Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

[Trevor Marriott]

It's not a memoir though, it was not written 20-30 years after he retired. Mac was still on the force, so we cannot equate it to Anderson's memoirs, or the Marginalia.

But it still doesnt allow for the fact that there is no mention of the ID parade and the so called positive identification, and, in the Memo the full name of the Kosminksi named is absent as it is in the Marginalia. MM was Swansons immediate superior and so he would have ovreseen the ID parade had it taken place as is written in the marginalia.

We don't know what action, if any, was taken by Mac. To just assume he took no action is speculation, and in all honesty, unlikely.
What is clear is that the issue was treated with respect for the family. The suspect was already dead so it was not necessary to make what he knew public knowledge. Just remember Anderson's words "no public benefit would result and traditions of my department would suffer", or words to that effect. The same is true for Mac. with his Memorandum.

If that were the case why disclose his information in the first place especially as you say Druitt was then dead. The police wanted to solve these murders and in later years so so easy for anyone to say "the killer was"................ bluff and buster!!!!!!!!!!!

Druitt had been dead about 5 years, why investigate anything?

So why are we still investigating Druitt to the point that some are certain he was the killer despite there being not one scrap of evidence that points to him being the killer?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

...

There is no indication as to what if anyhting MM was told Druitt, and certainly no corrboration to what he put in the memorandum regarding Druitt so as I keep saying it is unsafe to rely on.

It's not a memoir though, it was not written 20-30 years after he retired. Mac was still on the force, so we cannot equate it to Anderson's memoirs, or the Marginalia.

If MM was so sure about Druitt he had the means to at least do some background work on him, but none of that appears to have taken place.

We don't know what action, if any, was taken by Mac. To just assume he took no action is speculation, and in all honesty, unlikely.
What is clear is that the issue was treated with respect for the family. The suspect was already dead so it was not necessary to make what he knew public knowledge. Just remember Anderson's words "no public benefit would result and traditions of my department would suffer", or words to that effect. The same is true for Mac. with his Memorandum.

[SIZE=16px][FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Calibri]Martin Howells and Keith Skinner, in their book, The Ripper Legacy, suggest that Druitt came to Chiswick to visit ‘Wilson’s chummery’, a sort of informal club for homosexuals at The Osiers, Chiswick Mall, and the home of one Henry Wilson from 1887 until 1895.

Yes, though Howells & Skinner did not have the advantage of more recent research. If I recall, they thought Druitt was going to Chiswick to visit his mother at the Asylum. Much of their plot was based on misinformation. It has been speculated that when brother William went to search Montie's things, it wasn't at the school, he had already been dismissed, so it was possibly a room at Chiswick with the family friends, the Tuke's.

Did the police make enquiries at this club and if they did were they able to eliminate him from suspicion?

Druitt had been dead about 5 years, why investigate anything?
The dead cannot defend themselves.

[Wickerman]

....

It seems it was common knowledge of the fact that he was gay, and that in itself would likley rule him out of killing women in any event....

Is this the same Trevor Marriott who has constantly railed against 'old traditional beliefs'?

If you wish to know what being 'Sexual Insane' meant in the late 19th century, consult a late 19th century medical dictionary. It is a medical term and it is a general description. It is not true that 'Sexual Insanity' means being homosexual, but Sexual Insanity includes homosexuality.
The term Sexual Insanity refers to a person who has an obsession with sexual gratification via a variety of means.
If Druitt was Sexual Insane he could have gratified that urge by Masterbation, Prostitution, Mutilation, be it animals or people, or Homosexuality, and is equally applicable to men and women.
Another word is Satyriasis in men and Nymphomania in women. An over indulgence for sexual gratification, by any means.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=-tJ...ity%22&f=false
https://books.google.ca/books?id=LAo...ity%22&f=false
https://books.google.ca/books?id=Bx6...ity%22&f=false

I have also pointed out that the boys school included female maids & kitchen staff.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No desperation on my part but I see it in your posts trying to justify your misguided belief that Druitt should be regarded as a prime suspect, based on nothing more than a Memo which has been proved to be unsafe

and you need to learn the differences between a person of interest. a suspect and a prime suspect because you and others clearly dont know

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The Memo has not been proved unsafe.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No desperation on my part but I see it in your posts trying to justify your misguided belief that Druitt should be regarded as a prime suspect, based on nothing more than a Memo which has been proved to be unsafe

and you need to learn the differences between a person of interest. a suspect and a prime suspect because you and others clearly dont know

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There is no difference here but you appear to think that we are conducting a police investigation and so should adhere to rigid and pointless terminology. Why can’t you understand this very simple piece of thinking. It doesn’t matter one iota if we call Druitt or Kosminski or Bury or Lechmere a suspect, a prime suspect or a person of interest. No one is going to die if we follow a wrong lead. We aren’t going to waste money and man hours following a weak or strong suspect. The wrong person isn’t going to prison and the killer isn’t going to escape justice. Terminology means zero. As far as we are concerned, as posters on a true crime thread and not professional detectives, a ‘suspect’ is anyone that has been mentioned as a suspect. End of story Trevor. Please just drop this crap. We don’t want to go over this ‘explaining the bleeding obvious to Trevor’ again. You’re only saying it because you want to set up some kind of league table with Druitt right at the bottom and Feigenbaum right at the top.

