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 Trevor Marriott View Post

    take the blinkers of and read the posts before you start ranting and raving

    i asked a simple question of you which all that needed was a yes or no answer and you again create a drama, let me ask it again I am not interested in twisting or distorting the facts

    "If Mackenzie is accepted as being a ripper victim, and it is also accepted that all the canonical five were also ripper victims do you agree that eliminates Druiitt from being JTR?!

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    trevor, dear god man

    YES, OF COURSE IT WOULD ELIMINATE DRUITT.
    what part of "yes of course it would eliminate druitt" dont you understand?
    "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

      take the blinkers of and read the posts before you start ranting and raving

      i asked a simple question of you which all that needed was a yes or no answer and you again create a drama, let me ask it again I am not interested in twisting or distorting the facts

      "If Mackenzie is accepted as being a ripper victim, and it is also accepted that all the canonical five were also ripper victims do you agree that eliminates Druiitt from being JTR?!

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES

      YES

      YES, YES

      OUI, JA, DA, SI, JOO,

      YES, YES, YES,

      and finally

      YES

      ​​​​​​​I’ll repeat it again for when in a few posts time when you ask me again.

      YES.​​​​​​​

      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ohrocky View Post
        I struggle to place any value in MM whatsoever. Here you have the most senior police officer in London himself admitting that he had destroyed evidence in order to keep secret the identity of the killer.

        Take a moment and think about that. The most senior police officer covering up the identity of someone he believed was a killer.

        Today he would be labelled as bent and banged up. So how can anybody trust a man who, by his own admission, was a bent copper?
        Druitt had been dead for 6 years. He didn’t come into his information whilst Druitt was alive so nothing could have been done and perhaps the evidence wasn’t strong enough to have convicted him even if he had still been alive? So why put the family (that his good friend was related to by marriage) through the ordeal when it would have served no purpose?
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES

          YES

          YES, YES

          OUI, JA, DA, SI, JOO,

          YES, YES, YES,

          and finally

          YES

          ​​​​​​​I’ll repeat it again for when in a few posts time when you ask me again.

          YES.​​​​​​​
          Now we have cleared that up you need to calm down your posts are becoming irrational !!!!!!!!!!!

          The information that Druitt could have been the killer originated from Druitts family but no evidence to support that belief was ever disclosed by any source.

          And by the time the info found its way to MM it was probabaly third hand? yet still passing through other hands no one still produced any evidence to support the belief

          and MM had every chance to test the evidential strength of what he had been told much in the same way researchers have tried to test if in todays world, but we see no evidence of any evidence being forthcoming

          Yet you still keep relying on the old chestnut that becauase MM was a high ranking officer he should be belived when he names Druitt as a suspect, maybe he did believe but there is no evidence anywhere that he took steps to prove or disprove the information so on the basis of the MM alone and nothing else Druitt is at best nothing more than a person of interest, which you have been told many times.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ohrocky View Post
            I struggle to place any value in MM whatsoever. Here you have the most senior police officer in London himself admitting that he had destroyed evidence in order to keep secret the identity of the killer.

            Take a moment and think about that. The most senior police officer covering up the identity of someone he believed was a killer.

            Today he would be labelled as bent and banged up. So how can anybody trust a man who, by his own admission, was a bent copper?
            I agree.
            I have a very clear idea who Jack was but that secret will never be revealed by me, and I have destroyed all my documents etc Daily Mail 1913.
            What !!!
            Did Mac not care about justice for the victims or their families ?
            What he is saying is akin to a cover up. Don't forget how chastised Anderson was mentioning that the family/people of certain Jews would not give up one of their own for justice.
            Yet three years later Mac is virtually doing the same thing. Yes, Druitt was dead but the fact that he does not name him to me means he wasn't certain by any stretch and it would leave him open for libel.
            We can't dismiss Druitt completely but again, to me it seems that Mac heard rumours at the least second hand and that Druitt fitted the criteria what Mac suspected the ripper may be - Sexually insane, Possible medical experience, committed suicide not long after Mary's death .

