Days of My Years

[Stephen Thomas]

Macnaughton put Druitt at the top of the list for some reason, a list that he seemingly had no right to be on in the first place. What reason would he have had?

How about him not wanting people to know that JTR was Jewish.

Only 40 years before Hitler came to power dontcha know.

[Smoking Joe]

Do I detect an underlying resentment or hostility from some ,not towards individual posters necessarilly, but towards any suggestion that Druitt might have been JTR?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Smoking Joe,

I cannot speak for others, but without any trace of resentment or hostility I would suggest that the idea of Druitt having been JtR is as equally preposterous as the case against Kosminski, Chapman or Tumblety.

Regards,

Simon

[Smoking Joe]

Hi Smoking Joe,

I cannot speak for others, but without any trace of resentment or hostility I would suggest that the idea of Druitt having been JtR is as equally preposterous as the case against Kosminski, Chapman or Tumblety.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,
Well someone was JTR, and while the 4 you mention may well have been innocent,and Im not being argumentative here by the way, I cant see why you say they are all preposterous suspects.
Chapman,on the face of it might even be the best of a poor bunch,not only because Abberline thought so ,but because of his history. Does that make him a sure bet? No it doesnt ,But I dont see him as a preposterous suspect either. But ,of course thats just my view.There just arent enough facts out there ,so perhaps facts AND feelings have to come into play.
Kind regards

[Simon Wood]

Hi Smoking Joe,

What leads you to believe that someone was JtR?

Regards,

Simon

[Smoking Joe]

Hi Smoking Joe,

What leads you to believe that someone was JtR?

Regards,

Simon

The alternatives would be.
The murders didnt take place,or were in fact a mixture of accidents suicides wrongly thought to be murders
5 seperate people were responsible for 5 different murders
The murder was not a "some one" but a "something"
To believe option 1 and 3 would be akin to believing reports of a Kangaroo speaking Spanish.
So I assume you are an advocate of option 2?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Smoking Joe,

What's your problem with the Spanish-speaking kangaroo option No. 3?

Regards,

Simon

[Michael W Richards]

The alternatives would be.
The murders didnt take place,or were in fact a mixture of accidents suicides wrongly thought to be murders
5 seperate people were responsible for 5 different murders
The murder was not a "some one" but a "something"
To believe option 1 and 3 would be akin to believing reports of a Kangaroo speaking Spanish.
So I assume you are an advocate of option 2?

Hi Joe,

You have a very narrow view of whats possible Joe.....the Canonical Group could well be the work of 2, 3, 4 or 5 killers, maybe 10... to be guilty of the crime of murder does not require that the individual held the knife or pulled the trigger..... (just ask Charley Manson about that)...and no-one knows for sure if the man worked alone. Its an assumption. Just like the Canonical Group. I could see myself how having a lookout or 2 could have been very helpful on a few occasions, or having someone help with the initial attack....maybe Mr Wideawake Hat watching Millers Court was a lookout. But that would mean that in those particular cases that the killer wasnt killing to quiet his demons or to satisfy urges. There would be different motivations. And in Millers Court again for example, we have evidence that suggests the killer may have had some personal relationship with the deceased...the facial injuries, the location, Marys lack of attire,..

There are a few additional murders that also are not solved, and they shared space with the Canonical Group inside the Whitechapel Murders file. Some person or people killed them as well.

Any quotation from any Contemporary Senior Official that states unequivocally that this Ripper fellow "killed 5-and only 5", or "it was an ascertained fact that....", alledging some identified profile characteristic in the latter case, ....are misleading at the very least.

The question really should be are they outright lies or was most of the bluster an ego trip?

Cheers

[Smoking Joe]

Hi Smoking Joe,

What's your problem with the Spanish-speaking kangaroo option No. 3?

Regards,

Simon

No problem at all Simon .....No problem at all .....And you?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Smoking Joe,

No problem.

In actual fact, it's our best bet.

