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

    There is and never was anyhting called a posthmous conviction any crime detected and attributed to a criminal is reliant on there being evidence to prove that persons guilt

    There is not one scrap of evidence/information that MM after receiving the information took any steps to investigate it or to prove or disprove its credibilty so it is regarded as nothing more than uncorrobrated "HEARSAY" and Druitt "A person of interest" At Best

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    A) Just because no evidence remains 134 years after the event doesn’t mean that an event couldn’t have occurred.
    B) Macnaghten never claimed to have evidence strong enough to convict.
    C) So what would be the point of proceeding with an investigation where the evidence was possibly nowhere near strong enough to convict into a that the culprit was dead. Come on Trevor!

    …….

    Your Druitt obsession is now wearing thin Trevor. You are increasingly sounding like a petulant schoolgirl stamping her feet and repeating “he’s not a suspect, he’s not a suspect!” It’s laughable. But as we can prove that he was in England at the time unlike your comedy suspect he remains in a different league to Feigenbaum, the compulsive liar that you believe when it suits you. He’s not even a person of interest. His name shouldn’t even be mentioned in connection with this case.

    Druitt remains a suspect and one of the very few worthy of further research.
    Regards

    Herlock Sholmes

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

      Yes, I think there should have been more, but I don't believe that anyone knows. According to the A - Z, Druitt left a letter for Mr Valentine (Blackheath school) alluding to suicide, and the quoted note for his brother. I don't think that anyone has any more information. I don't know why he would write a message alluding to suicide to the man who sacked him. I believe that both notes were found by his brother - allegedly.
      Yes that’s all we have of the message which leaves us thinking if there was more why wasn’t it read out at the inquest? It might be an interesting exercise for someone to look at other suicide notes at inquests to see if it’s the usual thing for notes to have been read fully but I’m assuming that it wouldn’t as the families feelings would probably have been taken into consideration. When I get time I could to with a read through again because some events/times get a little hazy.
      Regards

      Herlock Sholmes

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        A) Just because no evidence remains 134 years after the event doesn’t mean that an event couldn’t have occurred.
        But we know events did occur namely the murders of a number of women five of which were attributable to JTR

        B) Macnaghten never claimed to have evidence strong enough to convict.
        But that was no reason for him to not investigate and to prove or disprove what information he did have

        C) So what would be the point of proceeding with an investigation where the evidence was possibly nowhere near strong enough to convict into a that the culprit was dead. Come on Trevor!
        The point would be to identify who the killer was, and how would the strength of the evidence which might come from and investigation be known if the information was not acted on?

        …….

        Your Druitt obsession is now wearing thin Trevor. You are increasingly sounding like a petulant schoolgirl stamping her feet and repeating “he’s not a suspect, he’s not a suspect!” It’s laughable. But as we can prove that he was in England at the time unlike your comedy suspect he remains in a different league to Feigenbaum, the compulsive liar that you believe when it suits you. He’s not even a person of interest. His name shouldn’t even be mentioned in connection with this case.

        I dont have a Druitt obsession but you seem to have one with trying to elevate his suspect viabilty

        Druitt remains a suspect and one of the very few worthy of further research.
        Well 134 years of research has failed to come up with any evidence to corroborate MM or for to him be catergorised as a prime suspect

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          Well 134 years of research has failed to come up with any evidence to corroborate MM or for to him be catergorised as a prime suspect

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          And yet you promote a man who doesn’t even deserve the title ‘person of interest.’ I mean of course the non-suspect Feigenbaum who you defend at all costs.

          His victim was his landlady and not a prostitute - he cut her throat with no mutilation - he killed her in an apartment where he himself also lived - and her son was also in the room. And so apart from the throat-cutting there are no similarities at all with the ripper murders.

          The statement about his desire to murder and mutilate women was heard by no one but Lawton so we have no corroboration that it ever occurred. Lawton could simply have taken some biographical details and then exaggerated them. And even if he did make the statement it would have come from a man that you yourself, in your book, describe as a compulsive liar. You conveniently believe him though. Perhaps he was only a compulsive liar at weekends?

