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 Abby Normal View Post

    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.
    Hi Abby,

    We don’t know Farquharson’s source but he came from the same area of the country as the Druitt’s. The ‘connection’ with Crawford is pure speculation based on the letter written by Isabella Druitt (Monty’s aunt) to her daughter Emily. As you know, the Crawford letter was about him receiving a female visitor on the subject of the ripper. In her worried letter Isabella mentions that she would never be able to be rid of an ‘encumbrance.’ So there was some serious issue hanging over her (or the family) She mentions going to Cavendish Square in relation to this ‘issue.’ Cavendish Square is where Crawford lived. It’s worth mentioning that after she died the name Farquharson was found in her address book.

    It’s an intriguing possibility but nothing more than that unless more information surfaces.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by harry View Post
      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.
      Harry we could go forever on the issue of the use of the word suspect. I recall when many of us discussed it previously only 2 posters took your position (yourself and Trevor) Yes, we have a ludicrous amount of ‘suspects,’ but they would still be there if they had been labelled ‘persons of interest.’ The changing of terminology is never going to stop people proposing people as potential ripper’s. I really don’t understand why you don’t get this Harry. Stopping using the word ‘suspect’ would have absolutely zero effect on anything. Nothing would change. You would still have someone claiming that Vincent Van Gogh was the ripper.

      Druitt was suspected by MacNaghten. Therefore he’s a suspect. Proof is irrelevant for this particular argument. There’s is no ‘proof’ against any named suspect so perhaps we should all pack up and go home.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        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.
        MM was clearly told by someone, and that someone had been told by someone else, that Druitt was the likley killer so how reliable was the information if the first instance chinese whispers? and could any of it have been be checked, and how much had been blown up out of all proprtion by the time it got to MM

        It is also clear that the various senior officers and doctors were not all singing from the same song sheet with regards to the murders of Mckenzie as being a ripper victim

        Phillips ultimately claimed that McKenzie's death was not attributable to the Ripper:

        After careful and long deliberation, I cannot satisfy myself, on purely Anatomical and professional grounds that the perpetrator of all the "Wh Ch. murders" is our man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion in this noting the mode of procedure and the character of the mutilations and judging of motive in connection with the latter.

        I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favour of the one man theory if all the surrounding circumstances and other evidence are considered, holding it as my duty to report on the P.M. appearances and express an opinion only on Professional grounds, based upon my own observation.

        Dr. Thomas Bond chose the opposite conclusion, telling Sir Robert Anderson he believed it was indeed a Ripper killing:

        I see in this murder evidence of similar design to the former Whitechapel murders, viz. sudden onslaught on the prostrate woman, the throat skillfully and resolutely cut with subsequent mutilation, each mutilation indicating sexual thoughts and a desire to mutilate the abdomen and sexual organs. I am of opinion that the murder was performed by the same person who committed the former series of Whitechapel murder.

        Anderson himself disagreed, writing:

        I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on the 17th of July 1889, was by another hand. I was absent from London when it occurred, but the Chief Commissioner investigated the case on the spot and decided it was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac.

        Monro, who was on duty during the investigation since Anderson was on leave at the time, disagreed:

        I need not say that every effort will be made by the police to discover the murderer, who, I am inclined to believe, is identical with the notorious Jack the Ripper of last year.

        Anderson stated several times that the identity of the Whitechapel murderer was known.

        "...he had been safely caged in an Asylum." (Criminals and Crime, 1907)

        "In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact." (The Lighter Side of My Official Life, 1910)

        "...there was no doubt whatever as to the identity of the criminal..." (Police Encyclopedia, 1920)

        Major Smith stated the identity of the killer was unknown

        So in a nutshell neither of the police forces had any clue as to the identity of the killer or anyone that they had a clear suspicion about that could be backed up with any tangible evidence to support the suspicions.

        Tear up the suspect list, phase out ripperology and let everyone go back to living normal lives, will that ever happen? not in a month of Sundays not while you and others live in a forlorn hope that JTR is going to be ressurected and walk into West End Central police station in London and make a full and frank confession




        Comment


        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

          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
          After Mitre Square, the killer, if he’d known about such details, might have wanted to take shortest route out of the City of London. That would have led him eastwards to Haydon Square, where Pickfords had once been based, then north and ‘bingo’ Goulston Street.

