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

[GBinOz]

Hi Harry,

So who would meet the criteria? Lech? Koz? Tumblety?

Your applying an odd standard, one which has unrealistic ideals. There's no proven anything against anyone, it's an unsolved crime, and not unsolved due to a technicality meaning prosecution wasn't possible, it's unsolved because the authorities at the time didn't have a clue who was responsible.

Using your unrealistic standard, we shouldn't discuss anyone, ever. No one has anything 'proven' against them.

Or, we can sleuth over what fragments remain, and explore what they have to offer. Like armchair investigators.

Druitt is a fascinating character, and we don't know why he was named. That's genuinely interesting, he's such an unlikely candidate, why mention him by name? Especially if Melville was friendly with his family. Curious. He's low on my list of 'suspects', but I'd love to know why he was put forward. And who informed Melville. Who else harboured those suspicions? Why did his own family not only think he was the killer, but felt the need to discuss that feeling with at least someone in power?

This whole 'suspects' Vs 'person of interest ' thing is totally needless. It's nit picking over semantics for no good reason. I'd imagine that anyone who's actually investing time in reading these boards understands that it's a fairly loosely applied term used to describe anyone we care to discuss as potential candidates for commiting these crimes.

If your going to stick to such rigid rules, I'd suggest you limit yourself to discussing Bury. He was 'proven' to be in Whitechapel, 'proven' to be abusive to his wife and most importantly, 'proven' to have actually been a murderer. And no, I don't think he was the killer either, but he makes a good suspect.

Great post Al. Absolutely agree on every point.

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

"any suspicion must be proven before the term is applied".

what does that even mean!?!

Let me try to explain the diferences between a person of interest and a suspect using Druitt as an example, because there are a number of posters who seem to not want to accept that there is a big difference and that the two are not the same

The infomation MM received is regarded as hearsay, at the time he receives that information Druitt only becomes "a person of interest" or as MM describes him a "likely suspect". MM could not use the term person of interest because that term had not yet evolved into law enforcement however, in this day and age we are able to use both terms.

Now if MM had taken steps to prove or disprove the credibility of that information, and for example had uncovered evidence to support what he had been told then Druiit would then have been regarded as a suspect whether he was dead or not. There is no evidence to show that was the case so in my opinion Druiit must only be regarded as a person of interest or a liklely suspect.The death of a suspect does not stop a murder investigation.

having looked at the suspect list at a quick glance I would say that 99% of those who make up the list are nothing more than persons of interest or using victorian terminology "likley suspects" and fall short of then being able to be categorized as full blown "suspects"

Now if researchers are going to use modern day methods of research/investigation then it is only right that the modern day terminolgy is used to describe the difference between a suspect and a likley suspect/person of interest.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

.It is an investigation by interested persons,and as such should stick to certain general principles,one of which is that suspicions need to be proven before they are accepted.

Hi Harry,

So who would meet the criteria? Lech? Koz? Tumblety?

Your applying an odd standard, one which has unrealistic ideals. There's no proven anything against anyone, it's an unsolved crime, and not unsolved due to a technicality meaning prosecution wasn't possible, it's unsolved because the authorities at the time didn't have a clue who was responsible.

Using your unrealistic standard, we shouldn't discuss anyone, ever. No one has anything 'proven' against them.

Or, we can sleuth over what fragments remain, and explore what they have to offer. Like armchair investigators.

Druitt is a fascinating character, and we don't know why he was named. That's genuinely interesting, he's such an unlikely candidate, why mention him by name? Especially if Melville was friendly with his family. Curious. He's low on my list of 'suspects', but I'd love to know why he was put forward. And who informed Melville. Who else harboured those suspicions? Why did his own family not only think he was the killer, but felt the need to discuss that feeling with at least someone in power?

This whole 'suspects' Vs 'person of interest ' thing is totally needless. It's nit picking over semantics for no good reason. I'd imagine that anyone who's actually investing time in reading these boards understands that it's a fairly loosely applied term used to describe anyone we care to discuss as potential candidates for commiting these crimes.

If your going to stick to such rigid rules, I'd suggest you limit yourself to discussing Bury. He was 'proven' to be in Whitechapel, 'proven' to be abusive to his wife and most importantly, 'proven' to have actually been a murderer. And no, I don't think he was the killer either, but he makes a good suspect.

[GBinOz]

"any suspicion must be proven before the term is applied".

what does that even mean!?!

It means we can all move on to other things because no suspicions can be proved about anyone except secret suspects.