            Regards Darryl

            Comment


            • Hi all.

              At the beginning of the podcast Steve Blomer mentioned a piece about Druitt's cricketing career by Irving Rosenwater as having predated Sugden.
              Steve was correct.
              And Rosenwater's 1973 article in The Cricketer was also referenced by Skinner and Howells in their 1986 book The Ripper Legacy. Also pre-Sugden.
              In fact Keith Skinner began researching Druitt for their book starting in 1980.

              Keith was generous in providing me a copy of Rosenwater's article which I share here with his permission.


              Click image for larger version

Name:	DC1.jpg
Views:	82
Size:	187.3 KB
ID:	788088



              Click image for larger version

Name:	DC2.jpg
Views:	80
Size:	185.0 KB
ID:	788089



              Click image for larger version

Name:	DC3.jpg
Views:	81
Size:	191.4 KB
ID:	788090






              Thank you to Keith.

              JM

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                I agree.
                I have a very clear idea who Jack was but that secret will never be revealed by me, and I have destroyed all my documents etc Daily Mail 1913.
                What !!!
                Did Mac not care about justice for the victims or their families ?
                What he is saying is akin to a cover up. Don't forget how chastised Anderson was mentioning that the family/people of certain Jews would not give up one of their own for justice.
                If the personal documents he had did not amount to legal proof, destroying them is of no consequence from a legal perspective, and I think that is what you and ohrocky are implying.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by jmenges View Post
                  Hi all.

                  At the beginning of the podcast Steve Blomer mentioned a piece about Druitt's cricketing career by Irving Rosenwater as having predated Sugden.
                  Steve was correct.
                  And Rosenwater's 1973 article in The Cricketer was also referenced by Skinner and Howells in their 1986 book The Ripper Legacy. Also pre-Sugden.
                  In fact Keith Skinner began researching Druitt for their book starting in 1980.
                  Rosenwater's article was also referenced several times in Dan Farson's book on Druitt (2nd edition, 1973).

                  I suppose people tend to refer to Sugden because he is the best-known critic of the Druitt theory, and his book has been widely read compared to the earlier sources.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                    If the personal documents he had did not amount to legal proof, destroying them is of no consequence from a legal perspective, and I think that is what you and ohrocky are implying.
                    These criticisms of Macnaghten tend to be overly quarrelsome, in my opinion, although I can appreciate why people would be skeptical.

                    Unlike Anderson (in reference to the Polish Jew), Macnaghten never stated that Druitt's guilt was proven. He even left out a sentence in the memo (available in the Aberconway version) where he 'plumps' for Druitt over Ostrog and Kosminski. In his memoirs, he admits it is 'conjecture,' but for some reason, his suspicions have been clearly aroused. If that doesn't interest people, what can you do?

                    It was actually G.R. Sims who was far more adamant that the 'drowned doctor' from the London suburbs was the correct solution, the insinuation being, I suppose, that Sims was voicing Macaghten's secret suspicions, even though publicly the Chief Constable was far more circumspect.

                    Comment


                    • Thank you.

                      The article can also be downloaded in PDF format as part of a larger article (100 pages) on the history of Blackheath Cricket Club. As a bonus, it contains the 2003 Ripperologist article by D J Leighton too. For some reason (probably incompetence) I can't post a link, but just Google "Blackheath Cricket club history archive" if you're interested.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        Now we have cleared that up you need to calm down your posts are becoming irrational !!!!!!!!!!!

                        The information that Druitt could have been the killer originated from Druitts family but no evidence to support that belief was ever disclosed by any source.

