Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oh, Dear Boss: Druitt's on a Sticky Wicket

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    You’d think that Nichols had been killed on a farm in Inverness
    Or on the Howgill Fells. :-)

    It’s totally improbable that someone from East London would travel up to Cumbria for a day trip, whatever their motivation.

    Or from the suburbs into the city to go to a particular restaurant or pub. Surely there are pubs and restaurants in the suburbs.
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 06-17-2022, 06:58 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
      If people really want to do something, a relatively short train journey won’t deter them.

      I’m sure I’ve mentioned before that I’ve made day trips from the eastern outskirts of London to Cumbria to walk on my favourite hills.

      Weren’t there any closer hills to Essex than the Howgill Fells? There were, thousands. But at that time only the Howgills would do.




      ​​​​​​​
      bingo gary
      i like to fish. theres a fishing hole from my youth and its my favorite. just about every time i go i catch something. but now that i dont live that near anymore ill drive hours to get there and pass many many other fishing spots just to go to that one. i know ill probably have luck and it has special meaning to me. my wife thinks im crazy.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        But we’re not conducting a criminal investigation Harry so your point is misplaced. If we applied your criteria then it wouldn’t be worth discussing any suspect.

        You dismiss the m.p. Henry Farquharson then who was telling people that the ripper was the son of a surgeon who committed suicide on the night of the last murder. Yes you can nitpick that Druitt didn’t commit suicide on the night of Kelly’s murder but we still have a man, unconnected to MacNaghten, clearly talking about Druitt as the ripper, a full 3 years before the Memorandum. We have George Sims alluding to Druitt as the ripper. We have Sir Basil Thomson going for Druitt in 1936. We have Major Arthur Griffiths pointing at Druitt. So it’s hardly a case of MacNaghten alone. Not to mention The North Country Vicar. Then we can speculate about the Crawford letter. More than enough to make Druitt of interest unless minds aren’t so fixed against even the suggestion. If Druitt goes then all suspects should go.

        I stand by the 99% comment. In a field of weak suspects Druitt has more going for him than the vast majority.
        hi herlock
        that seems to be alot of people referring to druitt as the ripper. has there ever been a detailed analysis to see which of these are truly independent or which might be based on others? is there one original source that they might have all come from?

        Comment


        • Hi Herlock,

          The argument is done and dusted? I'm dazzled by your certitude.

          Regarding your list of possibilities, I'm going for Number 1. It's not such a ludicrous suggestion.

          We know all about Ostrog and his bullet-proof alibi, and how MM pulled his name out of a dusty file.

          We now know where MM found his Kosminski [but not the much-maligned Aaron].

          And it's only a matter of time before we discover that MM pulled Druitt's name out of an old "Suicides" file.

          Three innocent men branded for all eternity.

          MM was such a gentleman.

          Regards,

          Simon
          Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

            hi herlock
            that seems to be alot of people referring to druitt as the ripper. has there ever been a detailed analysis to see which of these are truly independent or which might be based on others? is there one original source that they might have all come from?
            Hi Abby,

            I don’t think there’s much doubt that Thomson, Griffiths and Sims got their info in some way from Macnaghten but a lot of things can’t be tied down exactly but Farquharson was telling his friends in London in early 1891 that the ripper was the son of a surgeon (as Druitt was) who drowned himself (as Druitt did)

            Might Druitt have had a connection to the Crawford letter? It’s speculation of course but we have Monty’s aunt Isabella writing to her daughter Emily in November 1889 an overwrought letter saying that she’d been to Cavendish Square as if it’s somewhere that she might be able to get help. She complains about never being able to be rid of this ‘encumbrance.’ Cavendish Square is where Crawford lived. It could be unconnected of course but I think it’s worthy of consideration at least.

            I find these kind of points intriguing. They are speculation of course but the truth often begins as speculation. Look at the North Country Vicar letter to The Mail. The article was called The Whitechurch Murders- Solution Of A London Mystery. The Vicar claimed that the article was ‘substantial truth under fictitious form. But why use Whitechurch? It seems random when he was obviously alluding to Whitechapel? Was Whitechurch relevant to anything? There was a Vicar though who’s parish had the alternative name of Whitchurch Canonicorum or Whitechurch, which was the name that appeared on the stationary. The Vicar’s name was The Reverend Charles Druitt. Monty’s cousin.

