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

[harry]

Pleased you agree there are no suspects George,and I repeat , I do not indicate the person I refer to is a suspect.He is a person of interest.To me at least.
We may be a discussion group,but the discussion is about murder,and a particular murderer.We do not know his name either,but it doesn't prevent discussion about him.Same thing about the person who accosted Stride.We do not know his name.
I'll repeat,I do not have proof ,so do not expect it.You know what information I do have,i do not need to repeat it.
My point is that what information I provided,equals or exceeds the information against most named suspects,yet I do not consider him a suspect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That’s a ludicrous suggestion of course but it was one that I suspected that you were intending to make all along. Why the hell would his daughter have added those comments ‘off her own bat!’ It’s not even worth considering for a second. This is a woman who was absolutely adamant that the names should not be released in case there were surviving cousins who might have been upset by any relegation. So obviously she was very sensitive on the subject and had scruples. So why the hell should she be so dishonest as you suggest. To suggest that this woman would have fraudulently added stuff to her fathers words is nothing short of contemptible. If this is the kind of desperation that you’re capable of then keep it to yourself Fishy, or confine yourself to responding to Trevor as you and he obviously have the same terminally biased agenda.

Should read ‘revelation.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n788603]

Yes, and that agenda is seeking the truth by assessing and evaluating the facts and the evidence in unbiased fashion, you should try it sometime, you would be surprised what the results will show

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Your agenda is to seek out anything that conflicts with your own opinions and theories and then to attempt to discredit and dismiss them by applying rigid, over-the-top criteria that you consistently fail to apply to your own ideas. It is continually ignoring what other posters have said so that you can go on parroting the same old accusations. It’s to continually post as if your own opinions should simply be accepted as fact by others.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n788600]

You’re every post reeks of an agenda.

Yes, and that agenda is seeking the truth by assessing and evaluating the facts and the evidence in unbiased fashion, you should try it sometime, you would be surprised what the results will show

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

I just wonder - someone on here will know - has there ever been a case where a serial killer travelled some distance to an area where he knew he could find the particular type of victim he preferred?

Hi Gary,

I haven't yet read any of the later posts to this thread after yours above, but in 1993 a serial killer called Colin Ireland travelled up to London by train from his home on the Essex coast to prey on gay men who drank in one specific pub. As far as I can make out, Ireland was a bit of a loner with no other known associations with London, unlike Druitt, and this was a positive advantage, as he would not have come under suspicion as a local man frequenting his local pub. He killed five men, after going back with each one to his home, then hopped on a return train to Southend the following morning, with nobody any the wiser. The deaths were not linked by the police because they were put down to sex games gone wrong, or the result of domestic violence. Frustrated by this, Ireland himself contacted the police anonymously to give them the tip that these were all the work of a single killer. Eventually, Ireland was identified by a CCTV image of him with one of his victims, as they travelled back to his place. I don't think Ireland identified himself as gay, but he could of course have been in denial about his sexuality. I don't believe for a single second that in 1993 he'd have been short of openly gay men to target, either in Southend or anywhere between there and the pub in West London. And was it so 'improbable' that he spent ordinary days at home doing ordinary things before the journey each time, and was back the next morning, to enjoy a late breakfast, do the weekly shopping or watch a football match?

I think there are therefore far better reasons to find Druitt an unlikely serial killer than where he was and what he was doing in the hours before and after the discovery in Buck's Row. Serial killers march to their own tune, and don't particularly care for rule books written by anyone else. By that same token, I would doubt that the ripper would have committed suicide unless he had reason to fear imminent arrest and loss of freedom, and I have seen nothing to suggest this applied to Druitt - although I suppose an argument could be conjured up for his fears being irrational ones by then. But that would be a circular argument, and not evidence that he did have anything to fear in reality. And if there is even a possibility that Druitt was gay, in an era when it was the love that dared not speak its name, that would have been a strong reason for his sacking from the school if discovered. His descent into depression and finally the Thames would have been understandable, if he believed himself to be incurable and unfit for the society to which he was accustomed. Another point is that Druitt eliminates himself if the murders continued after Mary Kelly, which is very far from an improbability for those of us who are not nailed to the 'Druitt dunnit' mast.

One other point that I have not seen mentioned is one concerning comfort zones, rituals and superstition.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. So when you do something for the first time, which requires as much luck as good judgement, skill or intelligence, and you are successful at it, you tend to repeat the things that worked for you, if you want to do it again and again and not get caught out. Things like time, place, situation, victim type, would all be factors that might be important to a serial killer's psychology to keep as consistent as possible. I'm not trying to make a case here for Druitt, specifically, needing to be in Whitechapel to slaughter unfortunates rather than anywhere else, because even a local man could have shifted his carcass further afield if there was no psychological benefit to be had from killing over and over in the same streets, and there was a practical disadvantage of staying put at the height of the scare. That could have been a necessary part of the thrill for all we know.