Regards,

Simon

[Smoking Joe]

Hi Joe,

You have a very narrow view of whats possible Joe.....the Canonical Group could well be the work of 2, 3, 4 or 5 killers, maybe 10... to be guilty of the crime of murder does not require that the individual held the knife or pulled the trigger..... (just ask Charley Manson about that)...and no-one knows for sure if the man worked alone. Its an assumption. Just like the Canonical Group. I could see myself how having a lookout or 2 could have been very helpful on a few occasions, or having someone help with the initial attack....maybe Mr Wideawake Hat watching Millers Court was a lookout. But that would mean that in those particular cases that the killer wasnt killing to quiet his demons or to satisfy urges. There would be different motivations. And in Millers Court again for example, we have evidence that suggests the killer may have had some personal relationship with the deceased...the facial injuries, the location, Marys lack of attire,..

There are a few additional murders that also are not solved, and they shared space with the Canonical Group inside the Whitechapel Murders file. Some person or people killed them as well.

Any quotation from any Contemporary Senior Official that states unequivocally that this Ripper fellow "killed 5-and only 5", or "it was an ascertained fact that....", alledging some identified profile characteristic in the latter case, ....are misleading at the very least.

The question really should be are they outright lies or was most of the bluster an ego trip?

Cheers

Of course anythings possible. But as with anything from a legal standpoint if there is no evidence to support the allegation (i.e 2-3-4-5 -10 killers,look out men,etc,) then the case doesnt reach court. But even if it "doesnt reach court" you can argue thateven though there is no evidence for the assumption, logic and common sense can tell you it is indeed so ,then you can at least still "play the game" . But when you not only have no evidence ,but no common sense logic that tells you there were 1-2-3-4-5 10 co-conspiratoers either ,then it's time to fold up your tent. Ive mentioned the legal aspect because earlier I was told "the onus is on the prosecution "to prove the case against Druitt.


My "narrow " view isnt formed by exclusive information on the case. It is formed by the views held by the police at the time. Yes there were contradictory views maybe.But the balance of opinion favoured 5 victims,all by the same hand. Thats good enough for me,unless worthwhile info surfaces suggesting they were indeed all lying.They certainly knew more than we do.All we have done ,and I say we in the loosest sense, is RE-DISCOVER .

Now if this a wind up,fine, Ill take the bait....it passes the time

[Smoking Joe]

Hi Smoking Joe,

No problem.

In actual fact, it's our best bet.

Regards,

Simon

Why is it a less preposterous theory than either the Druitt,Kosminski, Chapman or Tumblety theory?

[Jonathan H]

To Smoking Joe

As you can see it is acute resentment against the revisionist Druitt theory, the origin of the Top Hat Toff, which burns among the Old Guard.

I have seen this before arguing with JFK buffs who cannot accept the overwhelming evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald (albeit that often has a political dimension as they are often leftists. Had Oswald been a racist-Bircher type it would have been a different story).

And that resentment is directed at me because I am advocating the revisionist theory Macnaghten is the most reliable primary source, which is apparently the most despicable heresy of all.

I am not inlcuding a few in that, eg. Simon Wood.

He has always been helpful to me and I respect his theory of a clumsy propaganda campaign by over-paid nobs at the Yard to claim some unearned glory in their retirement.

What others do is never address what I bring up.

Notice that. Not one aspect of my last couple of posts.

They just repeat the same discredited cliches.

Straw Men are set up like, why would Macnaghten care about the feelings or reputation of the Druitt family, even though for him to do so is entirely in character and matches the 1891 MP article which is fearful of libel and is also based on his professional need to protect the rep of the Yard -- which he did.

Is any of that addressed?

Of course not.

It's irrefutable (unless you are taking a variation of the Simon Wood hypothesis that a weak suspect is being sexed-up for the punters, a line I disagree with but respect because the sources are sufficiently fragmentary, contradictory and ambiguous).

Another Straw Man is why would the Druitts leak theghastly tale; eg. their secret and damaging fears about their deceased member?

Nothing in the primary sources suggests that they did -- deliberately.

That's what a leak is. An unintentional speading of secret information you were trying to keep under wraps. It happened to Silvia Odio, the critical witness in the Kennedy Assassination and it happened to the family of the likeliest suspect in the notorious Memphis-3 case.

