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

    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.
    Given that the police in 1888 had the power to arrest anyone on suspicion, do you not think it strange that there is no record of any of the main "suspects" having been arrested and interviewed given the serious nature and the loss of faith in the police by the general public at the time

    Or was it the case that the police in 1888 didnt have any grounds for suspicion against those in the ensuing years who have been labelled "prime suspects" and those so labelled have risen up over the years as a result of nothing more thann researchers own personal opinions.

    Kosminski is a classic example MM exonarates him in the Aberconway version with no record of an arrest or even an interview. Then according to Swanson he is identified as being the killer, yet still no arrest or interview.

    Or was it as I suspect that the police had absolutley no evidence against anyone, and this confirmed by comments made by senior officers in later years to that effect.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      Thanks Kattrup,

      You’re right of course. He was removed because he’d supposedly ‘gone abroad.’
      Is there any evidence to support that claim?

      I am sure you are aware of the suggestion that he was dismissed from his school post for improprierty against students suggesting that he had homosexual tendencies.

      On that topic there is no mention of a female in his life and a connection to the Chummery which was a homosexual club

      So if he was a homosesxual that would likely as not rule him out from killing female victims

      So inferences are entitled to be drawn from those facts (inference- "a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning")

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

        That has me intrigued also, yet on the other hand I interpret the line on the suicide note that reads: "Since Friday, I felt I was going to be like mother...", as meaning he did not want to spend the rest of his life in an asylum. It's just that the suicide note may not be genuine.
        Hi Jon,

        I also am intrigued by the line on the suicide note that reads: [I]"Since Friday, I felt I was going to be like mother...". The commonly held belief is, as you say, he did not want to spend the rest of his life in an asylum. But I see an alternative that he was referring to Friday 9 Nov 1888, and that he was worried that he had inherited his mother's madness which drove him to to MJK's murder. I also see the possibility that the suicide note may not be genuine, with the accompanying questions involved in that notion.

        I really think these are the questions that should be addressed rather than the endless circular arguments and accusations that are taking place on this thread at present.

        Best regards, George
        “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

        Comment


        • No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer; many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one. I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders:

          (1) A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.

          (2) Kosminski -- a Polish Jew -- & resident in Whitechapel. This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies: he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889. There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'.

          (3) Michael Ostrog, a Russian doctor, and a convict, who was subsequently detained in a lunatic asylum as a homicidal maniac. This man's antecedents were of the worst possible type, and his whereabouts at the time of the murders could never be ascertained.







          It seems quite obvious to me at least , that Mac only used the 3 names as more ''likely than Cutbush'' to have committed the series of murders. I for one certainly wouldnt consider he was suggesting that they were his preferred suspect or a person of interest .

          I wouldnt say Mac was a blundering idiot, however given that he didnt seem to get some important details right about Druitt like his profession, shows a lack of interest. How did he come to know Druitt was sexualy insane.? [id genuinely like to know that one]

          If Trevors is right and Ostrog was indeed in jail, that also doesnt bode well for supporters of the Russian simply because MM named him like he did Druitt .

          Careless on Macs behalf ? Or again perhaps a lack of any real interest in this guy as jtr?

          So it comes down to this , is ''More Likely'' to be interpruted as ''Yes'' these are my 3 guys who i think could be jtr ? , or is Mac simply responding to the Cutbush article with better options whom he really doesnt belive actually were jtr.?

          Who knows, if it wasnt for that Cutbush article we might never of heard of M.J Druitt at all .






          '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

            Given that the police in 1888 had the power to arrest anyone on suspicion, do you not think it strange that there is no record of any of the main "suspects" having been arrested and interviewed given the serious nature and the loss of faith in the police by the general public at the time

            Or was it the case that the police in 1888 didnt have any grounds for suspicion against those in the ensuing years who have been labelled "prime suspects" and those so labelled have risen up over the years as a result of nothing more thann researchers own personal opinions.

            Kosminski is a classic example MM exonarates him in the Aberconway version with no record of an arrest or even an interview. Then according to Swanson he is identified as being the killer, yet still no arrest or interview.

            Or was it as I suspect that the police had absolutley no evidence against anyone, and this confirmed by comments made by senior officers in later years to that effect.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Poor old Monty was pushing up the daisies by the time his name was mentioned, so it's perhaps not so surprising he wasn't investigated at the time.
            Thems the Vagaries.....

