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

    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.
    It doesnt matter how MM got the information there is no evidence he took any steps to prove or disprove it, and it doesnt matter whether at the time Druiit was dead, the Ripper crimes were still there to be investigated and anyone who went any way to detecting those crimes would have likely received the keys to the city of London and with it great kudos so every reason to try to prove the info correct.

    As I have said before that investigation could have taken the same lines as the ones researchers have been conducting but with more sucess becasue there would have been that much more information to seek out, so there is no excuse for him to have not pursued the various lines of enquiry.

    After all in the second re write what does he say

    “I enumerate the cases of 3 men against whom Police held very… this sentence is then continued in handwritten form on the first of the attached handwritten sheets and reads: “reasonable suspicion. Personally, after much careful & deliberate consideration, I am inclined to exonerate the last 2.”

    So that means there was some investiagtions carried out between the first and second editions because he had clearly now found out that Ostrog was in jail in France at the time of the murders and the other referred to was Kosminski who according to MM was eliminated from suspicion.

    But nothing on Druitt, so i say again can Druitt be regarded as a suspect or at best a person of interest

    Another minor discrepancy in the rewrite relates to the murder of Martha Tabram who was subjected to a frenzied attack where she was stabbed thirty-nine times. On page six of the typewritten sheets when discussing her murder that part is described as, “her body had received several stabs,” thirty-nine stab wounds could hardly be described as “several"

    On a final note, it should be noted that neither The Aberconway Version nor the original one contains any mention at all of the organs having been removed from any of the victims.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      It doesnt matter how MM got the information there is no evidence he took any steps to prove or disprove it, and it doesnt matter whether at the time Druiit was dead, the Ripper crimes were still there to be investigated and anyone who went any way to detecting those crimes would have likely received the keys to the city of London and with it great kudos so every reason to try to prove the info correct.

      As I have said before that investigation could have taken the same lines as the ones researchers have been conducting but with more sucess becasue there would have been that much more information to seek out, so there is no excuse for him to have not pursued the various lines of enquiry.

      After all in the second re write what does he say

      “I enumerate the cases of 3 men against whom Police held very… this sentence is then continued in handwritten form on the first of the attached handwritten sheets and reads: “reasonable suspicion. Personally, after much careful & deliberate consideration, I am inclined to exonerate the last 2.”

      So that means there was some investiagtions carried out between the first and second editions because he had clearly now found out that Ostrog was in jail in France at the time of the murders and the other referred to was Kosminski who according to MM was eliminated from suspicion.

      But nothing on Druitt, so i say again can Druitt be regarded as a suspect or at best a person of interest

      Another minor discrepancy in the rewrite relates to the murder of Martha Tabram who was subjected to a frenzied attack where she was stabbed thirty-nine times. On page six of the typewritten sheets when discussing her murder that part is described as, “her body had received several stabs,” thirty-nine stab wounds could hardly be described as “several"

      On a final note, it should be noted that neither The Aberconway Version nor the original one contains any mention at all of the organs having been removed from any of the victims.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      “There’s no excuse….” is someone looking at this 134 years later. How do you know what was going on at the time? What if the evidence was simply the word of a family member who wouldn’t have gone public with what he knew or suspected? So that even if he wanted to pursue it he might have realised that there was nowhere to go? Also with one of Mac’s best friends being related by marriage to the Druitt’s might he not also have thought why bring shame on this well-to-do family when there could be no actual resolution?

      Suspect or person of interest?

      Trevor, you could call him a giraffe if it made you feel better. I’ll call him a suspect because that’s what he remains. Annoying thought at might be to some.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      Comment


      • I have answered those questions Herlock several times if you read all my posts and understand them.Why you continue to associate me with Trevor,I do not understand.My posts are exclusive to me.Treat it that way.
        Suspect and person of interest signify two different types of individuals.A suspect is a person who has been investigated and against whom incriminating evidence has been proven.Person of interest is someone who for some reason has been judged by the authorities to have information pertinent to the crime.
        Now to Druitt.There has only ever been one item offered for his inclusion,and that is a remark attributed to MacNahten,that Druitts family suspected him,Druitt, to have had mental problems.In the first instance the remarks of Macnahten are hearsay,and do not prove anything,and the family's suspicions,if indeed there were any,again lack the element of proof.
        Now Herlock,if you wish to consider Druitt a suspect,and argue the point with me,show proven evidence against that person,or stop adressing posts to me.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by harry View Post
          I have answered those questions Herlock several times if you read all my posts and understand them.Why you continue to associate me with Trevor,I do not understand.My posts are exclusive to me.Treat it that way.
          Suspect and person of interest signify two different types of individuals.A suspect is a person who has been investigated and against whom incriminating evidence has been proven.Person of interest is someone who for some reason has been judged by the authorities to have information pertinent to the crime.
          Now to Druitt.There has only ever been one item offered for his inclusion,and that is a remark attributed to MacNahten,that Druitts family suspected him,Druitt, to have had mental problems.In the first instance the remarks of Macnahten are hearsay,and do not prove anything,and the family's suspicions,if indeed there were any,again lack the element of proof.
          Now Herlock,if you wish to consider Druitt a suspect,and argue the point with me,show proven evidence against that person,or stop adressing posts to me.
          Now thats certainly a topic for a new thread , ''Should Montague Druitt be labled a ''Suspect'' or ''Person of Interest'' as youve explained Harry there is indeed a difference, which in Druitts case would enable less discussion and time wasting when trying to make a case for him being a Jack the Ripper suspect. In my opinion.
          'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