          The obstacle of half an hour’s walk for a young, fit Victorian with a burning desire to get to a particular place really hurts the Druitt theory. Or so it may seem to those who have only done it via Google.

          Last edited by MrBarnett; 06-18-2022, 12:48 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

            After Mitre Square, the killer, if he’d known about such details, might have wanted to take shortest route out of the City of London. That would have led him eastwards to Haydon Square, where Pickfords had once been based, then north and ‘bingo’ Goulston Street.

            The obstacle of half an hour’s walk for a young, fit Victorian with a burning desire to get to a particular place really hurts the Druitt theory. Or so it may seem to those who have only done it via Google.
            I wasn't thinking of fitness for walking, I was focused on risk of detection and the avoidance thereof. The later in not selectable on google maps.

            Cheers, George
            They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
            Out of a misty dream
            Our path emerges for a while, then closes
            Within a dream.
            Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              MM was clearly told by someone, and that someone had been told by someone else, that Druitt was the likley killer so how reliable was the information if the first instance chinese whispers? and could any of it have been be checked, and how much had been blown up out of all proprtion by the time it got to MM

              We don’t know Trevor but I’ve never claimed that I do. It would be just as wrong to claim that the evidence was 100% valid as it would be to claim that it was 100% invalid. I consider the possibility but you dismiss. My approach is reasonable; yours isn’t.

              It is also clear that the various senior officers and doctors were not all singing from the same song sheet with regards to the murders of Mckenzie as being a ripper victim

              Phillips ultimately claimed that McKenzie's death was not attributable to the Ripper:

              After careful and long deliberation, I cannot satisfy myself, on purely Anatomical and professional grounds that the perpetrator of all the "Wh Ch. murders" is our man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion in this noting the mode of procedure and the character of the mutilations and judging of motive in connection with the latter.

              I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favour of the one man theory if all the surrounding circumstances and other evidence are considered, holding it as my duty to report on the P.M. appearances and express an opinion only on Professional grounds, based upon my own observation.

              Dr. Thomas Bond chose the opposite conclusion, telling Sir Robert Anderson he believed it was indeed a Ripper killing:

              I see in this murder evidence of similar design to the former Whitechapel murders, viz. sudden onslaught on the prostrate woman, the throat skillfully and resolutely cut with subsequent mutilation, each mutilation indicating sexual thoughts and a desire to mutilate the abdomen and sexual organs. I am of opinion that the murder was performed by the same person who committed the former series of Whitechapel murder.

              Anderson himself disagreed, writing:

              I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on the 17th of July 1889, was by another hand. I was absent from London when it occurred, but the Chief Commissioner investigated the case on the spot and decided it was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac.

              Monro, who was on duty during the investigation since Anderson was on leave at the time, disagreed:

              I need not say that every effort will be made by the police to discover the murderer, who, I am inclined to believe, is identical with the notorious Jack the Ripper of last year.

              Yes opinions were divided but it still doesn’t change the fact that Macnaughten, if plucking imaginary suspects out of thin air wouldn’t have chosen Druitt. He could easily have picked someone that died after Mackenzie which would have prevented anyone from making the point. It’s simple stuff.

              Anderson stated several times that the identity of the Whitechapel murderer was known.

              "...he had been safely caged in an Asylum." (Criminals and Crime, 1907)

              "In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact." (The Lighter Side of My Official Life, 1910)

              "...there was no doubt whatever as to the identity of the criminal..." (Police Encyclopedia, 1920)

              Major Smith stated the identity of the killer was unknown

              So in a nutshell neither of the police forces had any clue as to the identity of the killer or anyone that they had a clear suspicion about that could be backed up with any tangible evidence to support the suspicions.