                        And by the time the info found its way to MM it was probabaly third hand? yet still passing through other hands no one still produced any evidence to support the belief

                        and MM had every chance to test the evidential strength of what he had been told much in the same way researchers have tried to test if in todays world, but we see no evidence of any evidence being forthcoming

                        Yet you still keep relying on the old chestnut that becauase MM was a high ranking officer he should be belived when he names Druitt as a suspect, maybe he did believe but there is no evidence anywhere that he took steps to prove or disprove the information so on the basis of the MM alone and nothing else Druitt is at best nothing more than a person of interest, which you have been told many times.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Ive always felt it a bit pointless to respond to your nonsense Trevor but your posting on this thread has utterly convinced me of the truth of it.

                        Firstly, as Aethelwulf and Abby have both seen clearly and pointed out to you, I’d answered your question several times and yet you kept asking me the same one. Is it any wonder I get a bit annoyed? And you have the nerve to call my posts irrational!! I think that you need to visit Specsavers.

                        Secondly, as we have absolutely no way of proving that she was a victim in the first place, she can’t be used to eliminate any suspect. Yet illogically you keep trying to do just that.

                        Thirdly, and most annoyingly of all, you keep using that word ‘rely.’ Someone only ‘relies’ on something if they are intent on proving something. And I’m not. If I’d said “Druitt was definitely the ripper and the memorandum proves it,” then you’d be correct to say that I was relying on it. But as I didn’t say that, and I’ve never said that, then there’s no point in you keep repeating it because it’s clearly not true. But truth doesn’t bother you does it? So on and on you go, ignoring the 100 times that I’ve explained this.

                        Fourthly, another lie. I’ve never said that Macnaughten should automatically be believed because he was a high ranking police officer. What I do say however, and have wasted my time saying a 100 times to the cloth-eared, is that he shouldn’t be casually dismissed as he often is. That we should assume that he lied or that he was an idiot….as you always do. I suggest keeping an open mind on the subject. Something that you find impossible to do. You have such rigid views.

                        Fifthly, I don’t care how many times you tell me something Trevor. If it was biased drivel the first time it will be biased drivel the 100th.

                        There can be few, if any, posters on here that are so regularly and thoroughly disagreed with than you. Perhaps it’s you that needs to start listening to others instead of just assuming that because you used to be a copper that opinion should be treated as holy writ. You might have noticed that no one on here or on JTRForums treats you as the Oracle.

                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                          These criticisms of Macnaghten tend to be overly quarrelsome, in my opinion, although I can appreciate why people would be skeptical.

                          Unlike Anderson (in reference to the Polish Jew), Macnaghten never stated that Druitt's guilt was proven. He even left out a sentence in the memo (available in the Aberconway version) where he 'plumps' for Druitt over Ostrog and Kosminski. In his memoirs, he admits it is 'conjecture,' but for some reason, his suspicions have been clearly aroused. If that doesn't interest people, what can you do?

                          It was actually G.R. Sims who was far more adamant that the 'drowned doctor' from the London suburbs was the correct solution, the insinuation being, I suppose, that Sims was voicing Macaghten's secret suspicions, even though publicly the Chief Constable was far more circumspect.
                          You’re absolutely right Roger and I’ll shoulder my share of the blame for this. But all calm thinking and open-mindedness flies out of the window at the mention of the names Druitt or Macnaughten. But you’re right, what can you do?
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                            Thank you.

                            The article can also be downloaded in PDF format as part of a larger article (100 pages) on the history of Blackheath Cricket Club. As a bonus, it contains the 2003 Ripperologist article by D J Leighton too. For some reason (probably incompetence) I can't post a link, but just Google "Blackheath Cricket club history archive" if you're interested.

                            As an aside, D. J. Leighton is a useful source, but as I tried to express on Howard's site, his facts should be double-checked, which is difficult because he often doesn't give his sources.

                            I am also convinced he has given Druitt a false alibi.

                            From Montague Druitt: Portrait of a Contender, p. 110.