            Now thats certainly a topic for a new thread , ''Should Montague Druitt be labled a ''Suspect'' or ''Person of Interest'' as youve explained Harry there is indeed a difference, which in Druitts case would enable less discussion and time wasting when trying to make a case for him being a Jack the Ripper suspect. In my opinion.
            lol except for the fact that a policeman at the time named him a suspect. you know who actually was there.
            Last edited by Abby Normal; 06-23-2022, 05:50 AM.
            "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 Abby Normal View Post

              lol except for the fact that a policeman at the time named him a suspect. you know who actually was there.
              Is that a fact Abby or are you just stating it as one?.Where does it say Druitt was named as a suspect and by whom , you know from someone that was actually there
              'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                lol except for the fact that a policeman at the time named him a suspect. you know who actually was there.
                It would appear that the term "person of interest" originated in the US and was not first used until 1986, although it may date back to 1937 so if that is the case then they could only use the term "suspect" back then in 1888, which puts a whole new light on how the term suspect was used back then and its modern day implications as far as suspects go for the Ripper murders

                Maybe a re classification is needed to the long suspect list?

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 06-23-2022, 07:26 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  It would appear that the term "person of interest" originated in the US and was not first used until 1986, so if that is the case then they could only use the term suspect back then which puts a whole new light on how the term suspect was used back then and its modern day implications as far as suspects go

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  ''A suspect is a person who has been investigated and against whom incriminating evidence has been proven.Person of interest is someone who for some reason has been judged by the authorities to have information pertinent to the crime.''

                  So Trevor you being an ex policeman would you say this is correct ?

                  Which one would you place Druitt in .?
                  'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                    ''A suspect is a person who has been investigated and against whom incriminating evidence has been proven.Person of interest is someone who for some reason has been judged by the authorities to have information pertinent to the crime.''

                    So Trevor you being an ex policeman would you say this is correct ?

                    Which one would you place Druitt in .?
                    yes I would agreed on that loosely speaking but using the term "incriminating evidence" is open to interpretation. If the evidence is so incriminating he should be classed as a suspect. Although I would say that using Druitt as an example when someone provides information to the police that names a person as being involved in a crime that person first becomes a person of interest. There has to be more before that person is elevated to suspect status. Although in todays law enforcement the police can arrest a person if they have reasonable suspicion so it is argueable by definition at what point that person then becomes a suspect from being a person of interest

                    In 1888 the police had the same powers

                    and I have stated for many years that at best Druitt is nothing more than a person on interest

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • I was taught that the point at which a person becomes a suspect,is when a person who has the power to so declare a person suspect,first becomes sure that point has been reached. This again is open to interpretation,and only experience will guide an officer.At that point the person suspected has to be told he/she is suspect.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        yes I would agreed on that loosely speaking but using the term "incriminating evidence" is open to interpretation. If the evidence is so incriminating he should be classed as a suspect. Although I would say that using Druitt as an example when someone provides information to the police that names a person as being involved in a crime that person first becomes a person of interest. There has to be more before that person is elevated to suspect status. Although in todays law enforcement the police can arrest a person if they have reasonable suspicion so it is argueable by definition at what point that person then becomes a suspect from being a person of interest

                        In 1888 the police had the same powers

                        and I have stated for many years that at best Druitt is nothing more than a person on interest

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Thank you..

                        'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          yes I would agreed on that loosely speaking but using the term "incriminating evidence" is open to interpretation. If the evidence is so incriminating he should be classed as a suspect. Although I would say that using Druitt as an example when someone provides information to the police that names a person as being involved in a crime that person first becomes a person of interest. There has to be more before that person is elevated to suspect status. Although in todays law enforcement the police can arrest a person if they have reasonable suspicion so it is argueable by definition at what point that person then becomes a suspect from being a person of interest

                          In 1888 the police had the same powers

                          and I have stated for many years that at best Druitt is nothing more than a person on interest

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Yes, you consider Druitt a ‘person of interest’ about whom you spend much time trying to convince others that we shouldn’t really be interested in because of your baseless certainty that Macnaghten either lied or was a blundering idiot. So why should we be interested in him (in my opinion)?