            So it looks like the story wasn’t narrowly confined. For example in 1908 Frank Richardson wrote a novel called The Worst Man In The World where the Ripper drowns himself in the Thames and is called Dr Bluitt.

            Then we have Paul Begg discovering the piece by Admiral Fleet who said that when he lived there there was talk of the ripper living in Blackheath. This wasn’t a gossiping housewife. Maybe something leaked out from the school? Maybe not. Interesting though imo.

            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

            “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
              Hi Herlock,

              The argument is done and dusted? I'm dazzled by your certitude.

              Regarding your list of possibilities, I'm going for Number 1. It's not such a ludicrous suggestion.

              We know all about Ostrog and his bullet-proof alibi, and how MM pulled his name out of a dusty file.

              We now know where MM found his Kosminski [but not the much-maligned Aaron].

              And it's only a matter of time before we discover that MM pulled Druitt's name out of an old "Suicides" file.

              Three innocent men branded for all eternity.

              MM was such a gentleman.

              Regards,

              Simon
              So with all of the resources available to the Chief Constable Of The Met which would have given him a veritable army of deceased violent ne’er do well’s or deceased lunatics to choose from he compiles his list. He adds a Polish lunatic and a Russian criminal and then…an upper class, son of a surgeon, Barrister, teacher at a posh school, cricket playing MCC member who’s related by marriage to his best mate! The suggestion beggars belief and can’t be taken seriously. And why? Just because Druitt died just after Kelly? Really? How many believed that Mackenzie was a victim? I’d suggest most people? Including Sir James Munro. What would be the point of picking someone that was dead by the time Mackenzie died? And why pick a man who was so traceable? How could he have known that someone wouldn’t check and say “hold on, this bloke was in court Bournmouth on the day Eddowes was killed and the day after.” MacNaghten would have had to have been stupid way beyond feasible stupidity. Not a chance did MacNaghten pluck Druitt out of thin air. It just makes no sense.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

              “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

              Comment


              • Hi Herlock,

                You're attempting to turn up your certitude to "blinding" level.

                "With all the resources available to the Chief Constable" tells you all you need to know.

                And by the way, Sir James Munro [sic] remains the only Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police not to have received a knighthood.

                Regards,

                Simon
                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                  bingo gary
                  i like to fish. theres a fishing hole from my youth and its my favorite. just about every time i go i catch something. but now that i dont live that near anymore ill drive hours to get there and pass many many other fishing spots just to go to that one. i know ill probably have luck and it has special meaning to me. my wife thinks im crazy.
                  Both our stories might sound improbable to some. But compared to the idea that someone might have got his kicks out of killing and mutilating Lodging House unfortunates …?

                  And if that was someone’s bag, at 2/3 in the morning where was he going to go looking for them? The West End? The City? Marylebone? Bloomsbury?
                  Last edited by MrBarnett; 06-17-2022, 08:42 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                    Hi Herlock,

                    You're attempting to turn up your certitude to "blinding" level.

                    "With all the resources available to the Chief Constable" tells you all you need to know.

                    And by the way, Sir James Munro [sic] remains the only Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police not to have received a knighthood.

                    Regards,

                    Simon
                    All the facts point away from MacNaghten lying. It just makes no sense whichever way you look at it. Chances of him simply plucking Druitt out of thin air for me - maybe 2% but I’d be pushing it. Closer to zero for me.

                    ​​​​​​…..

                    How did he become known as Sir James without being knighted? I hadn’t heard that before.
                    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 06-17-2022, 09:19 PM.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                    “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Hi Abby,

                      I don’t think there’s much doubt that Thomson, Griffiths and Sims got their info in some way from Macnaghten but a lot of things can’t be tied down exactly but Farquharson was telling his friends in London in early 1891 that the ripper was the son of a surgeon (as Druitt was) who drowned himself (as Druitt did)

                      Might Druitt have had a connection to the Crawford letter? It’s speculation of course but we have Monty’s aunt Isabella writing to her daughter Emily in November 1889 an overwrought letter saying that she’d been to Cavendish Square as if it’s somewhere that she might be able to get help. She complains about never being able to be rid of this ‘encumbrance.’ Cavendish Square is where Crawford lived. It could be unconnected of course but I think it’s worthy of consideration at least.