[Abby Normal]

Taking your last comment first,Herlock,there must be at least three interested parties.You are still posting on the matter.
I know something but I am not telling you,thats what you write.Of course I am,what of it.I have only concealed a name.That does not have a bearing on what information I provided.
This is not a police investigation.How many more times are you going to use that excuse Herlock.It is an investigation by interested persons,and as such should stick to certain general principles,one of which is that suspicions need to be proven before they are accepted.
In post 334 on this thread you write,"We have no evidence to prove that Druitt was the killer,of course'.How then can Druitt be classed as suspect ,if suspicions against him cannot be proven?
Every suspect must have been named by someone,Harry.Thats what you wrote.(post 419).In post 426 you write,"No one has said that every suspect has been named"
Explain that.
I am not against using the word suspect,if it is used properly.By that I mean any suspicion must be proven before the term is applied.If the suspected mental conditions ascribed to Druitt are ever proven,then Herlock,it will be a cause for interest.It will still not be enough to prove he killed anyone.

"any suspicion must be proven before the term is applied".

what does that even mean!?!

[harry]

Taking your last comment first,Herlock,there must be at least three interested parties.You are still posting on the matter.
I know something but I am not telling you,thats what you write.Of course I am,what of it.I have only concealed a name.That does not have a bearing on what information I provided.
This is not a police investigation.How many more times are you going to use that excuse Herlock.It is an investigation by interested persons,and as such should stick to certain general principles,one of which is that suspicions need to be proven before they are accepted.
In post 334 on this thread you write,"We have no evidence to prove that Druitt was the killer,of course'.How then can Druitt be classed as suspect ,if suspicions against him cannot be proven?
Every suspect must have been named by someone,Harry.Thats what you wrote.(post 419).In post 426 you write,"No one has said that every suspect has been named"
Explain that.
I am not against using the word suspect,if it is used properly.By that I mean any suspicion must be proven before the term is applied.If the suspected mental conditions ascribed to Druitt are ever proven,then Herlock,it will be a cause for interest.It will still not be enough to prove he killed anyone.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Something of that nature does sound familiar, though what access to money would she have in an asylum?
Perhaps that was before she was committed.

That’s the impression that I had Wick.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=harry;n788366]The position I take Herlock,is that you cannot logically have over two hundred suspects,when it is clear there was only one murderer.MacNaghten states there was just the one killer.

That doesn’t a sense im afraid Harry. You can have 200+ suspects if that’s how many that have been named. They can’t all have been guilty though. A suspect is someone that might have been guilty. The police might have 6 suspects (for example) in any murder but it doesn’t mean that there were 6 murderers.

Others take the view there were more,but how many more?When you state Druitt to be 99 per cent the best suspect,it appears you are the one establishing league tables.

The point that I was making, that I stand by, is that when we look at the whole long list of suspects we see that there’s no real evidence against any of them. Many were named for little more than being alive at the time. For a very very few though we have reason (however debated) to look at them. Kosminski - named by a senior Police Officer, Druitt - named by a senior Police Officer, Bury - the murderer of a woman, consorted with prostitutes, lived close to the scene of the murders at the time, Tumblety - named by a senior Police Officer. I’m not great at maths but that would put Druitt ahead of 140+ suspects. Of course some will disagree. Some will cite a man admitting his guilt in a diary, some will suggest that Lechmere or Hutchinson have better claims. But I stand by what I said Harry, the fact that Druitt was mentioned by Macnaghten raises his above the vast majority in terms of substance.

Well yes you will continue to use the word suspect,and so will others,doesn't prove it is the best,or correct term.Since when have you been the authority on such matters.

I’m not claiming to be an authority Harry. In fact I’m the one being democratic as opposed to two people (yourself and Trevor) saying that we should change just because you two think that we should.

Yes you are correct a suspect is someone that has been suspected,but suspected by whom,of what?.Again I ask,are you or they the authority in such matters?

And again I’m being totally democratic. It’s you who are trying to dictate the value of individual interpretations. I’m saying ‘a suspect is simply someone who has been suspected by someone.’

I am certainly suggesting that some posters have said something along the lines of they suspect 'Mr X',but do not believe he was the killer.You will see examples,I assure you.

I’d appreciate an example Harry. Point me to the poster that has said that and you’ll be pointing to a looney. That just makes zero sense.

Every suspect must have been named by someone.Not neccessary true.Not everyone expressed their beliefs officially,and there are those who believe the culprit has yet to be named.Didn't Anderson state it would serve no purpose in revealing the culprit's name,or words to that effect.