          Either way you ‘rely’ on an alleged confession given by a compulsive liar to a cocaine addict that committed suicide about a murder that in no way resembles the ripper murders apart from in one aspect. And to top it off you can’t even show that the man was even in the country at the time of the murders! And you call him a prime suspect! Not a suspect. Not even a person of mild interest.

          Any man who cut a woman’s throat in Europe would immediately be of as much interest and would have had easier access to England. So how many men would that encompass? And any that added mutilation would leave Feigenbaum miles behind. I don’t think for a minute that the killer of Carry Brown was the ripper but he’s miles ahead of Feigenbaum. A throat-cutting, mutilating prostitute murderer.

          You should learn balance. Feigenbaum is a non-suspect. Druitt was suspected by the Chief Constable of the Met. We have no evidence to prove that Druitt was the killer of course but your desperate rush to dismiss him smacks of desperation and bias considering your promotion of a man of no interest.
          Regards

          Herlock Sholmes

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            And yet you promote a man who doesn’t even deserve the title ‘person of interest.’ I mean of course the non-suspect Feigenbaum who you defend at all costs.

            His victim was his landlady and not a prostitute - he cut her throat with no mutilation - he killed her in an apartment where he himself also lived - and her son was also in the room. And so apart from the throat-cutting there are no similarities at all with the ripper murders.

            The statement about his desire to murder and mutilate women was heard by no one but Lawton so we have no corroboration that it ever occurred. Lawton could simply have taken some biographical details and then exaggerated them. And even if he did make the statement it would have come from a man that you yourself, in your book, describe as a compulsive liar. You conveniently believe him though. Perhaps he was only a compulsive liar at weekends?

            Either way you ‘rely’ on an alleged confession given by a compulsive liar to a cocaine addict that committed suicide about a murder that in no way resembles the ripper murders apart from in one aspect. And to top it off you can’t even show that the man was even in the country at the time of the murders! And you call him a prime suspect! Not a suspect. Not even a person of mild interest.

            Any man who cut a woman’s throat in Europe would immediately be of as much interest and would have had easier access to England. So how many men would that encompass? And any that added mutilation would leave Feigenbaum miles behind. I don’t think for a minute that the killer of Carry Brown was the ripper but he’s miles ahead of Feigenbaum. A throat-cutting, mutilating prostitute murderer.

            You should learn balance. Feigenbaum is a non-suspect. Druitt was suspected by the Chief Constable of the Met. We have no evidence to prove that Druitt was the killer of course but your desperate rush to dismiss him smacks of desperation and bias considering your promotion of a man of no interest.
            Please stick to the topic of this thread if you want to rant and rave about Feigenbaum start another thread where I would be happy to openly discuss Feigenbaums suspect viabilty but only if you promise to stay calm and rational !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              Please stick to the topic of this thread if you want to rant and rave about Feigenbaum start another thread where I would be happy to openly discuss Feigenbaums suspect viabilty but only if you promise to stay calm and rational !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              I’m perfectly calm Trevor and I mention Feigenbaum for very obvious reasons. Because you continue to apply different criteria as it suits you. If a flat earthier tries to lecture me on physics I don’t take him seriously. So why should I listen to an opinion on Druitt from a man who proposes a ‘suspect’ that isn’t eve worthy of consideration.
              Regards

              Herlock Sholmes

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                and your point is ?

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Mr policeman, you seriously can't figure it out?

                Let me give you a hand..... the school for boys, was not solely inhabited by boys, therefore cannot be used to suggest homosexuality.
                No charge...

                Pro-bono Consultation.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                  Yes, I think there should have been more, but I don't believe that anyone knows. According to the A - Z, Druitt left a letter for Mr Valentine (Blackheath school) alluding to suicide, and the quoted note for his brother. I don't think that anyone has any more information. I don't know why he would write a message alluding to suicide to the man who sacked him. I believe that both notes were found by his brother - allegedly.
                  Hi Doc,

                  Afaik there is no actual evidence that he was sacked, only speculation and supposition.

