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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

I’ve just checked an old calendar Roger and I can 100% confirm that 1894 came before 1898.

[Trevor Marriott]

hi trevor whats the "positive proof that he was in London on one of those ships on the date of mckenzies murder"? do the vessel you have a ships manifest or something with his name?

Yes the crew list for the vessel in question

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Dont be childish !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

I suggest,Herlock,that if Trevor and I were the only two with the same opinion regarding the meaning of 'Suspect',it is because we understand it's meaning and importance more clearly. Yes,the same persons could be discussed,but would the same conclusions be drawn if another word was substituted.If we all alluded to Cross as a witness,what then? MacNaghten stated there was no proof against anyone,how can he then claim there were suspects?Surely if one is suspected there must be proof to sustain that suspicion.There is no proof say's Mac.Perhaps you Herlock can supply that proof.

[GBinOz]

I suggest,Herlock,that if Trevor and I were the only two with the same opinion regarding the meaning of 'Suspect',it is because we understand it's meaning and importance more clearly. Yes,the same persons could be discussed,but would the same conclusions be drawn if another word was substituted.If we all alluded to Cross as a witness,what then? MacNaghten stated there was no proof against anyone,how can he then claim there were suspects?Surely if one is suspected there must be proof to sustain that suspicion.There is no proof say's Mac.Perhaps you Herlock can supply that proof.

Trevor has a "suspect" who he claims was on a ship docked in London at the time of one murder. Lechmere was actually at the scene of one murder. Doesn't that place him higher on the suspect list? Furthermore, Lechmere was in London for all the murders, as was Druitt. Surely they have to be placed above Feigenbaum as possible suspects?

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor has a "suspect" who he claims was on a ship docked in London at the time of one murder. Lechmere was actually at the scene of one murder. Doesn't that place him higher on the suspect list? Furthermore, Lechmere was in London for all the murders, as was Druitt. Surely they have to be placed above Feigenbaum as possible suspects?

Cheers, George

You are forgetting he actually cuts a womans throat with a long bladed knife and then tried to escape but was caught by the police near the crime scene. I think those facts alone elevates him higher on the suspect list than Druitt, without all the other circumstantial connecting evidence against him.

Those researchers who do not favour Feigenbaum will suggest that that his lawyers statement proposing him as a Ripper suspect is without foundation and unreliable. Yet those same reserchers suggest that MM`s statement is sufficient enough to warrant him being named as one of the prime suspects.

As a comparison Lechmere simply found a body on his way to work there is no connecting evidence against him. Let me ask if an 80 year old lady went out of her house at the same time Lechemere for an early morning walk on the same route that Lechmere took and she found the body would she be regarded as a suspect?- I rest my case

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I suggest,Herlock,that if Trevor and I were the only two with the same opinion regarding the meaning of 'Suspect',it is because we understand it's meaning and importance more clearly. Yes,the same persons could be discussed,but would the same conclusions be drawn if another word was substituted.If we all alluded to Cross as a witness,what then? MacNaghten stated there was no proof against anyone,how can he then claim there were suspects?Surely if one is suspected there must be proof to sustain that suspicion.There is no proof say's Mac.Perhaps you Herlock can supply that proof.

You really can’t be serious Harry? There’s no mystery, we all know the meaning of suspect but what you and Trevor don’t seem to understand, or rather what you don’t appear willing to accept, is that we are not undertaking a Police investigation. So why are you and Trevor all for imposing such silly, pointless restrictions?

You ask “…..but would the same conclusions be drawn if another word was substituted.”

Of course it would. We could call Druitt ‘a person of interest,’ or any other name and it still wouldn’t alter my conclusions because I’ve based that opinion on a reading of the evidence, which I’ve done without bias. People may and do disagree of course but we don’t, or shouldn’t, simply change with every new opinion.

You ask ”If we alluded to Cross as a witness, what then?”

Do you think that Christer Holmgren wouldn’t have written his book on Lechmere? Do you think that Ed Stow or Bob Mills or Mark JD would come to some other conclusion if we simply eliminated the word ‘suspect?’ I don’t see how you could even consider the possibility for a second. I disagree with all of them strongly on the strength of Lechmere’s candidacy but they’ve arrived at their opinions in exactly the same way that Trevor has arrived at his opinion on Feigenbaum. They’ve read the evidence that exists, assessed it, then formed an opinion. Do you and Trevor really believe that people should be treated so childishly because they can’t be trusted to form honestly held opinions.