No one has said that every suspect has been named Harry.

If using the word suspect doesn't make a difference,why is it authorities use the term,'Person of interest'? It has to mean something.

How many time do I have to explain this Harry. The situations are vastly different. This point can’t be stressed enough but this is not a Police investigation.

Of course you are unsure about the person I mentioned.I have not named him.I found him,so he can be found,perhaps you can fnd him.You appear to be able to do everything else.I have given you a start.

Really Harry? You’re now resorting to “I know something but I’m not telling you?!”

[/]

Just ask yourself this Harry - why is there only two people who seem to think that this is an important issue? The answer is that it very clearly isn’t.

[Wickerman]

Hi Doc,

I was advised in another thread by those far more learned and erudite than I that the term "gone abroad" is a euphemism for AWOL, and wondered at the time if there was another euphemism to be used if one actually did go abroad. Never the less, the Cricket Club seemed to have allowed Monty a period of grace to show up and explain himself, so why would not the School Principal follow the same tradition?

Cheers, George

The "medical student" John Sanders, hunted by Abberline was traced to his mothers house where she told police he had "gone abroad", it was a euphemism but I think it was another way of saying "it's none of your business where he is".
It was possibly preferable to admitting the person had been placed in prison, or in an asylum.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Wasn't the theory at the time that, after the MJK murder JtR's brain had snapped on realising the horror of his actions and he had gone mad and jumped in the Thames. If MJD was Jtr, what could have happened at the school to create more of an effect on his mind than MJK? Had he realised, since Friday, that he had gone mad, like his mother - which Friday, yesterday? or Nov 9? There is no indication when the suicide note was written, it is only assumed that it was Sat 1 Dec before he left Blackheath, but he may have written it days, or weeks before, or a few days after Friday 9 Nov. If he was JtR, would a dismissal from the school convince him he was going mad like his mother more than the murder of five women? If one accepts that what ever the trouble at the school was, if it related to a mental state of mind that resulted in his alleged suicide, then for him to be JtR it would have had to have been worse than the mutilation murders of five women. IMO, if it is to be concluded that his alleged suicide related to events at the school rather than to the C5 murders, then it also must be concluded that MJD wasn't JtR.

Best regards, George

Hi George.

Personally, I don't take "his brain snapped" as anything more than artistic license. The killer got clean away every time so he was still of sound mind as he left each crime scene.
You're right though about the suicide note, it could have been written anytime before the event, hours, days or weeks. I think I have read about people who write a suicide note with the full expectation of immediately committing the act, only to put it off for a while, then only later killing themselves. It might be an emotion that comes and goes in some cases especially if depression is part of the problem?

[Wickerman]

Didn’t she become obsessed over money Wick or is that a false memory?

Something of that nature does sound familiar, though what access to money would she have in an asylum?
Perhaps that was before she was committed.

[harry]

The position I take Herlock,is that you cannot logically have over two hundred suspects,when it is clear there was only one murderer.MacNaghten states there was just the one killer.Others take the view there were more,but how many more?When you state Druitt to be 99 per cent the best suspect,it appears you are the one establishing league tables.Well yes you will continue to use the word suspect,and so will others,doesn't prove it is the best,or correct term.Since when have you been the authority on such matters.Yes you are correct a suspect is someone that has been suspected,but suspected by whom,of what?.Again I ask,are you or they the authority in such matters?
I am certainly suggesting that some posters have said something along the lines of they suspect 'Mr X',but do not believe he was the killer.You will see examples,I assure you.
Every suspect must have been named by someone.Not neccessary true.Not everyone expressed their beliefs officially,and there are those who believe the culprit has yet to be named.Didn't Anderson state it would serve no purpose in revealing the culprit's name,or words to that effect?
If using the word suspect doesn't make a difference,why is it authorities use the term,'Person of interest'? It has to mean something.
Of course you are unsure about the person I mentioned.I have not named him.I found him,so he can be found,perhaps you can fnd him.You appear to be able to do everything else.I have given you a start.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Jon,

That is a reasonable timeline if Monty was not JtR.