              Tear up the suspect list, phase out ripperology and let everyone go back to living normal lives, will that ever happen? not in a month of Sundays not while you and others live in a forlorn hope that JTR is going to be ressurected and walk into West End Central police station in London and make a full and frank confession

              Ive rarely read such nauseating, embarrassing hypocrisy from a man who has made money from writing books on the subject and also from giving talks on the subject and who continues to post regularly on the subject and who proposes a suspect who we can’t even place in the same bloody country that the murders took place!



              ​​​​​​If there’s a ‘problem’ with ripperology its people who are driven to claim that they know what simply isn’t known. People who think that everyone should agree with everything they say without question. People lwho apply rigorous criteria to some whilst ignoring it in others. People who think that they should set rules that everyone else should follow unquestioningly.

              Basically Trevor, people like you.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                A series of throat-cutting, evisceration murders of women on the street in a small area and over a short period of time being committed by different men is unlikely.
                Hi Herlock,

                There were 11 Whitechapel murders. According to Macnaghten there were five , and only five, that could be attributed to JtR, so we are left with the majority being committed by a person, or persons, other than JtR. As soon as we acknowledge that there was more than one killer there arises the problem of the actual number of killers and the distribution of victims.

                My opinion is that if a strong case can be made for Stride being a JtR victim, then the same logical process can be applied to McKenzie.

                Cheers, George
                Last edited by GBinOz; 06-18-2022, 02:03 PM.
                They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
                Out of a misty dream
                Our path emerges for a while, then closes
                Within a dream.
                Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


                  ​​​​​​If there’s a ‘problem’ with ripperology its people who are driven to claim that they know what simply isn’t known. People who think that everyone should agree with everything they say without question. People lwho apply rigorous criteria to some whilst ignoring it in others. People who think that they should set rules that everyone else should follow unquestioningly.

                  Basically Trevor, people like you.
                  But there you go again ranting and raving posting misinformation,

                  just for the record on Feigenbaum

                  Maritime records show that he was employed as a merchant seaman for the Nordeutsche Line for many years before 1888.
                  Maritime Records also show that vessels from that same line were docked in the docks nearest to Whitechapel on the dates of the murders
                  There is positive proof that he was in London on one of those ships on the date of McKenzies murder
                  Therefore we are entitled to draw a proper inference that he was here on one of those vessels on the dates of the murders in 1888
                  He is also one of the only suspects that killed a female victim by cutting her throat

                  So I think that makes him a viable suspect, and for me Druitt is a non starter because there is not one piece of tangible evidence to link him to any of the murders.





                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                    Hi Herlock,

                    There were 11 Whitechapel murders. According to Macnaghten there were five , and only five, that could be attributed to JtR, so we are left with the majority being committed by a person, or persons, other than JtR. As soon as we acknowledge that there was more than one killer there arises the problem of the actual number of killers and the distribution of victims.

                    My opinion is that if a strong case can be made for Stride being a JtR victim, then the same logical process can be applied to McKenzie.

                    Cheers, George
                    Hi George,

                    I wouldn’t dispute that George.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      But there you go again ranting and raving posting misinformation,

                      just for the record on Feigenbaum

                      Maritime records show that he was employed as a merchant seaman for the Nordeutsche Line for many years before 1888.
                      Maritime Records also show that vessels from that same line were docked in the docks nearest to Whitechapel on the dates of the murders
                      There is positive proof that he was in London on one of those ships on the date of McKenzies murder
                      Therefore we are entitled to draw a proper inference that he was here on one of those vessels on the dates of the murders in 1888
                      He is also one of the only suspects that killed a female victim by cutting her throat

                      So I think that makes him a viable suspect, and for me Druitt is a non starter because there is not one piece of tangible evidence to link him to any of the murders.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                      You’re surely joking?

                      I was in Weymouth last year so is it a reasonable assumption to say that I’m there this year?

                      Look around the records of murders in various countries of the world and you’ll find thousands of men who killed a woman by cutting her throat. Until you can prove that he was in the country you might as well accuse the Queen. The murder he committed in no way resembles the ripper murders apart from the throat cutting and throat cutting was hardly rare across the world.

