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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Perfect sense Al

[harry]

One might believe,if you read some of the above,that I am the only poster who has ever asked for proof.Has Al or George ever asked? Have you? Has anyone,Beside myself, ever stated a person shouldn't be treated as suspect because the evidence doesn't support it.You bet they have,many,many times.
Now I do not need to repeat what Trevor has stated regarding evidence,he puts it clearly.I would only add the term,'Person of interest',used retrospectively,clearly has a place in today's discussions.Although not in use in 1888,nevertheless there are clear indications the police of that time showed interest in many persons.
Certain senior police involved in the investigations of the Ripper murders,also declared there were no suspects.They are my source for repeating that claim.It is a valid claim and a valid source.Why is no one criticiseing them? What are the rules you think too rigid Al?.Mention them, and perhaps they can be a subject for discussion.
Abby Abnormal,as usual chips in with a useless comment,but that is to be expected.Let me clarify.I suspect George Hutchinson of lying about Kelly meeting a stranger in Commercial Street.I cannot prove that suspicion,so I cannot use it.Therefor it is not proof against Hutchinson.The suspicion however remains.That is what it means Abby.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

We are under no such obligations Harry. If we began using ‘person of interest’ instead of ‘suspect,’ Ripperology wouldn’t alter one iota. It’s like telling someone that they should type in a certain way when they use the forum - it makes no difference as long as everyone understands the posts.

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?

I genuinely don’t get why you can’t understand this simple point Harry. You can ‘suspect’ someone of doing something without having proof. Surely you realise that the term ‘suspect’ doesn’t assume guilt? Yet this is what you keep implying. Could you just explain this please Harry? Do you realise the difference between evidence and proof? Do you understand that until you can categorically exonerate a suspect then they have to remain a suspect?


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 didn’t think that I’d need to explain so obvious a point Harry. Al of the current suspects have been named as such by someone but there are undoubtedly future suspects who have yet to be named so what I’m saying is that we can’t say that every possible ripper suspect has already been named. I’ve said numerous times that it’s likely that the real culprit was someone that had yet to be named.

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.

No Harry, if suspicion was proven then that person wouldn’t be a suspect they would be the guilty party. In an investigation and trial the suspect is innocent until proven guilty. They sit in the box as a suspect accused of a crime but those accusations have not been proven. When the jury find them guilty then it’s proven. This is simple stuff Harry. You are saying that if any of Ripperologist’s suspects are proven guilty then they shouldn’t be a suspect. Surely you can see that this is wrong?

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.

For a start he committed suicide Harry. People hardly commit suicide when they’re of sound mind.

Montague John Druitt was suspected of being the ripper by Sir Melville Macnaghten. This clearly makes him a suspect Harry. Does it prove his guilt? Of course it doesn’t. Nowhere near. But he’s a suspect nonetheless. If he shouldn’t be called a suspect then there isn’t a single person that has been named from 1888 until the present day that should be called a suspect. You and Trevor really should concede this point as you a both very obviously wrong.

[Trevor Marriott]

No it’s not. Adhering to modern terminology in regard to the word suspect is utterly pointless as every Ripperologist appears to be able to see and understand apart from you and Harry. In terms of ripperology Druitt is a suspect. As is Lewis Carroll, Robert Mann, Dr Barnado, James Maybrick, Dr Stanley and William Gull. All ‘suspects’ in our case. We as individuals make a judgment on their strengths and weaknesses.

You are entitled to make your own judgments but if you are going to suggest that all of those 100+ names which are on the suspect list are to be regarded as "suspects" just because in the distant past researchers have formed baselss opinions which lack any tangible evidence to support those opinions on them, then you are more delusional than I thought.

The suspect list needs a major overhaul

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Montague John Druitt was suspected of being the ripper by Sir Melville Macnaghten. This clearly makes him a suspect Harry. Does it prove his guilt? Of course it doesn’t. Nowhere near. But he’s a suspect nonetheless. If he shouldn’t be called a suspect then there isn’t a single person that has been named from 1888 until the present day that should be called a suspect. You and Trevor really should concede this point as you a both very obviously wrong.

The only point to concede is that he names Druitt as a likely suspect not a suspect how many times does it have to be explained to you the difference?

Likely suspect in victorian times was the equivalent of what we term today as a person of interest

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

I believe Herlock,you are getting so confused in your replies,it is you that needs to settle down and get a grasp of the situation.Read mine and Trevors latest contributions.They clarify most of what is relevent about the evidence against Druitt.There is none.no evidence,no suspect.
Every suspect has been made by someone.Yes,but is that someone qualified.Does the evidence supplied prove guilt.If we accept your view we have,Cross,Hutchinson and a hundred others i can mention,all guilty of the five canonical murders.An impossible situation.
As for terminology,if you are discussing the building trade do you call a bricklayer a carpenter.A suspect and a person of interest are two separate identities,so yes,it isimportant that we differenciate between the two.