And as we’ve said before if we have to start evaluating on who is a person of interest and who is a suspect and who is a prime suspect who makes that judgment? Is it you? Me? Al? Who? We all have different opinions on SUSPECTS so how could we come to any agreement? We very obviously couldn’t.

A SUSPECT, ON HERE, IS A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN SUSPECTED BY SOMEONE (WHOEVER THAT PERSON IS)

So Sir William Gull, Lewis Carroll and Prince Eddy are SUSPECTS. They are crap SUSPECTS but as far as armchair detectives are concerned they are SUSPECTS.

Lets this go for f*^+s sake Trevor

[Trevor Marriott]

Yet another desperate try Trevor.

No desperation on my part but I see it in your posts trying to justify your misguided belief that Druitt should be regarded as a prime suspect, based on nothing more than a Memo which has been proved to be unsafe

and you need to learn the differences between a person of interest. a suspect and a prime suspect because you and others clearly dont know

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well Herlock, I'd say as contemporary suspects go, Druitt is up there. Personally, I discount him mainly for the cricket matches, and his unlikely connection to Whitechapel. But, that said, he's identified by those who at the time were a damn site more knowledgeable than us. That's not pulled from the ether, is it? For the open minded, unbiased Ripperologist, he's an absolute certainty as a suspect. The fact that he might have been suspected of the killings at the time by those with insider knowledge and family connections does not make him the killer, not at all. But a named and identifiable suspect? Yes, absolutely. He is. With the benefit of post crime research, we can find arguably sound reasons to dismiss him, but that won't discount that he was considered at the time. Maybe those involved at the time didn't investigate his family connections, his cricket matches, maybe they did? Maybe they covered it up? No amount of post crime findings can remove the fact that he was a contemporary suspect. Albeit a few years later, but a better suspect than Cutbush or Ostrog.

Well said Al.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I still like Kosminiski for the top suspect. I can't rule out a lot of suspects though. I just can't see Druitt doing this in Whitechapel. Maybe more west side, I could see that. But to have his busy schedule then plan to go to the slums just to kill prostitutes seems problematic to me.

Columbo

No problem with that Columbo

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I wonder if there are any other historical true crime cases where we have a very senior police official; a man with no taint of corruption attached to his name and who was held in high regard by pretty much all that knew him, who names someone as a very likely suspect that he’d received information about, and we have people saying that we should dismiss him out of hand? Even though we also have an MP saying in 1891 (3 years before the MM) that he knew who the Ripper was and that he was a son of a surgeon who’d drowned himself in the Thames!

All we get is ‘the memorandum can’t be relied on!’ So we should ignore it? There’s certainly bias at play if certain posters can’t, at the very least, concede that there might have been something in this. No, the approach has to be a dogmatic, fingers-in-the-ears approach. Even when someone is just allowing for a possibility the reaction gets a near hysterical response. We get the depths of desperation plumbed just to try and get the subject of Druitt hushed up. If I see a thread on a subject I’m not interested in I don’t bother joining it so why do those who dismiss Druitt out of hand feel the desperate need to join in to repeat the same old bilge that we get subjected to. Made up ‘facts’ to try and eliminate him like…Mackenzie was definitely proven to have been a victim; that it was somehow ‘common knowledge’ that Druitt was gay.

Even someone like Wickerman who is by no stretch a Druitt supporter gets labelled as a Druittist (whatever that is) purely because he views the subject with interest and with an open mind. I say that I think that he’s the best of the named subjects (in my opinion, I’ll add) and you’d think,I’d said that it’s case closed or that I’d suggested Queen Victoria as the killer.

One thing is certain about Druitt (and it applies to most suspects) there is absolutely nothing that disproves him as a possible ripper. Nothing. We can’t prove that he was of course, but then again I’ve never claimed that he definitely was. Why can’t posters ditch the bias? If you don’t think that Druitt is worth discussing fine. But why waste others time by showering them with the same, tired old biased nonsense?

