Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

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

  • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
    "Another murder occasionally included among the Ripper cases is that of Martha Tabram, who was viciously stabbed to death on 7 August 1888. Her death coincided with the middle of Bournemouth Cricket Week, 4–11 August, in which Druitt was heavily involved, and was during the school holidays which Druitt spent in Dorset.
    The Baron
    Hi Herlock,

    All arguments aside regarding the legitimacy of Tabram as a JtR victim, can I ask you to draw on your knowledge of the Druitt case to either confirm or deny the possibilty of the Bournemouth Cricket Week or the school holidays spent in Dorset by Druitt precluding him from being in London on 7 August 1888? I'm not taking sides here, just asking for information from a higher source.

    Another question for you. In your studies of Druitt, did you find any suggestion that he may have been a Free Mason?

    Cheers, George
    Last edited by GBinOz; 07-27-2021, 02:00 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

      Hi Herlock,

      All arguments aside regarding the legitimacy of Tabram as a JtR victim, can I ask you to draw on your knowledge of the Druitt case to either confirm or deny the possibilty of the Bournemouth Cricket Week or the school holidays spent in Dorset by Druitt precluding him from being in London on 7 August 1888? I'm not taking sides here, just asking for information from a higher source.

      Another question for you. In your studies of Druitt, did you find any suggestion that he may have been a Free Mason?

      Cheers, George
      Certainly no suggestion of Freemasonry George and I think that it’s been pretty much accepted that Druitt couldn’t have killed Tabram.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes



      "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

      Comment


      • One thing has just struck me. It is generally assumed that Macnaghten didn't include Martha with his C5 because he saw an escalation in the ferocity of the murders before the killers mind gave way. But I am just wondering if he didn't include Martha because he knew Druitt couldn't have killed her. So he went for the soldier theory.
        Just a thought.
        Regards Darryl

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

          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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Baron View Post



            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.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



            "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              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



              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                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.
                Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 07-27-2021, 05:24 PM.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                Comment


                • 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.
                  Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 07-27-2021, 07:06 PM.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes



                  "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                  ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                  Comment


                  • 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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                      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.
                      Thems the Vagaries.....

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Columbo View Post
                        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
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



                        "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                          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.



                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes



                          "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                          ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            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

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              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
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



                              "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                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.

                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                                "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X