                      The fact that MacNaghten mentions Druitt is enough unless it can be proven that Mac was wrong - which it can’t. It’s black and white. He cannot be eliminated and he might have been guilty. It’s just a fact.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        You’re surely joking?

                        I was in Weymouth last year so is it a reasonable assumption to say that I’m there this year?

                        Look around the records of murders in various countries of the world and you’ll find thousands of men who killed a woman by cutting her throat. Until you can prove that he was in the country you might as well accuse the Queen. The murder he committed in no way resembles the ripper murders apart from the throat cutting and throat cutting was hardly rare across the world.

                        The fact that MacNaghten mentions Druitt is enough unless it can be proven that Mac was wrong - which it can’t. It’s black and white. He cannot be eliminated and he might have been guilty. It’s just a fact.
                        You really have no clue how investigations are conducted and when inferences can be drawn

                        MM has proven to be unreliable in what he wrote, why cant you accept that fact you keep putting him on this high pedestal just because he carried a senior position when it has been proved that even senior officers didnt always get things right.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Hi Abby,

                          We don’t know Farquharson’s source but he came from the same area of the country as the Druitt’s. The ‘connection’ with Crawford is pure speculation based on the letter written by Isabella Druitt (Monty’s aunt) to her daughter Emily. As you know, the Crawford letter was about him receiving a female visitor on the subject of the ripper. In her worried letter Isabella mentions that she would never be able to be rid of an ‘encumbrance.’ So there was some serious issue hanging over her (or the family) She mentions going to Cavendish Square in relation to this ‘issue.’ Cavendish Square is where Crawford lived. It’s worth mentioning that after she died the name Farquharson was found in her address book.

                          It’s an intriguing possibility but nothing more than that unless more information surfaces.
                          hi herlock
                          thanks! i didnt know there were so many possible references to druitt as the ripper by so many different people. very interesting and seems like lots of avenues for further research. hes just gone up a click on my rankings.
                          "Is all that we see or seem
                          but a dream within a dream?"

                          -Edgar Allan Poe


                          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                          -Frederick G. Abberline

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            But there you go again ranting and raving posting misinformation,

                            just for the record on Feigenbaum

                            Maritime records show that he was employed as a merchant seaman for the Nordeutsche Line for many years before 1888.
                            Maritime Records also show that vessels from that same line were docked in the docks nearest to Whitechapel on the dates of the murders
                            There is positive proof that he was in London on one of those ships on the date of McKenzies murder
                            Therefore we are entitled to draw a proper inference that he was here on one of those vessels on the dates of the murders in 1888
                            He is also one of the only suspects that killed a female victim by cutting her throat

                            So I think that makes him a viable suspect, and for me Druitt is a non starter because there is not one piece of tangible evidence to link him to any of the murders.




                            hi trevor whats the "positive proof that he was in London on one of those ships on the date of mckenzies murder"? do you have a ships manifest or something with his name?
                            "Is all that we see or seem
                            but a dream within a dream?"

                            -Edgar Allan Poe


                            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                            -Frederick G. Abberline

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              You really have no clue how investigations are conducted and when inferences can be drawn

                              MM has proven to be unreliable in what he wrote, why cant you accept that fact you keep putting him on this high pedestal just because he carried a senior position when it has been proved that even senior officers didnt always get things right.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              Neither do you. How the hell you made it as a detective beggars belief. If you had a suspect in front of you you’d let him go if someone had got his age wrong. The errors made about Druitt were trivial and unimportant. MacNaghten wasn’t preparing a case for court. He was told some things which he formed an opinion from. Why would he have needed to check things like his age and his occupation? Both irrelevant.

                              Question: Can you guarantee that MacNaghten’s information wasn’t good?

                              Answer: No.

                              End of.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                Griffiths was clearly the provider of the infomation to MM
                                My apologies, Trevor, but this is the first time I've encountered this eccentric suggestion.

                                Griffiths' books was first published in November 1898, and reissued the next year.

                                Macnaghten's memo was written in February 1894--nearly five years earlier.

                                What leads you to conclude that Macnaghten's info came from Griffiths?

                                Isn't it very obviously the other way round?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X