Well Herlock, I'd say as contemporary suspects go, Druitt is up there. Personally, I discount him mainly for the cricket matches, and his unlikely connection to Whitechapel. But, that said, he's identified by those who at the time were a damn site more knowledgeable than us. That's not pulled from the ether, is it? For the open minded, unbiased Ripperologist, he's an absolute certainty as a suspect. The fact that he might have been suspected of the killings at the time by those with insider knowledge and family connections does not make him the killer, not at all. But a named and identifiable suspect? Yes, absolutely. He is. With the benefit of post crime research, we can find arguably sound reasons to dismiss him, but that won't discount that he was considered at the time. Maybe those involved at the time didn't investigate his family connections, his cricket matches, maybe they did? Maybe they covered it up? No amount of post crime findings can remove the fact that he was a contemporary suspect. Albeit a few years later, but a better suspect than Cutbush or Ostrog.

[Columbo]

I still like Kosminiski for the top suspect. I can't rule out a lot of suspects though. I just can't see Druitt doing this in Whitechapel. Maybe more west side, I could see that. But to have his busy schedule then plan to go to the slums just to kill prostitutes seems problematic to me.

Columbo

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wonder if there are any other historical true crime cases where we have a very senior police official; a man with no taint of corruption attached to his name and who was held in high regard by pretty much all that knew him, who names someone as a very likely suspect that he’d received information about, and we have people saying that we should dismiss him out of hand? Even though we also have an MP saying in 1891 (3 years before the MM) that he knew who the Ripper was and that he was a son of a surgeon who’d drowned himself in the Thames!

All we get is ‘the memorandum can’t be relied on!’ So we should ignore it? There’s certainly bias at play if certain posters can’t, at the very least, concede that there might have been something in this. No, the approach has to be a dogmatic, fingers-in-the-ears approach. Even when someone is just allowing for a possibility the reaction gets a near hysterical response. We get the depths of desperation plumbed just to try and get the subject of Druitt hushed up. If I see a thread on a subject I’m not interested in I don’t bother joining it so why do those who dismiss Druitt out of hand feel the desperate need to join in to repeat the same old bilge that we get subjected to. Made up ‘facts’ to try and eliminate him like…Mackenzie was definitely proven to have been a victim; that it was somehow ‘common knowledge’ that Druitt was gay.

Even someone like Wickerman who is by no stretch a Druitt supporter gets labelled as a Druittist (whatever that is) purely because he views the subject with interest and with an open mind. I say that I think that he’s the best of the named subjects (in my opinion, I’ll add) and you’d think,I’d said that it’s case closed or that I’d suggested Queen Victoria as the killer.

One thing is certain about Druitt (and it applies to most suspects) there is absolutely nothing that disproves him as a possible ripper. Nothing. We can’t prove that he was of course, but then again I’ve never claimed that he definitely was. Why can’t posters ditch the bias? If you don’t think that Druitt is worth discussing fine. But why waste others time by showering them with the same, tired old biased nonsense?

PS. It’s ironic that on the Schwartz thread I was accused of sticking to the old accepted facts because I don’t want the case solved and yet on here I’m accused of try to say that the case is solved.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Police officers receive information on a daily basis from a variety of sources much of which is either hearsay or someones uncorroborated belief.

And sometimes it isn’t hearsay.

There is no indication as to what if anyhting MM was told Druitt, and certainly no corrboration to what he put in the memorandum regarding Druitt so as I keep saying it is unsafe to rely on.

There’s no ‘if anything’ about it. We have zero reason to doubt the truth of what he said.

Yes, we know what you keep saying Trevor And as I keep telling you…..I’m not relying on it for anything. But we certainly shouldn’t dismiss it as ‘inconvenient’ which is what you and do.

All througout these murders the police received a mountain of "suspect" information from a variety of sources all of which were most likely followed up on and then written off. If MM was so sure about Druitt he had the means to at least do some background work on him, but none of that appears to have taken place.

How do you know this?

It seems it was common knowledge of the fact that he was gay, and that in itself would likley rule him out of killing women in any event.

No it wasn’t common knowledge or anything approaching it. Not the first time you’ve tried this one Trevor

Martin Howells and Keith Skinner, in their book, The Ripper Legacy, suggest that Druitt came to Chiswick to visit ‘Wilson’s chummery’, a sort of informal club for homosexuals at The Osiers, Chiswick Mall, and the home of one Henry Wilson from 1887 until 1895.

Henry Wilson was a barrister, a close friend of the Duke of Clarence and a leading member of the Apostles, an exclusive, esoteric and secretive homosexual group. Homosexuality was, of course, illegal and the need for secrecy was particularly necessary in the 1880s and 1890s.

This was just conjecture on Howell’s and Skinner’s Part but they said that Druitt was killed by them because he was Jack the Ripper.