Macnaghten said that there wasn’t enough proof to have built a case against Druitt but the evidence that he saw convinced him that Druitt was a likely ripper. The Police are often in the position where they have a ‘suspect’ but don’t have sufficient proof to prosecute, Harry. Sometimes that proof turns up after further investigation, sometimes it’s found that the suspect wasn’t guilty after all. In Druitt’s case we can’t assess the evidence of course because we don’t know what it was. And this is the point Harry…..of course I know this, everyone does. This is why I’ve never claimed that Druitt was the ripper. What I do stand by 100% is that I’ve always felt that not only has Druitt been too easily dismissed by some but there’s also some kind of ‘go to any extent to try and scratch him from the records’ movement. A more conspiracy-minded person than myself might wonder if there was some kind of cover-up going on with a cadré of secret Druitt descendants! Such is the bizarre fervour of some peoples efforts to exonerate him, usually by trying to demonise MacNaghten. You only have to look at the ‘Proof Of Innocence’ thread on JTRForums. Joanna produced a commendable piece of research and left us with an open question of whether it eliminated Druitt or not. It turned out that it didn’t but most researchers on there explored it without bias - Roger Palmer, Gary Barnett, Chris Phillips to name just three. But a few were putting up the bunting and cracking open the champagne after the first few posts! So there’s no point in asking me to provide something that I’ve never claimed to have….like proof that Druitt was the ripper. He probably wasn’t.

But he might have been……..and I’m quite happy to say that it’s those who dismiss who are wrong. Keeping an open mind is always preferable imo.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dont be childish !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Fair enough. I apologise for the dig at your being a detective. Whether I disagree with them or not I admire anyone for honestly doing such a tough job. But it still doesn’t mean that we should assume that your opinion on this subject should carry more weight than others.

This is the crux of the matter Trevor……

a) We have no way of assessing the evidence that Macnaughten saw.
b) We have various possible options on to choose from.
c) I’ve never claimed that the evidence must have proved the Druitt was the ripper.

You must surely agree with a, b and c?

Therefore, how can you be so confident to believe that Druitt should be casually dismissed? Do you not accept even the possibility that, for all that we know, Druitt MIGHT have been the ripper?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just to show that I’m being unbiased on this subject what about this bit of speculate?

Druitt’s aunt Isabella had the name Farquharson in her address book and we know that she visited Cavendish Square (where Crawford lived) in relation to an ‘encumbrance’ that she appeared unable to rid herself of. Then we have Farquharson in 1891 telling friends that the ripper was the son of a surgeon who drowned himself in the Thames.

So…..might Farquharson, who was from the same neck of the woods, simply have discovered that Druitt had committed suicide (something the family would have wanted to keep secret due to the stigma of the time) and for whatever malicious reason connected this event to the murders and proceeded to blackmail the family? Isabella then goes to Crawford to act as a go-between to arrange matters?

[Trevor Marriott]

Just to show that I’m being unbiased on this subject what about this bit of speculate?

Druitt’s aunt Isabella had the name Farquharson in her address book and we know that she visited Cavendish Square (where Crawford lived) in relation to an ‘encumbrance’ that she appeared unable to rid herself of. Then we have Farquharson in 1891 telling friends that the ripper was the son of a surgeon who drowned himself in the Thames.

So…..might Farquharson, who was from the same neck of the woods, simply have discovered that Druitt had committed suicide (something the family would have wanted to keep secret due to the stigma of the time) and for whatever malicious reason connected this event to the murders and proceeded to blackmail the family? Isabella then goes to Crawford to act as a go-between to arrange matters?

Do you not think that if the information was that reliable MM would have gone out on a limb to prove or disprove it. After all just think of how much fame would have been bestowed upon the officer who identifed Jack the Ripper beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is no evidence to show that Druitt`s movements during the time of the murders was ever carried out, and that task would not have been impossible, his diary chambers, family visits, cricket matches etc this would have been basic police work. There only needed to be one entry somewhere to show that he was somewhere else on one of the dates of the murders to rule him out.