Thinking of it in terms of a sport like cricket or tennis - both of which I find absorbing and very enjoyable to watch - how many times do we see famous, talented, successful and highly intelligent sportsmen compelled to repeat tiny, very personal and inexplicable rituals just before they serve or receive each ball? These superstitious tic-like movements and gestures can be almost imperceptible unless you are consciously watching out for them, and it would be unfair and wrong to accuse the player of trying to put off their opponent, when they simply can't help themselves.

I would think that one could multiply by ten this kind of obsessive behaviour in an uncaught serial killer with two working legs who only preyed on women in a tiny area of town.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

A proper,fair minded approach would be to of course,accept all possibilities.Sure you would accept that Herlock?
I have resonable suspicions that MacNaghten was not telling the truth.It's suspicions,mind you,not accusations.Suspicion's that he did not receive information from the family about Druitt's mental problems.

I’m the one being open minded unlike certain other posters on here.

Why do you keep making an issue of Druitt’s mental problems Harry, as if they didn’t exists? He committed suicide. You don’t kill yourself if everything’s hunky dory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n788583]

You keep citing Feigenbaum but there is a big difference between them both, with Druitt there is no evidence to support what MM was told, there is no evidnence to show that any investigitive work was carried out in relation to the said information he was given. So on that basis how can he be regarded as a suspect and not simply a person of interest?

Irrelevant

But with Feigenbaum it is documented that his lawyer stated that he had carried out his own enquiries into what he had been told which are fully documented along with the results, then there is all the contemproary investigitive work that has been conducted into all the other circumstantial evidence surrouding his suspect viability and the results documented.

Irrelevant as it cannot be proved that a) the compulsive liar told the truth, or b) the cocaine addict didn’t make it up.

You keep inferring that Feigenbaums lawyer could have made it all up, but if that had have been the case being a higly intelligent man he would have been really stupid to make the statement he made to the press with the risk that he could have been asked to provide the information he was seeking to rely on in his statement

Can you really be so unaware as to make such a statement a that?!

Why would the intelligent MacNaghten have made this stuff up about Druitt when anyone might have done a bit of checking and found that he was in Bournemouth at the time of one of the murders? Again, you apply completely different standards to Macnaghten and Druitt.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You’re every post reeks of an agenda.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you for pointing that out , im so glad ive now seen and read that entire article from that Ripperoligist . Which as i suspected all along and now confirmed, that the Aberconway version and particularly the paragraph in question regarding Mac,s opinion about Druitt was indeed written by Lady Aberconway herself, and not the opinion of Sir Melville Macnaghten.

Unless of course she copied that from another original letter which no ones ever seen.

That’s a ludicrous suggestion of course but it was one that I suspected that you were intending to make all along. Why the hell would his daughter have added those comments ‘off her own bat!’ It’s not even worth considering for a second. This is a woman who was absolutely adamant that the names should not be released in case there were surviving cousins who might have been upset by any relegation. So obviously she was very sensitive on the subject and had scruples. So why the hell should she be so dishonest as you suggest. To suggest that this woman would have fraudulently added stuff to her fathers words is nothing short of contemptible. If this is the kind of desperation that you’re capable of then keep it to yourself Fishy, or confine yourself to responding to Trevor as you and he obviously have the same terminally biased agenda.

[Abby Normal]

Trevor .......Ostrog please ?

MM was wrong about Ostrog. He couldnt have been the ripper. Sugden showed he was in a french jail during the Autumn of terror.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n788568]

As ever Trevor you are simply stating your biased opinion as if it’s a fact.

And proof of bias is just so glaring obvious that continue to stick your fingers in your ears. But I’ll say it again and again and again. The compulsive liar Feigenbaum’s alleged confession was given in a cell with no one else present so no one can confirm that this conversation ever took place - and please don’t waste everyone’s time on the silly argument about certain facts mentioned being confirmed because Lawton could easily have discovered certain facts then invented a conversation to fit. So Lawton’s statement from Feigenbaum is ENTIRELY uncorroborated but you don’t mind that do you? You keep trying to gloss over it with illogical points whilst harping on about the Memorandum. One rule for yourself, another for everyone else.

Just because something cannot be corroborated it’s not grounds for dismissing it as you are clearly so desperate to do. The proper, fair-minded approach would be to of course accept all possibilities. But you just can’t keep an open mind can you and you do exactly the same thing that you do on every aspect of this case that you don’t agree with. You don’t just point out the issues or debatable points you seek to instantly dismiss. And then you try and twist things around to claim that posters like myself are trying to claim that these things should be accepted without question which clearly isn’t the case.

You keep citing Feigenbaum but there is a big difference between them both, with Druitt there is no evidence to support what MM was told, there is no evidnence to show that any investigitive work was carried out in relation to the said information he was given. So on that basis how can he be regarded as a suspect and not simply a person of interest?

But with Feigenbaum it is documented that his lawyer stated that he had carried out his own enquiries into what he had been told which are fully documented along with the results, then there is all the contemproary investigitive work that has been conducted into all the other circumstantial evidence surrouding his suspect viability and the results documented.