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              Is there any evidence to support that claim?

              I am sure you are aware of the suggestion that he was dismissed from his school post for improprierty against students suggesting that he had homosexual tendencies.

              On that topic there is no mention of a female in his life and a connection to the Chummery which was a homosexual club

              So if he was a homosesxual that would likely as not rule him out from killing female victims

              So inferences are entitled to be drawn from those facts (inference- "a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning")
              1. Yes, there is evidence - the club protocol, which states that he was removed because he'd gone abroad. If, as I suspect, you mean the claim that he'd gone abroad, then no, there is no evidence.

              2. If inferences are entitled to be drawn from facts, then the problem seems to be that you equate "baseless speculation" with fact, or, as you phrase it, with "evidence and reasoning". They are not, in fact, the same.
              "IF Druitt was a homosexual, he would be unlikely to kill women" to you becomes "Druitt MIGHT have been a homosexual, therefore he did not kill women".

              3. what, pray tell, is the connection to the Chummery? I assume, from your mention of facts, that the connection is actually a proven one

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                ...

                On that topic there is no mention of a female in his life and a connection to the Chummery which was a homosexual club

                So if he was a homosesxual that would likely as not rule him out from killing female victims

                ....
                Except that there were female staff at the boys school; cooks, kitchen maids, cleaners, etc., a list was published some years back.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                  Hi Jon,

                  I also am intrigued by the line on the suicide note that reads: [I]"Since Friday, I felt I was going to be like mother...". The commonly held belief is, as you say, he did not want to spend the rest of his life in an asylum. But I see an alternative that he was referring to Friday 9 Nov 1888, and that he was worried that he had inherited his mother's madness which drove him to to MJK's murder. I also see the possibility that the suicide note may not be genuine, with the accompanying questions involved in that notion.

                  I really think these are the questions that should be addressed rather than the endless circular arguments and accusations that are taking place on this thread at present.

                  Best regards, George
                  I couldn't agree more about ending those arguments and accusations which will get us nowhere! Personally, I think that when a person as senior as Mac. names Druitt and claims that his family suspected him of being JtR, then he must be a person of interest. Whether we, as individuals choose after mature consideration to dismiss him or elevate him to suspect status, is down to our own personal opinion. I leave him as a person of interest, because, although there is no other evidence of value against him, he cannot be acquitted either. Mature and sensible debate is therefore in order, I believe.

                  The alleged suicide note, as George points out, is particularly interesting, and is very worthy of consideration. "Since Friday I felt that I was going to be like mother, and the best thing was for me to die." This is quite intriguing, is it not? What exactly did he mean by "Since Friday", and "like mother"? As he seems to have died on December 1st, and certainly not earlier, then logically "Friday" should mean the previous friday to the writing of the note, so Friday 9th November is extremely unlikely. It seems odd for a serial killer to have committed four, five, or more murders without triggering the response in a barrister's mind that something wasn't quite right! It could, perhaps have been something to do with the school, and his behaviour there. Then we have "like mother", to consider. Ann Druitt was a chronic depressive, and had paranoid delusions. She was not a serial killer! Possibly "like mother" simply means that he was dismissed from the school after some dramatic exhibition of paranoia. We should be linking "Friday" and "like mother" in our considerations, because that is what the suicide note says. Something happened the previous friday that made him think he was "going to be like mother". It is difficult, if not impossible, to relate this to his being a serial killer.

                  But was the suicide note genuine? If he truly wrote a suicide note before his train journey to Hammersmith, why on earth did he buy a return ticket? If he intended to return, why did he write a suicide note before leaving? It makes no obvious sense! As his brother, a solicitor, seems to have been prepared to lie on oath at the inquest about Monty's lack of surviving relatives, we have no convincing reason to accept that the suicide note was genuine. That leaves us with all sorts of considerations, such as the brother just wanted to create a clear cut Coroner's verdict of "suicide whilst of unsound mind", to permit a burial in consecrated ground, or even that Monty was murdered ....