Druitt’s body was found in the River Thames at Chiswick that in itself begs a question “Did he jump, or was he pushed”?

And if he was killed why was he killed?

Did the police make enquiries at this club and if they did were they able to eliminate him from suspicion?

Probably not because, as I said, the authors were only conjecturing that he was a member. And if he was a member it would have been a very hush hush affair and hardly one that produced a membership list.

You are going to need to come up with more evidence if you are going to keep Druitt as a prime suspect as it stands he is not a prime suspect, at best a person of interest

Suspect. Although this title business is nonsense as myself, Paul Begg, Jeff (I think) spent ages explaining to you on another thread.

At least I can prove that he was in England at the time.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yet another desperate try Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

You do get excited when you see any point that you think goes against Druitt don’t you? It’s noticable though that you’ve ignored the 11 points that proved your dishonest approach in post #938 but I’m not surprised about that as it’s what you always do.

The fact that he had no previous police experience is irrelevant of course. MacNaghten said that he’d received information but he didn’t go into any details. You don’t need to be an experienced police officer to receive information. You need ears and if you look at his photograph Baron you’ll see that he had two. He wasn’t an idiot either.

If the information was given directly to MacNaghten why would you expect Abberline to have known what the evidence was? He retired before the MM was written. And as he couldn’t have known what Mac’s evidence was how much weight can we give his opinion? Close to none I’d say.

Police officers receive information on a daily basis from a variety of sources much of which is either hearsay or someones uncorroborated belief.

There is no indication as to what if anyhting MM was told Druitt, and certainly no corrboration to what he put in the memorandum regarding Druitt so as I keep saying it is unsafe to rely on.

All througout these murders the police received a mountain of "suspect" information from a variety of sources all of which were most likely followed up on and then written off. If MM was so sure about Druitt he had the means to at least do some background work on him, but none of that appears to have taken place.

It seems it was common knowledge of the fact that he was gay, and that in itself would likley rule him out of killing women in any event.

Martin Howells and Keith Skinner, in their book, The Ripper Legacy, suggest that Druitt came to Chiswick to visit ‘Wilson’s chummery’, a sort of informal club for homosexuals at The Osiers, Chiswick Mall, and the home of one Henry Wilson from 1887 until 1895.

Henry Wilson was a barrister, a close friend of the Duke of Clarence and a leading member of the Apostles, an exclusive, esoteric and secretive homosexual group. Homosexuality was, of course, illegal and the need for secrecy was particularly necessary in the 1880s and 1890s.

Druitt’s body was found in the River Thames at Chiswick that in itself begs a question “Did he jump, or was he pushed”?

Did the police make enquiries at this club and if they did were they able to eliminate him from suspicion?

You are going to need to come up with more evidence if you are going to keep Druitt as a prime suspect as it stands he is not a prime suspect, at best a person of interest

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good point!


Macnaghten:

"After leaving school in 1872, he went to India to run his father's tea estates in Bengal and remained there until 1888"


He was a tea merchant, zero experience in police investigations!


That's why we have Abberline - who was active on the ground while the murders were taking place and the better experienced detective of the two, who joined the Metropolitan Police in 1863, and had spent a great deal of his career policing the streets of Whitechapel and Spitalfields- saying:


“I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him. A report was made to the Home Office about the matter, but that it was ‘considered final and conclusive’ is going altogether beyond the truth"



The Baron

You do get excited when you see any point that you think goes against Druitt don’t you? It’s noticable though that you’ve ignored the 11 points that proved your dishonest approach in post #938 but I’m not surprised about that as it’s what you always do.

The fact that he had no previous police experience is irrelevant of course. MacNaghten said that he’d received information but he didn’t go into any details. You don’t need to be an experienced police officer to receive information. You need ears and if you look at his photograph Baron you’ll see that he had two. He wasn’t an idiot either.

If the information was given directly to MacNaghten why would you expect Abberline to have known what the evidence was? He retired before the MM was written. And as he couldn’t have known what Mac’s evidence was how much weight can we give his opinion? Close to none I’d say.

[The Baron]

But I am just wondering if he didn't include Martha because he knew Druitt couldn't have killed her.

Good point!


Macnaghten:

"After leaving school in 1872, he went to India to run his father's tea estates in Bengal and remained there until 1888"


He was a tea merchant, zero experience in police investigations!


That's why we have Abberline - who was active on the ground while the murders were taking place and the better experienced detective of the two, who joined the Metropolitan Police in 1863, and had spent a great deal of his career policing the streets of Whitechapel and Spitalfields- saying:


“I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him. A report was made to the Home Office about the matter, but that it was ‘considered final and conclusive’ is going altogether beyond the truth"



The Baron