[FISHY1118]

The only point to concede is that he names Druitt as a likely suspect not a suspect how many times does it have to be explained to you the difference?

Likely suspect in victorian times was the equivalent of what we term today as a person of interest

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I suppose one needs to consider in what context MM was actually saying here, and how it should /shouldnt be interpreted . In his opinion was Druitt more likely to have committed the murders just because he thought Cutbuss was a poor suspect ? Who then decides whether MM means in a ''Suspect capacity'' ?

For me based on my interuptation and exactly what MM wrote, i cant see where, or read into this where he calls /names Druitt a '' ''suspect'' .

Trevor can you please provide me with some evidence where Ostrog was in jail at the time of the murders, as i cant locate that information . Thanks



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 ascertaine

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are entitled to make your own judgments but if you are going to suggest that all of those 100+ names which are on the suspect list are to be regarded as "suspects" just because in the distant past researchers have formed baselss opinions which lack any tangible evidence to support those opinions on them, then you are more delusional than I thought.

The suspect list needs a major overhaul

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You’re absolutely wrong on this Trevor. We don’t need to change the titles when we are all at liberty to express how poor or strong we feel that suspects are. I asked Harry these questions so I’ll ask them to you too - how would this re-naming occur and who would be the judge of who was ‘suspect’ and who was ‘person of interest?’ How, if it was decided that Mr X was a ‘person of interest’ how would you stop any individua Ripperologist insisting on calling hm a ‘suspect?’

So not only is it utterly pointless it’s utterly unworkable. Why do you persist on this point Trevor? It’s a complete non-starter.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The only point to concede is that he names Druitt as a likely suspect not a suspect how many times does it have to be explained to you the difference?

Likely suspect in victorian times was the equivalent of what we term today as a person of interest

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You’re just making things up to suit Trevor.

[Abby Normal]

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

I have another word though for what harry calls someone with "proven suspicions". its called a convicted criminal lol

[Abby Normal]

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

useless semantics rabbit hole.

[Trevor Marriott]

You’re absolutely wrong on this Trevor. We don’t need to change the titles when we are all at liberty to express how poor or strong we feel that suspects are. I asked Harry these questions so I’ll ask them to you too - how would this re-naming occur and who would be the judge of who was ‘suspect’ and who was ‘person of interest?’ How, if it was decided that Mr X was a ‘person of interest’ how would you stop any individua Ripperologist insisting on calling hm a ‘suspect?’

So not only is it utterly pointless it’s utterly unworkable. Why do you persist on this point Trevor? It’s a complete non-starter.

i hope researchers will learn from what has been posted and will be able to re think their own preferred coveted suspects viability, because I am sure this major issue of suspect catergorization is needed in ripperology you cant have a 100+ list of potential suspects.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

useless semantics rabbit hole.

The trouble is you and Herlock dont want to listen and digest what you are being told you are both blinded by the term "suspect"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I suppose one needs to consider in what context MM was actually saying here, and how it should /shouldnt be interpreted . In his opinion was Druitt more likely to have committed the murders just because he thought Cutbuss was a poor suspect ? Who then decides whether MM means in a ''Suspect capacity'' ?

For me based on my interuptation and exactly what MM wrote, i cant see where, or read into this where he calls /names Druitt a '' ''suspect'' .

Trevor can you please provide me with some evidence where Ostrog was in jail at the time of the murders, as i cant locate that information . Thanks



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 ascertaine

“Personally, & after much careful & deliberate consideration, I am inclined to exonerate the last 2. but I have always held strong opinions regarding no 1., and the more I think the matter over, the stronger do these opinions become. The truth, however, will never be known, and did indeed, at one time lie at the bottom of the Thames, if my conjections [5] be correct.”

He doesn’t use the word ‘suspect’ of course but it’s quite clear that he has strong opinions on Druitt. He clearly favours Druitt whilst accepting that there wasn’t enough to build a case. And even when he retired 25 years later he was still going for Druitt.

[GBinOz]

One might believe,if you read some of the above,that I am the only poster who has ever asked for proof.Has Al or George ever asked? Have you? Has anyone,Beside myself, ever stated a person shouldn't be treated as suspect because the evidence doesn't support it.You bet they have,many,many times.

Hi Harry,

I guess it depends on your definition of "proof". Most of the official records have been lost and what remains is the contradictory press reports. You claim to have "proof" for your secret suspect, but are unwilling to provide it for peer inspection, making your protests seem a little hypocritical. Name your "suspect", present your "proof" and be judged by your peers.

Cheers, George