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                    Poor old Monty was pushing up the daisies by the time his name was mentioned, so it's perhaps not so surprising he wasn't investigated at the time.
                    But thats where you are wrong the police could have investigated him back then even after his death by reason of checking his movements on the murder dates, checking with his chambers for court appearances, speaking to family members and if it had been found that he had alibi`s for the murder dates he would have been cleared of any suspicion. MM could have instigated all of those enquiries but failed to do so.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                      Except that there were female staff at the boys school; cooks, kitchen maids, cleaners, etc., a list was published some years back.
                      and your point is ?

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                        3. what, pray tell, is the connection to the Chummery? I assume, from your mention of facts, that the connection is actually a proven one
                        Martin Howells and Keith Skinner, in their book, The Ripper Legacy, suggest that Druitt came to Chiswick to visit ‘Wilson’s chummery’, a sort of informal club for homosexuals at The Osiers, Chiswick Mall, and the home of one Henry Wilson from 1887 until 1895.

                        Henry Wilson was a barrister, a close friend of the Duke of Clarence and a leading member of the Apostles, an exclusive, esoteric and secretive homosexual group. Homosexuality was, of course, illegal and the need for secrecy was particularly necessary in the 1880s and 1890s.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk



                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          Given that the police in 1888 had the power to arrest anyone on suspicion, do you not think it strange that there is no record of any of the main "suspects" having been arrested and interviewed given the serious nature and the loss of faith in the police by the general public at the time

                          Or was it the case that the police in 1888 didnt have any grounds for suspicion against those in the ensuing years who have been labelled "prime suspects" and those so labelled have risen up over the years as a result of nothing more thann researchers own personal opinions.

                          Kosminski is a classic example MM exonarates him in the Aberconway version with no record of an arrest or even an interview. Then according to Swanson he is identified as being the killer, yet still no arrest or interview.

                          Or was it as I suspect that the police had absolutley no evidence against anyone, and this confirmed by comments made by senior officers in later years to that effect.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          In 1888 as today it’s almost impossible to arrest a corpse.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            Martin Howells and Keith Skinner, in their book, The Ripper Legacy, suggest that Druitt came to Chiswick to visit ‘Wilson’s chummery’, a sort of informal club for homosexuals at The Osiers, Chiswick Mall, and the home of one Henry Wilson from 1887 until 1895.

                            Henry Wilson was a barrister, a close friend of the Duke of Clarence and a leading member of the Apostles, an exclusive, esoteric and secretive homosexual group. Homosexuality was, of course, illegal and the need for secrecy was particularly necessary in the 1880s and 1890s.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                            Why is it that you constantly demand evidence or proof and yet in the case of the ‘chummery’ you seem to make an exception. As far as I can recall it was no more than speculation on the part of Howells and Skinner and yet you treat it as a fact because you’ve ceased onto a point that you think might detract from Druitt as a suspect.

                            Im quite prepared to accept evidence if provided Trevor but, as far as I’m aware, there’s not a shred of evidence that Druitt was gay.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              Is there any evidence to support that claim?

                              I am sure you are aware of the suggestion that he was dismissed from his school post for improprierty against students suggesting that he had homosexual tendencies.

                              On that topic there is no mention of a female in his life and a connection to the Chummery which was a homosexual club

                              So if he was a homosesxual that would likely as not rule him out from killing female victims

                              So inferences are entitled to be drawn from those facts (inference- "a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning")

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              This argument is about as weak as your Mackenzie argument.

                              If Mackenzie was a victim (which can’t be stated) then Druitt couldn’t have been the ripper.

                              If Druitt was gay (for which there’s no evidence) then he was unlikely to have been the ripper.

                              . (inference- "a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning")
                              Then why have you reached a conclusion for which there’s no evidence?
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                Martin Howells and Keith Skinner, in their book, The Ripper Legacy, suggest that Druitt came to Chiswick to visit ‘Wilson’s chummery’, a sort of informal club for homosexuals at The Osiers, Chiswick Mall, and the home of one Henry Wilson from 1887 until 1895.

                                Henry Wilson was a barrister, a close friend of the Duke of Clarence and a leading member of the Apostles, an exclusive, esoteric and secretive homosexual group. Homosexuality was, of course, illegal and the need for secrecy was particularly necessary in the 1880s and 1890s.
                                Your reply is a repeat of a well-known suggestion, as evidenced by the word "suggest".

                                And so, unsurprisingly, we have to repeat the question: what is the proven connection to the Chummery?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X