                      I find these kind of points intriguing. They are speculation of course but the truth often begins as speculation. Look at the North Country Vicar letter to The Mail. The article was called The Whitechurch Murders- Solution Of A London Mystery. The Vicar claimed that the article was ‘substantial truth under fictitious form. But why use Whitechurch? It seems random when he was obviously alluding to Whitechapel? Was Whitechurch relevant to anything? There was a Vicar though who’s parish had the alternative name of Whitchurch Canonicorum or Whitechurch, which was the name that appeared on the stationary. The Vicar’s name was The Reverend Charles Druitt. Monty’s cousin.

                      So it looks like the story wasn’t narrowly confined. For example in 1908 Frank Richardson wrote a novel called The Worst Man In The World where the Ripper drowns himself in the Thames and is called Dr Bluitt.

                      Then we have Paul Begg discovering the piece by Admiral Fleet who said that when he lived there there was talk of the ripper living in Blackheath. This wasn’t a gossiping housewife. Maybe something leaked out from the school? Maybe not. Interesting though imo.
                      Abby I forgot to add that Munro’s son said that Munro himself was convinced that Druitt was the Ripper. Strange how all of these people go for the ‘improbable’ Druitt isn’t it? Of course we can just dismiss them as liars, incompetents or plotters…..or
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Abby I forgot to add that Munro’s son said that Munro himself was convinced that Druitt was the Ripper. Strange how all of these people go for the ‘improbable’ Druitt isn’t it? Of course we can just dismiss them as liars, incompetents or plotters…..or
                        You are forgetting all the other persons who went to the police during, and after the murders ceased, to give details about a specific person who they beleived to be the Ripper.

                        Believing is not proof of guilt, its evidence that is needed

                        The City police worked with the Met closely on the murders this is what Major Smith says in 1910 long after The MM was penned

                        Major Henry Smith, retired City of London Police Commissioner
                        “The Ripper ...completely beat me and every Police officer in London." and that "...I have no more idea now where he lived than I had twenty years ago."

                        Detective Inspector Reid speaking in The East London Observer


                        Some years ago Major Griffiths in his book “Mysteries of Crime and Police” endeavored to prove that “Jacks” body was found floating in the Thames seven weeks after the last Whitechapel murder on the last day of the year 1888. Considering that there were considered to have been nine murders. I think it is wonderful that the man’s body should have been found in the Thames before the last of the murders was committed.

                        Griffiths was clearly the provider of the infomation to MM



                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Hi Abby,

                          I don’t think there’s much doubt that Thomson, Griffiths and Sims got their info in some way from Macnaghten but a lot of things can’t be tied down exactly but Farquharson was telling his friends in London in early 1891 that the ripper was the son of a surgeon (as Druitt was) who drowned himself (as Druitt did)

                          Might Druitt have had a connection to the Crawford letter? It’s speculation of course but we have Monty’s aunt Isabella writing to her daughter Emily in November 1889 an overwrought letter saying that she’d been to Cavendish Square as if it’s somewhere that she might be able to get help. She complains about never being able to be rid of this ‘encumbrance.’ Cavendish Square is where Crawford lived. It could be unconnected of course but I think it’s worthy of consideration at least.

                          I find these kind of points intriguing. They are speculation of course but the truth often begins as speculation. Look at the North Country Vicar letter to The Mail. The article was called The Whitechurch Murders- Solution Of A London Mystery. The Vicar claimed that the article was ‘substantial truth under fictitious form. But why use Whitechurch? It seems random when he was obviously alluding to Whitechapel? Was Whitechurch relevant to anything? There was a Vicar though who’s parish had the alternative name of Whitchurch Canonicorum or Whitechurch, which was the name that appeared on the stationary. The Vicar’s name was The Reverend Charles Druitt. Monty’s cousin.

                          So it looks like the story wasn’t narrowly confined. For example in 1908 Frank Richardson wrote a novel called The Worst Man In The World where the Ripper drowns himself in the Thames and is called Dr Bluitt.

                          Then we have Paul Begg discovering the piece by Admiral Fleet who said that when he lived there there was talk of the ripper living in Blackheath. This wasn’t a gossiping housewife. Maybe something leaked out from the school? Maybe not. Interesting though imo.
                          herlock
                          im intrigued by farquarson. who was his source? and what connection is there with crawford? i dont see it but im a tad daft.