Here is an alternative if he was:

Friday 9 Nov., Monty completes the last of his murders.
Some time between Sunday 11 Nov and Thursday 15 Nov (or later) he pens his descent into madness letter.
Saturday, 1st Dec., he buys a return ticket, for a train from Charing Cross to Hammersmith.
Monday, 3rd Dec. he is noted as missing from his chambers.
Tuesday, 11th Dec. William receives a letter indicating Monty has been missing about a week and thinks (a) "am I my brother's keeper - what is the little dingbat up to now?", or (b) "No problem, he did mention to me that he might be going abroad".
Sun 30 Nov., Having noted that Monty didn't attend the family Christmas festivities, William travels to London/Blackheath to search for Monty. He is confronted by an irate Valentine who informs him that Monty has, some time earlier that month, been sacked for irresponsibly failing to attend to his duties at the school and that Valentine intends to see that he never gets another job in a school.

Best regards, George

The suggestion that the quoted 30th December was actually an error which should have read 30th November appears to be contagious unless you celebrate Christmas strangely early over in Oz George I think that your 30th November should read 30th December.

[GUT]

Hi Jon,

That is a reasonable timeline if Monty was not JtR.

Here is an alternative if he was:

Friday 9 Nov., Monty completes the last of his murders.
Some time between Sunday 11 Nov and Thursday 15 Nov (or later) he pens his descent into madness letter.
Saturday, 1st Dec., he buys a return ticket, for a train from Charing Cross to Hammersmith.
Monday, 3rd Dec. he is noted as missing from his chambers.
Tuesday, 11th Dec. William receives a letter indicating Monty has been missing about a week and thinks (a) "am I my brother's keeper - what is the little dingbat up to now?", or (b) "No problem, he did mention to me that he might be going abroad".
Sun 30 Nov., Having noted that Monty didn't attend the family Christmas festivities, William travels to London/Blackheath to search for Monty. He is confronted by an irate Valentine who informs him that Monty has, some time earlier that month, been sacked for irresponsibly failing to attend to his duties at the school and that Valentine intends to see that he never gets another job in a school.

Best regards, George

I’ll Amed that timeline slightly. When William visits Valentine says, well if he isn’t back in a month he is sacked (as he has been no use to me for a while anyway, always running off for legal work, cricket or god knows where at night), and then 30 Dec he is.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you supect someone of murder Herlock,it is because you believe they have killed someone.It is illogical to state I suspect that person of murder,but I do not believe he killed anyone,and that is often the case on these boards,you see posters state that.if you are going to discuss murders,then use the proper terminology.Suspect,as I have written,is a term,that when discussing murder, has a special meaning.Use it properly and not indiscriminately.

Really Harry? You are suggesting that some posters have said something along the lines of ‘i suspect Mr X but I don’t think that Mr X killed anyone.’ Id certainly like to see an example of that because I’ve never seen anyone say anything so illogical.

And I’ve explained why using the term ‘suspect’ makes no difference whatsoever and cannot be enforced in the first place. Only you and Trevor argue this non-point.

Now you answer my question.
Why should the following persons be classed as suspects in the Whitechapel murders.
(1) The Duke of Clarence. - Because at some point or other he has been suspected by someone. So we call him a suspect. It makes no difference to the case. No one wastes any time discussing him. Almost no one thinks that he was guilty.
(2) Padechenko. Ditto - although my memory has faded in regard to him, isn’t there no proof of his existence?
(3) A.N.Other,my person of interest.The name doesn't matter,but he has not been named previouly. Every ‘suspect’ must have been named by someone Harry or we wouldn’t have heard of them.
The evidence.He was resident in Whitechapel during the murders,but was not a native of that district.He resided at the Victorian Home,where Hutchinson resided.
He matches the description given by at least one witness.
He had deserted a wife and children,and was known to act abuseively towards women.
He had absconded to avoid investigation into a suspected criminal offence.
He died in London not long after the murder of Mckenzie.
Now that is far more compelling

I’m unsure who you are talking about here Harry?

than evidence against Druitt,who was only suspected by his family,of having mental problems.

I’m afraid that, as anyone would tell you Harry, that simply isn’t true. The MM clearly tells us the Macnaughten is saying the Druitt family thought that he was the ripper. Do you really think that a family would go to the Chief Constable of the Met just to let him know that they suspected that their relation was having a few mental health issues?

The illogical position that you take on the word ‘suspect’ is clear Harry as demonstrated by your answer which isn’t really an answer. You claim that using the term gives a ‘false value.’ There is no JTR league table Harry. It simpy doesn’t matter. We will continue to use the word so you might as well complain about the use of the word bricklayer. A suspect is someone that has been suspected. It doesn’t matter when. It doesn’t matter by whom and it doesn’t matter on what basis. Lewis Carroll is considered one of the weakest of suspects and no one wastes a second discussing him. He’s still a suspect though. A rubbish one, but a suspect nonetheless and nothing changes by calling him one.