You keep inferring that Feigenbaums lawyer could have made it all up, but if that had have been the case being a higly intelligent man he would have been really stupid to make the statement he made to the press with the risk that he could have been asked to provide the information he was seeking to rely on in his statement

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Since George,you are the only one I have been notified has directed a question to me,I'll answer.As we both are resident in Australia,perhaps you would like to comment on Druitt's candidacy as 'Suspect' under Australian law.It's relevant.
I was not quoting official records,and I made it plain it was information only that I had.I did not claim I had proof of that person's involvement in the murders,you are incorrect.I made known that information.It's there for anyone to see.
Who are these 'Peers',I should provide for? Arn't you a little hypocritical in not revealing their names?

Hi Harry,

There are no "suspects" that could be brought into court in Australia or any other country. This forum is a discussion group, not a jury.

I was referring to your statement in post #422:
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.

You appear to be indicating that you have a "suspect", so by you own standard you should have "proof". Present your suspect and your proof for peer review, your peers being your fellow forum members.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

That was a typo on my part. What I meant to say was that the Aberconway version was in his daughters possession.

A full photocopy of the Aberconway version can be found in a lengthy article by Adam Wood in Ripperologist #124. The article is very detailed and gives a full history of the Memorandum (3 versions)

Thank you for pointing that out , im so glad ive now seen and read that entire article from that Ripperoligist . Which as i suspected all along and now confirmed, that the Aberconway version and particularly the paragraph in question regarding Mac,s opinion about Druitt was indeed written by Lady Aberconway herself, and not the opinion of Sir Melville Macnaghten.

Unless of course she copied that from another original letter which no ones ever seen.

[harry]

A proper,fair minded approach would be to of course,accept all possibilities.Sure you would accept that Herlock?
I have resonable suspicions that MacNaghten was not telling the truth.It's suspicions,mind you,not accusations.Suspicion's that he did not receive information from the family about Druitt's mental problems.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n788556]

If you think the information was that good prove it to be so, and in doing so please explain why we see no follow up to his written belief in the MM, when he cleary does just that in the Aberconway Version with regards to the other two he named?

Your explantion of "well he might have done" doesnt cut any ice you are simply using that as an excuse to not accept that the info he received was uncorroborated hearsay and due to his inexperience and that fact that Druitt was dead he failed in his duty to due a thorough investigation into the information he had received not withstadning the fact that he destroyed vital facts and evidence.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

As ever Trevor you are simply stating your biased opinion as if it’s a fact.

And proof of bias is just so glaring obvious that continue to stick your fingers in your ears. But I’ll say it again and again and again. The compulsive liar Feigenbaum’s alleged confession was given in a cell with no one else present so no one can confirm that this conversation ever took place - and please don’t waste everyone’s time on the silly argument about certain facts mentioned being confirmed because Lawton could easily have discovered certain facts then invented a conversation to fit. So Lawton’s statement from Feigenbaum is ENTIRELY uncorroborated but you don’t mind that do you? You keep trying to gloss over it with illogical points whilst harping on about the Memorandum. One rule for yourself, another for everyone else.

Just because something cannot be corroborated it’s not grounds for dismissing it as you are clearly so desperate to do. The proper, fair-minded approach would be to of course accept all possibilities. But you just can’t keep an open mind can you and you do exactly the same thing that you do on every aspect of this case that you don’t agree with. You don’t just point out the issues or debatable points you seek to instantly dismiss. And then you try and twist things around to claim that posters like myself are trying to claim that these things should be accepted without question which clearly isn’t the case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well im not so sure it was , im of the belief she copied the the MM from the original and somehow we have that paragraph you provided thats been included in her version .

1 , How can we be sure that there is indeed a separate page amongst her fathers possessions of said paragraph if no one has seen it ?

2. If im right then the first mention of said paragraph was made in Tom Cullens book ''Autumn of Terror'' publishised in 1965

I havent read or seen the book but surely there would be some reference as to where and how the author came upon the Aberconway version as to clarify its actual existance and how it came to be. [worth checking out im sure].

Im not entirely convinced that Mac Memo with all its detail in regards to the 3 names would not have included that extra part in it , that he somehow never had that notion at the time and only as an after thought decided to pen that extra paragraph.

If he did , then like everything here to do with jtr , i want proof it exit, i want to see it with my own eyes, and not just told it does for arguement sake.

Let me explain why that is , because as you know to well Herlock, its just very difficult discussing certain areas of the case and perticular certain names . In this case im simply using a fact, documented proof by mac in his own hand signed and dated ,if you or anyone decides to argue a point in regards to MM Memo , that there exist another page somewhere or added note then there not much point in debating the topic because nobody will produce any evidence to say it does! .

I hope you get what im trying to say .

That was a typo on my part. What I meant to say was that the Aberconway version was in his daughters possession.

A full photocopy of the Aberconway version can be found in a lengthy article by Adam Wood in Ripperologist #124. The article is very detailed and gives a full history of the Memorandum (3 versions)