who is a suspect and who is a prime suspect? Who would make the decision? Would we appoint a panel of judges? And how would we arrive at our decision? What criteria would we use and how would we agree on them? Would we create a table of points for each person and then spend days quibbling over each point with the aim of giving each suspect a rating and then probably never arriving at a consensus?

Can anyone seriously think that there’s any point in this except for some who want to see certain names at the bottom of the table and others at or near the top? Quibbling over whether someone is a person of interest, a suspect or a prime suspect is about as pointless an exercise as I can imagine. There is zero need for it and it would serve zero purpose. No one would benefit. And even if we wanted to do this it would be next to impossible to achieve because we would end up quibbling for years over each point. Then we would be accusing each other of skewing assessments to boost one suspect at the expense of another.

Feigenbaum is a case in point. How do we get consensus to decide how we rate him. You rate him a prime suspect whereas I say that someone can’t be a suspect if you have no evidence that he was in the country at the time of the murders. Some might agree with you; some would agree with me. So who decides what we call him? He’s been suspected by you therefore he’s a suspect. It’s the only workable way.

As far as armchair detectives on a Forum are concerned a suspect is a term for a person who has been suspected by someone. It’s as simple as that and there’s no need for pointless complications. We decide as individuals on their strengths and weaknesses. To the police these terms have significance but not to us. Why do we even have to waste time discussing this excruciatingly obvious point?

The reality is that there is no one who falls into the prime suspect catergory, Feigenbuam included, and you and others who follow your path to nowhere should realise that by now and stop suggesting there is. The evidence determines who falls into what catergory.

To many people playing the game pin the tale on the donkey !!!!!!!!!!!

As to Feigenbaum and the point you keep mentioning about him being in London at the time of the murders there is a wealth of circumstantial evidence against him

.”when I saw him again I mentioned the Whitechapel murders to which he replied, “The lord was responsible for my acts, and that to him only could I confess.” I was so startled that for the moment I did not know what to do I then looked up the dates of the Whitechapel murders and selected two.When I saw Feigenbaum again and was talking with him I said: "Carl, were you in London from this date to that one," naming those selected. "Yes", he answered, and relapsed into silence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Really appreciate all this new (at least for me) light thrown on Druitt from this thread, there is certainly a lot to consider here. I don't really understand the 'pile on' here though? Yes I get that some people have there own preferred suspects but I don't get the need go completely overboard in attempts to dismiss/disparage other people/suspects in doing so? It smacks of a complete loss of objectivity and a blinkered view of things. The fact of the matter is that without all the facts or conclusive proof otherwise anyone could be in the frame. We just don't know for sure and it is very unlikely that we ever will. Until we DO know for sure surely it is best for all to keep our minds open and be as objective as possible?

Well said Tristan

Ive never understood why the merest mention of Druitt gets some people wailing and howling and going to any lengths (including actually making things up) to try and dismiss him. Like all suspects everyone is free to form their own assessment but it should be done with an open mind. Some do approach with an open mind, some don’t. It’s also worth mentioning that the two loudest voices against Druitt both have suspects of their own.

We need more not fewer open minds.

[Trevor Marriott]

Have you forgotten your training?
The point is to prove he was Homosexual.

The post explains that Mac. was talking about a sexual urge, not a sexual preference.

and how did he know the intimate details of Druitts sexual preferences to opine one way or the other

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

What harm does it do for some to investigate him? How can you possibly know that there isn’t still some vital information out there?

Hi Herlock.

Take a step back and look at what you are proposing here. On this basis, anyone can be put forward on the basis of information not yet known. I think that MacNaghten's achilles heel is his propostion that the information is out there, but he is not going to reveal its content, so just accept his word that it is so.

Cheers, George