                  Cheers, 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.”

                  Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    Just because a suspect dies that doesnt stop an investigation. there used to be a police term "Detected crime no proceedings"....
                    A corpse cannot defend itself, so how can the police hope to build a case against it?
                    The best the police can hope for is to confirm him a suspect.
                    Why waste money on that?
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Herlock,
                      in reply to your post 298.
                      It's always been down to one man Herlock,but which man? MacNaghten himself names one man as more likely to be the Ripper than anyone else.Numerous authors have singled out one individual who they believe to have been the ripper.If suspect/person of interest thing is pointless,why do you continue to post on the subject.How far would we get if we discontinued using those terms?We are searching for a Ripper not Rippers,if MacNaghten is to be believed.Not everyone believes him.

                      There is no evidence against Druitt. There is a suggestion,and it is no more than that,which implies Druitt could have had mental problems.A suggestion carries no weight as evidence.Even if Druitt was affected by mental issues,all that would be established would be his state of health.There is no evidence the Ripper or any of the Whitechpel killers were insane.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by harry View Post
                        Herlock,
                        in reply to your post 298.
                        It's always been down to one man Herlock,but which man? MacNaghten himself names one man as more likely to be the Ripper than anyone else.Numerous authors have singled out one individual who they believe to have been the ripper.If suspect/person of interest thing is pointless,why do you continue to post on the subject.How far would we get if we discontinued using those terms?We are searching for a Ripper not Rippers,if MacNaghten is to be believed.Not everyone believes him.

                        There is no evidence against Druitt. There is a suggestion,and it is no more than that,which implies Druitt could have had mental problems.A suggestion carries no weight as evidence.Even if Druitt was affected by mental issues,all that would be established would be his state of health.There is no evidence the Ripper or any of the Whitechpel killers were insane.
                        I think Detective Abberline said it best Harry , and perhaps the whole Druitt matter should end with this .

                        In 1903, Inspector Abberline, gave an interview to the Pall Mall Gazette in response to a claim made in a Sunday newspaper that the Ripper was a young medical student who had drowned in the Thames. Abberline said, ''Yes, I know all about that story, but what does it amount to, simply this, soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young man was found in the Thames, but there is nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him''.
                        '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


                        • This is an interesting read .


                          Problems with the Macnaghten Memoranda
                          by Scott Hannaford

                          Although Sir Melville Macnaughten did not join Scotland Yard until 1889, ie after the final Ripper murder, his notes on the case have been used as the basis for study of a majority of researchers.

                          There still exist two versions of the memoranda - the Aberconway version which was discovered in 1959, and the Scotland Yard version as seen by Donald Rumbelow in 1975. These two both detail Montague Druitt, Aaron Kosminski and Michael Ostrog, and also refute the claims against Thomas Cutbush.

                          Macnaughten's grandson Gerald Donner also had a copy, which was seen by Phillip Loftus in the 1950's. Unfortunately Loftus did not take a copy of the memorandum, and could only recall that it described (i) Michael [sic] John Druitt ... (ii) a feeble minded man who stabbed girls with nail scissors (either Cutbush or Coldicott) and (iii) a Polish cobbler nicknamed Leather Apron.

                          The Donner version has never resurfaced, which is unfortunate as it would show the evolution of Macnaughten's theories. It may have also held details as to whether or not this Leather Apron was indeed Pizer. Because of its disappearance researchers now use either of the two existing documents.

                          Whilst the documents are important in that they introduce three plausable suspects, they should be used with caution as in hindsight we can see that they have too many errors which cast doubt on the validity of the supects and call into question the reliability of Macnaughten- a police officer not directly involved with the events of 1888.