The fact that MP Farquharason appears to be getting information which is garbled -- the timeline of murder and self-murder has been truncated -- and that he feels no compunction whatsoever to keep his mouth shut, strongly suggests that the story has come to him due to his partisan affiliation (they are all Tories) and his geographic proximity (the same county as Vicat Charles Druitt).

You see, Joe, nobody new is allowed to notice anything new that people who have been studying this for decades did not not notice first. If they have to concede that they did not notice it -- very rare, they usually just go to ground -- then they say it was not worth noticing.

In 1993 the Littlechild Letter shows that there was a prime suspect in 1888 who was a middle-aged, 'deviant' doctor and in 2008 there was a bridging, primary source found -- Farquharson -- between the family's belief and a fellow Old Etonian's Report in which Mac placed on file that Montie was definitely a sexual maniac.

Many on these sites spend their time staging rear-guard actions against these two major developements in research about Jack the Ripper.

Diagreement is fine. Mike Hawely and R J Palmer-- both superb writers -- and I do not agree on much, but its always civil and poductiive and fun.This also true of people I tangled with and then we leanred to get along like Adam Went and the tall, thin guy.

But for some the disgreement must always be disagreeable.

When you just stand you ground they pull the, hey, you're so sensitive, sorry, I had no idea you were that paranoid, there, there, let me pick up you white cane, poor thing, and other such condescending drek. All the tiresome rhetorical tricks of Orthodoxy, who just want what they have believed for years to remain undisturbed.

For example, I just found two new sources which back my theory.
Do people say, hey great stuff. I don't agree but well found (Howard Brown always does) no it's just the usual, mean-spirited put downs.

I could write their posts myself they are so predictable and so weak.

Druitt was a gay man -- and when Mac writes 'sexually insane' he means homosexual, the stuffy, repressed homophobe! -- and when he was sacked on a Friday, to his face, he topped himself in the Thames. Macnaghten, that hopeless bumbler-fantasist, managed to not onyt think he was a doctor but that Cutbush was related to a retired cop?! Farquhrason was just a posoinois gossip sniffing out the dirt on Tories as well as Liberal election opponents.

'Exonerating' Druitt is considered one of the singular achievements of the congnoscenti, and if it is wrong then many will pack up their bags and pick some other hobby (don't worry if the Littlechild Letter can be treated as it is in some quarters here, then the faithful have nothing to worry about).

But what if Druitt was Jack after all?

[caz]

But Macnaughton put Druitt at the top of the list for some reason, a list that he seemingly had no right to be on in the first place. What reason would he have had?

Hi Smoking,

No reason whatever if he wanted to protect the Druitt family's reputation. He could have stuck with two more likely than Cutbush, or picked someone else for his third man, yet he made Druitt his prime suspect, when apparently no other senior cop even knew about him. I have no doubt Macnaghten thought he had a winner, but with his suspect six feet under and not a shadow of proof against him, he may have thought his best bet was to commit the name to paper so if he could ever be proved right (and therefore Anderson proved wrong), he would be remembered as the man who had solved the mystery.

In the same way that Jonathan argues for Druitt on the basis that Macnaghten would have fought tooth and nail against such a suspicion unless he had seen overwhelming evidence, it's possible that Macnaghten thought the same about the family, ie that they must have had overwhelming evidence for them to believe such a terrible thing about one of their own kith and kin - and that may have been what convinced Mac, just as it convinces Jonathan today. The problem is, we don't have a convincing link back from Mac to the family, so we don't know that any of the Druitts actually did suspect Monty, never mind had proof.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Straw Men are set up like, why would Macnaghten care about the feelings or reputation of the Druitt family, even though for him to do so is entirely in character and matches the 1891 MP article which is fearful of libel and is also based on his professional need to protect the rep of the Yard -- which he did.

Hi Jonathan,

I'm sure I've asked this before, but how exactly did Mac protect the rep of the Yard, by naming Monty in his private memo and giving broad hints about him to his cronies? I thought the Yard's rep was all over the place, thanks to their apparent failure to catch anyone responsible for any of the Whitechapel murders, and their complete failure to agree on their likeliest suspects.

Love,

Caz
X