                            "On 3 and 4 August he played for the Gentleman of Bournemouth against the Parsees, a visiting Indian touring side. A couple of days later he played for the Gentleman of Dorset against the same opposition [ie., the Parsees]. The following weekend on 10 and 11 August he turned out for the Gentlemen of Dorset against Bournemouth at the end of the latter's cricket week."

                            If Druitt had actually played the Parsees down in Dorset or Hampshire a couple of days later (August 6th) it would almost certainly have given him an alibi for the Tabram murder (not that Macnghten attributed that murder to MJD).

                            In reality, the movements of the Parsee team is well-documented and they played up in Norfolk on August 6th. Druitt did not play for either side, nor does he have any known association with that club.

                            In fact, there is no mention of the Parsees playing the Gentlemen of Dorset anytime around that date, so it seems as if Leighton somehow got his wires crossed.

                            Leighton elsewhere states that Druitt was in the 'West Country' on October 1st--the day after the double-event, but again gives no source for this claim (p. 116). I find this extraordinary had it been true. The only Druitt I could find in court that day was James Druitt, an uncle. (There was also a James Druitt who was a cousin).

                            So Leighton appears to have given Druitt two dubious alibis.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              You’re absolutely right Roger and I’ll shoulder my share of the blame for this.
                              Hi Herlock - I was actually referring to those quarrelling with Macnaghten. Yes, I can certainly understand the doubt and/or frustration these commentators feel, but in a way "it is what it is." For whatever reason, a Chief Constable voiced suspicion against MJD, and I find that interesting.

                              It is not everyone's cup of tea.

                              In the end, Mac could be an outright blow-hard, of course, and many commentators haven drawn that conclusion, but in reading his memoirs I am not left with that impression. His opinions on various criminal cases appear to be more rational and less cranky than, say, Sir Robert Anderson's, and he was also more of a man-of-the-world, which counts for something in a gentleman detective.

                              Mainly, I am intrigued why he would suspect Druitt, considering that MJD seems like a highly unusual choice for a suspect in a murder case of this type.

                              Not everyone quite understands or appreciates that the apparent weakness of Druitt as a suspect is what intrigues some of us. In a perverse sort of way, calling him a lousy suspect only deepens the mystery.

                              RP

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                                Hi Herlock - I was actually referring to those quarrelling with Macnaghten. Yes, I can certainly understand the doubt and/or frustration these commentators feel, but in a way "it is what it is." For whatever reason, a Chief Constable voiced suspicion against MJD, and I find that interesting.

                                It is not everyone's cup of tea.

                                In the end, Mac could be an outright blow-hard, of course, and many commentators haven drawn that conclusion, but in reading his memoirs I am not left with that impression. His opinions on various criminal cases appear to be more rational and less cranky than, say, Sir Robert Anderson's, and he was also more of a man-of-the-world, which counts for something in a gentleman detective.

                                Mainly, I am intrigued why he would suspect Druitt, considering that MJD seems like a highly unusual choice for a suspect in a murder case of this type.

                                Not everyone quite understands or appreciates that the apparent weakness of Druitt as a suspect is what intrigues some of us. In a perverse sort of way, calling him a lousy suspect only deepens the mystery.

                                RP
                                Hi Roger,

                                Yes I get the same impression from reading his memoirs too. It also appears that he had the respect of those that worked under him which I think is a decent gauge of whether someone was arrogant or had an overweening ego. Wensley for example spoke very highly of him. But the point that always stands out for me is the one that you mention (and that Wickerman has also mentioned recently) ….. why Druitt if Macnaughten was just picking names virtually at random? Some just pass over this but I can’t for the life of me understand why? Macnaghten, with an enormous supply of dead criminals or dead or permanently incarcerated lunatics that he could have put on his list he picks Druitt.

                                I’m very confident of very little in this case but if there’s one thing that I’d give my opinion on with confidence it’s that there’s no way that Macnaghten simply plucked Druitt’s name out of thin air just because he died after Kelly. It’s just too unlikely imo. It makes zero sense.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X