This is basic police work if it wasnt done then its another example of police failing in their duties

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

You are forgetting he actually cuts a womans throat with a long bladed knife and then tried to escape but was caught by the police near the crime scene.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

With all due respect, that occurred in a different country, and his clumsy attempt at escape from a poorly planned murder sets him apart from JtR. One swallow doth not a summer make. IMO you need to show at least that Feigenbaum was in London for the C5 murders for a start.

"There only needed to be one entry somewhere to show that he was somewhere else on one of the dates of the murders to rule him out.
This is basic police work if it wasnt done then its another example of police failing in their duties"

Cheers, George

[harry]

Any investigation into murder,Herlock,is a police matter.They,and they alone are charged with investigating such crimes and putting offenders in court.We are,whether you admit it or not,attempting to discover the person responsible for the Jtr killings,and how can that be done.That we are not police officers,in no way effects the fact methods we use are similar. We search for incriminating evidence,by using the information supplied by witnesses,and the evidence unearthered by police,and to a lesser extent by what was reported in papers.It can be done no other way.
If someone had written a book proposing the innocence of Cross,of course the same content would be used,but the writer would reach a different conclusion than the persons you mentioned.You appear to have a bee in your bonnet about the term 'Suspect',and you declare we all know the meaning of the word.I wonder whether you do.
I cannot remember reading anywhere that MacNaghten said there wasn't enough proof to build a case against Druitt.Please refer me to where that claim is made.
He said there was no proof against anyone.If there is no proof there is no case.It seems you cannot accept that.So much for your faith in MacNaghten.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

With all due respect, that occurred in a different country, and his clumsy attempt at escape from a poorly planned murder sets him apart from JtR. One swallow doth not a summer make. IMO you need to show at least that Feigenbaum was in London for the C5 murders for a start.

"There only needed to be one entry somewhere to show that he was somewhere else on one of the dates of the murders to rule him out.
This is basic police work if it wasnt done then its another example of police failing in their duties"

Cheers, George

It doesnt set him apart from Druitt they are as differnet as chalk and cheese, what evidence is there against Druitt, one unsafe document penned 6 years after the canonical murders, then we have the belief by what officers believed at the time that McKenzie was a ripper victim and not forgetting Coles.

So reserachers keep asking for evidence to rule out Druitt when the evidence is there for all to see, that if either Mckenzie or Coles were killed by the Ripper then Druitt is completly exonerated its as simple as that but for some reason researchers are fixated with just the canonical five

There is a wealth of circumstantial evidence against Feigenbaum

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do you not think that if the information was that reliable MM would have gone out on a limb to prove or disprove it. After all just think of how much fame would have been bestowed upon the officer who identifed Jack the Ripper beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is no evidence to show that Druitt`s movements during the time of the murders was ever carried out, and that task would not have been impossible, his diary chambers, family visits, cricket matches etc this would have been basic police work. There only needed to be one entry somewhere to show that he was somewhere else on one of the dates of the murders to rule him out.

This is basic police work if it wasnt done then its another example of police failing in their duties

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But if the evidence that had come into his possession was such that was convincing to him and the family it might not have been strong enough for a prosecution. Then why couldn’t we combine that with the fact the Druitt was related, not closely but by marriage, to one of Mac’s best friends?

You make the point that Druitt would have been fairly easy to investigate so I’d ask again, why would he have plucked Druitt’s name out of thin are knowing that he might have been easily exonerated with a bit of research?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It doesnt set him apart from Druitt they are as differnet as chalk and cheese, what evidence is there against Druitt, one unsafe document penned 6 years after the canonical murders, then we have the belief by what officers believed at the time that McKenzie was a ripper victim and not forgetting Coles.

So reserachers keep asking for evidence to rule out Druitt when the evidence is there for all to see, that if either Mckenzie or Coles were killed by the Ripper then Druitt is completly exonerated its as simple as that but for some reason researchers are fixated with just the canonical five

There is a wealth of circumstantial evidence against Feigenbaum

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And if you could prove that Mackenzie and Coles were ripper victims you’d have a point Trevor. But you can’t. So you don’t.

Theres not one single thing that eliminates Druitt. This should be accepted because it’s a fact.