                          Comment


                          • In post 109,Herlock,you say sir Basil Thomson also favoured Druitt ,or words to that effect.In a book I have Sir Basil's nomination as the Ripper was Padachenko.
                            I do not,as you state,treat these discussions as a criminal investigation,but it should be viewed as an investigation of sorts,and that does,because because the subject involves criminal activities,allude to methods normaly used in crminal inquiries.Cannot understand why you should object to that.If I dislike or object to the term Suspect being used too frequently,and in my opinion improperly,it is because it has led to the introduction of over two hundred named persons as fitting that description,a truly ludicrous position,which doesn't help or solve anything.
                            As for Druitt,MacNaghten states there were no proofs against anyone,so it puzzles me as to why he would then use the term suspect when refering to Druitt.Surely if there is no proof connecting Druitt to the murders,how can Druitt be seen as suspect.Even reasonable suspicion demands some measure of proof.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                              Hands up those who think it improbable or absurd that a professional man, a barrister with chambers in the Temple, might have had a reason to interrupt his summer hols in Dorset and pop back to London for a day.

                              No takers, I imagine.

                              Hands up those who think it ditto that such a man, if he’d been a twisted serial killer, thus removed from his family and social connections in a Dorset, might walk the short distance from his chambers to the anonymity of the East End to look for his particular taste in victims - a type that could be more likely found there than anywhere else on the planet.
                              Hi Mr B,

                              I didn't put my hand up in answer to either of your questions.

                              Google shows the shortest walk from Druitt's chambers as 48 minutes for Bucks Row and 31 minutes to Mitre Square. I think that is too long to be returning to a bolthole, possibly with bloody clothes, even if he could have used his office without attracting unwanted attention. Monty wasn't a poor man and could have afforded a hideout closer to the centre of the crimes, the giveaway being that after Mitre Square JtR headed in the opposite direction to Kings Bench Walk.

                              Cheers, George

                              It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

                              All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                              ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                You are forgetting all the other persons who went to the police during, and after the murders ceased, to give details about a specific person who they beleived to be the Ripper.

                                Believing is not proof of guilt, its evidence that is needed

                                The City police worked with the Met closely on the murders this is what Major Smith says in 1910 long after The MM was penned

                                Major Henry Smith, retired City of London Police Commissioner
                                “The Ripper ...completely beat me and every Police officer in London." and that "...I have no more idea now where he lived than I had twenty years ago."

                                Detective Inspector Reid speaking in The East London Observer


                                Some years ago Major Griffiths in his book “Mysteries of Crime and Police” endeavored to prove that “Jacks” body was found floating in the Thames seven weeks after the last Whitechapel murder on the last day of the year 1888. Considering that there were considered to have been nine murders. I think it is wonderful that the man’s body should have been found in the Thames before the last of the murders was committed.

                                Griffiths was clearly the provider of the infomation to MM



                                www.trevormarriott
                                But I haven’t said that these were evidence of guilt Trevor but I’ve always found it a bit rich that so many people favoured Druitt and yet people simply seek to dismiss him as if he was an impossible suspect. It would be silly of course to say “well, all these people favoured Druitt as a likely suspect so he must have been the killer,” but surely it’s as silly to dismiss them all as gullible idiots or liars? My point has always been to keep an open mind to the possibility that there could be something in all of this. Why are some people rigidly against this though? Why do we have people calling him a ridiculous suspect? Why do we have people pretty much claiming to know that he wasn’t guilty? I’m afraid that it’s those people who are wrong. I get a fair bit of stick purely because I’m open to the possibility of Druitt being the ripper (he might have been) but that doesn’t really bother me, what bothers me is that in this subject we have so many people claiming to know things that we simply don’t and can’t know. It bothers me that when looking at a historical crime we are in the frankly bizarre situation where we have a Chief Constable of the Met naming someone as a likely suspect (and that he’d received info that the suspects own family suspected him) and then other people proposing him before and after Mac and yet we have many people who think that this should just be dismissed with a “forget about it, it’s nonsense,” attitude. That’s the problem Trevor, that’s what’s wrong here, not a few people taking a calm, reasonable, open-minded view

                                Interesting that Reid was an officer at the time who said that “……there were considered to have been nine murders.” If that was the general belief why the hell would MacNaghten have favoured a suspect that died after Kelly? As I’ve said, the suggestion that he simply plucked Druitt’s name out of thin air holds about as much water as a sieve.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                                “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X