                          Well, when a Chief Constable of Police says something of this importance it’s worthy of our attention for a start. Of course we shouldn’t assume that his judgment was correct; he was human, but equally we shouldn’t assume that he was wrong either. Before Polly the Parrot appears, yes we shouldn’t rely on it, but we shouldn’t dismiss it either

                          So what dis he say? Well I reckon if you took a poll at the time and asked for a description of the killer (including the Police) the words, low-class, foreigner, lunatic, violent criminal would appear. We all know the type of person they believed guilty. So who does Mac name? Kosminski - tick, Ostrog - tick, Druitt - err, hold on, a non- criminal, non-violent, upper class, public school, cricket playing, Barrister/Schoolteacher, son of a surgeon, related by marriage to one of Mac’s best friends. I mean it’s obvious isn’t it? If you don’t think Druitt’s apparent unlikeliness as a suggested ripper intriguing then I’d suggest that you are immune to intrigue.

                          Oh, but he only picked Druitt because of when he died. Of course. As if the cemeteries and asylums weren’t full of nonentities that he could have thrown under the bus with impunity. Mac is such an terminal halfwit that he ignores these. He also ignores the opportunity to pick someone that died after Mackenzie to keep those that felt Mackenzie a victim happy.

                          As most ripperologists consider Kelly as the last victim we often ask why he stopped (and yes Trevor, this,isn’t a proven fact it’s a generally held opinion - a consensus.) Serial killers can stop or have breaks of course but it’s more usual that they just continue. So why stop at Kelly? Druitt has the most valid of explanations for this but of course he gets this fact used against him!

                          So, named by the Chief Constable, stands out like a sore thumb against the other names, died just after Kelly. Still worthy of being dismissed though.

                          The fact that an m.p. went around telling people that the ripper was the son of a surgeon who committed suicide in the Thames is not of interest to some. And he does this a full three years before the Memorandum is written. Perhaps another son of a surgeon drowned himself in the Thames just after the Kelly murder? After all, one could hardly stick an oar into the Thames without getting it getting snarled up with sons of surgeons.

                          Everything else was normal with Druitt though of course? Well he was mysteriously sacked from his job at the Blackheath School (and despite speculation we don’t know why, one suggestion is as good as the next) but we do know that for someone of Druitt’s class this would have been a hugely significant offence. The disgrace, dishonour etc. And then in early December he mysteriously resigned his position at the cricket club. Were the two events connected in some way? Whatever was going on in Druitt’s life it was of huge significance. But we can dismiss Druitt as of no interest though of course.

                          He commits suicide in strange circumstances and his brother (a Barrister) lies under oath in front of a coroner that knows the Druitt family. Any everyday occurrence for some!

                          Can we actually place Druitt in Whitechapel with evidence? Of course we can’t but what evidence would we have expected to find? But we do have a reasonably possibility. In 1886 conservative politician JG Talbot held a meeting at Kings Bench Walk (a year after Monty had taken chambers there) to persuade young to undertake charitable work for Oxford House in Bethnal Green. Proof that Druitt was in Bethnal Green? Of course not, but he might easily have undertaken charitable work. If not, a bit of slumming is hardly the equivalent of conquering Everest.

                          Druitt was physical fit and his description might match some of the potential sightings. And it’s often suggested that the killer ‘might’ have had an atomic knowledge. Something easy to acquire for the son of a surgeon.

                          Druitt, a cricket playing Barrister and member of a prominent family should be the most traceable of ripper suspects (apart from famous suspects like Sickert of course) and yet, despite research we have yet to come up with one single piece of evidence to eliminate him but annoyingly for some research has now told us that, contrary to long held belief, Druitt had no alibi for Tabram either!

                          There’s more to mention of course but I’m simply pointing out that this is someone that many want to simply dismiss. In a field where there is no evidence against any suspect it’s frankly bizarre.


                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by harry View Post
                            I was taught that the point at which a person becomes a suspect,is when a person who has the power to so declare a person suspect,first becomes sure that point has been reached. This again is open to interpretation,and only experience will guide an officer.At that point the person suspected has to be told he/she is suspect.
                            So it’s down to one person? How would that help on here Harry? Who would make the decision? The whole ‘suspect/person of interest’ thing is a completely pointless non-issue.

                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                              And then in early December he mysteriously resigned his position at the cricket club. Were the two events connected in some way?
                              Hi herlock

                              good post, but I believe Druitt did not resign? He was removed from his position in december, on the grounds that he had gone abroad - he was already dead at the time, so probably removed on account of having disappeared.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                                Hi herlock

                                good post, but I believe Druitt did not resign? He was removed from his position in december, on the grounds that he had gone abroad - he was already dead at the time, so probably removed on account of having disappeared.
                                Thanks Kattrup,

                                You’re right of course. He was removed because he’d supposedly ‘gone abroad.’
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X