                          In both versions of the memoranda Macnaughten writes that "no-one ever saw the Whitechapel Murderer". This clearly contradicts the beliefs of Anderson and Swanson and the statements of Lawende and Schwartz. Major Henry Smith believed that Lawende saw the Ripper, whilst Scotland Yard file MEPO 3/140 207 puts Schwartz as a very important witness- the file mentions "the opinion arrived at in this office upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Stride's case". So it is clear that the Police believed that Lawende had seen Eddowe's assailant (ie Jack the Ripper), whereas Schwartz had seen Strides (probably a different killer-note the MO differs drastically).

                          The Aberconway version contains the passage "I am inclined to exonerate the last two [Kosminski and Ostrog]", so why did he bother to mention them at all if he did not believe them guilty?

                          Macnaughten's description of the three suspects has far too many errors considering that he was supposed to have had access to all of the files. He described Druitt as bein a doctor of 41 years of age, whilst he was actually a teacher/failed barrister and aged 31. He also wrote that Druitt was sexually insane, and although it is clear that Druitt was indeed a paranoid depressive, he killed himself to prevent insanity (going like mother).

                          The Scotland Yard version oulines "a rational theory that ... he (the killer) immediately committed suicide or was confined in some assylum"; the latter clearly refers to Kosminski and Ostrog, so the former must be a reference to Druitt. He did not commit suicide immediately after Millers Court, but probably between 1st and 3rd December, a good three weeks later.

                          On Kosminski the memoranda are only inaccurate as to the date of his incarceration. He was not removed to an assylum "about March 1889", but spent three days in Mile End Infirmary in July 1890 and was then admitted into Colney Hatch Assylum in February 1891, ie two years later.

                          Both memoranda describe Ostrog as being a homocidal maniac, but a glance at his criminal record does not confirm this. He was a liar, thief and con-artist, and despite an attempt to throw himself under a train whilst handcuffed to a Policman, was not a homocidal maniac.

                          The three suspects have been considered in detail by many researchers, and it is difficult to make a strong case against any of them. It has been suggested, probably correctly, that Macnaughten named these three at random, taking them from a long list of equally plausable suspects.

                          It must be wondered why a senior officer who had access to all of the files could produce such an error-strewn document on three unlikely suspects. The answer is probably that Macnaughten wrote the memorandum simply to refute the ridiculous accusations against Thomas Cutbush (his uncle had been a Police Superintendent), and as the case against Cutbuch was practically non-existent, he could do this with ease even using three other unlikelys.

                          Macnaughten was not even a part of Scotland Yard in 1888, and his knowledge of the murders is all second and third hand. Whilst it is not a fake like the Maybrick Journal, or a hoax like the Gorman/Sickert story (and I apologise for putting it in the same passage as the two), the number of errors and Macnaughten's second-hand knowledge means that researchers should use the documents with trepidation.

                          I would welcome any comments.

                          Scott Hannaford
                          BA Undergraduate in History
                          Worcester College England


                          '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

                            yes its a fact. mcnaughten named him a suspect and personally thought he was the ripper. you can play the silly semantic games of person of interest vs supect all day long but its meaningless. druitt was and will remain a suspect for the ripper until he is definitively ruled out.
                            Keep your shirt on Abby , and perhaps a little less dig about silly semantic games as you want to call it ,no need for that .It was a genuine question which ive yet to see the answer for, so please if youd like point out where Mac actually names Druitt as a suspect please do , as i cant find it.

                            Happy to stand corrected if he did.

                            Bare in mind i was refering to the 3 names which Mac mentions as more ''Likely to be the killer'' than Cutbuss [my post 304] , i dont see that as him saying he was a suspect or the part where he personally thought he was the ripper .
                            Last edited by FISHY1118; Yesterday, 02:50 AM.
                            '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


                            • You are one hundred per cent correct Fishy.Let it end there.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                ...

                                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.

                                ...
                                And he was prescient, too! Having "atomic knowledge", a year before the discovery of the Electron and 18 years before the discovery of Radioactive Decay. What a Genius died with him!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X