|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 923
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 4:08 pm: | 
|
I hope that in your article you reconcile the problems within the Druitt theory, such as his working at night in Valentine's School watching over the children, while committing these murders and never causing any suspicion, and of course the lies told by William Druitt at the inquest regarding MJD, which casts doubt on his suicide.
Ah, yes. Without giving too much away, I do present a hypothesis using the supposition that Druitt had "night warden" duty to explain his dismissal as well as the interruptions in the pattern of killings. Note that it is only a hypothesis and not a provable theory. By the way, it is not certain that Druitt had night duty at Valentine's and we have to take that assumption cautiously, but it seems plausible to account for his daytime legal practice.
As to William's lies: no I don't go into that because I don't see it as particularly important. Actually, the only "lie" that comes to mind is the one about MJD not having other relatives. That's easily explainable as an effort to protect his sisters from undesirable publicity. It also just might be a contextual misunderstanding. Maybe the question was whether there were other relatives present at the inquest. The difficulty is that we don't have a transcript of the inquest. We are working from a reporter's imperfect account.
What intrigues me now is the reason for Druitt's final trip to Hammersmith (and I deliberately say Hammermsith, not Chiswick, since that was the destination on his ticket). Who was he going to see and why? The Tukes? Harry Wilson? An old cricketing chum? Unfortunately I have but few hopes of ever knowing.
Andy S. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 924
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 4:14 pm: |
|
Firstly, you are a jacka$$..."
Well, Stan, you had been civil. 
Andy S. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 925
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 4:29 pm: |
|
In honor of the late James "Scotty" Doohan, perhaps a lesson about unreliable sources from Star Trek is in order:
How Captain Kirk short-circuits an android:
Kirk to android(poining at Scotty): Don't believe this man. Everything he tells you is a lie.
Scotty: I'm lying.
Android proceeds to short circuit itself.
Sometimes unreliable sources tell the truth.
Andy S. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 472
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 9:44 pm: |
|
"You and I are obsessed with naming the suspect so we have to get the details right. MM's memo was confidential . Since, as far as he was concerned, the identity of the suspect would not be made public he might have been less concerned with cross-referencing the information he was using. "
Interesting point, Andy, and one that raises a question for me. I can't imagine 19th century bureaucrats were so very different from our modern day variety, and I think it could be argued that a career bureaucrat would pay close attention to the details in a memo that could go anywhere in the chain of command. A few dunce headed remarks could be in the hands of the Queen a week later, and it's not as if the higher ups weren't in full CYA mode...I suspect MM gave as much as he had under the circumstances.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1257
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 10:30 am: |
|
Andy
As to William's lies: no I don't go into that because I don't see it as particularly important. Actually, the only "lie" that comes to mind is the one about MJD not having other relatives. That's easily explainable as an effort to protect his sisters from undesirable publicity. It also just might be a contextual misunderstanding. Maybe the question was whether there were other relatives present at the inquest. The difficulty is that we don't have a transcript of the inquest. We are working from a reporter's imperfect account.
Yes. I've never been convinced by this idea that a solicitor would tell lies under oath, when the truth of the matter would have been common knowledge.
Looking at the context, it may be that what William said was that Druitt had no other relative who had suffered from insanity.
Chris Phillips
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 926
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 11:12 am: |
|
Sir Robert:
Some people, it seems, have jumped to wild conclusions based upon pure speculation on the Macnaghten memorandum. It OK to speculate. We may even stumble upon some reasonable answers by doing so. But we must always remember that we are speculating.
Speculation #1: That Macnaughten and the police were as obsessed with finding JtR as we are. Not so. The police saw this as an ordinary series of crimes and only took extremely extraordinary action when pushed to do so by the press and politicians and took advantage of the first opportunity to withdraw these.
Speculation #2: That MM was "chosen" or "assigned" the work of preparing his memo. While that might be true, there is nothing at all to suggest it. He might well have merely chosen completely on his own initiative to write it.
Speculation #3: That we have any idea of the general purpose for the memo. Obviously, the immediate purpose is to show that Cutbush is not JtR. But what is the general intent of the memo. Is it "talking points" for some MP or for some police official who might be called on to testify before some political committee? Is it an outline to be followed as a guide for press interviews? Or is it merely something that Sir Melville wanted to place in the official record for the sake of posterity (my personal speculation)? We don't know.
I personally think Sir Melville and most other high police officials were rather annoyed by JtR. The crimes were a nuisance to them, not an interesting mystery. They wanted to get on with other, more important, police work and did not wish to be bothered about a series of five prostitute murders in the East End (note how MM emphasizes there were only 5 murders in the series). That they had to expend so much time and energy on the case was a continual annoyance. Notice how most of these men give only a passing mention to the case in their memoirs (Anderson is an exception).
Speculation is a little like trying on a jacket. Sometimes it doesn't fit at all. Sometimes it fits in the shoulders but the sleeves are too short. Finally, we might find one that fits in all the right places. So we keep "trying on" different speculations, looking for that perfect fit. In my opinion, we have not come close to finding it yet.
Chris:
True. Although it would have been very Victorian for there to be a "gentelmen's agreement" among barristers that small "white lies" were permitted in order to protect one's reputation or the reputation of others as long as these "lies" did not hinder justice.
Andy S.
(Message edited by Aspallek on July 26, 2005) |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 669
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 12:16 pm: |
|
"As to William's lies: no I don't go into that because I don't see it as particularly important."
But surely it is potentially very important??
"from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer. " ---Macnaghten.
Taking MM's words at face value, the whole brunt of his mysterious "private information" has something to do with the Druitt family's own suspicions. These suspicions may have been true or may have been malarky or may have been the informant's misunderstanding of the situation, but like it or not, it seems to me that the memo itself sets the precedent for wondering about William. |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2694
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 12:21 pm: |
|
But if MM had gotten info from the Druitt family wouldn't he at least have known the guys proper name and job? |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 927
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
RJ:
But surely it is potentially very important??
Why do you think it is important? And we should probably clarify which lies we are speaking about. Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't see any real significance.
Taking MM's words at face value, the whole brunt of his mysterious "private information" has something to do with the Druitt family's own suspicions
The private information about family suspicions is the key to understanding where Sir Melville is coming from. Unfortunately, we don't have any real idea of what he is talking about so we can't gauge the strength is this mysterious evidence. But whatever it was, it was the deciding factor for Sir Melville in favor of Druitt. We have to assume that Macnaghten was in a better position to judge evidence than we are. And understanding this to be true is the key to making useful presumptions.
Jenni:
You would think so but not necessarily. In fact if the information came from family members who were doctors, MM might make the erroneous assumption that Montague was a doctor also. Furthermore, Sir Melville may not have gotten this information directly from the Druitt family. He only says that he has "private information" that Druitt's family suspected him of being the killer. He doesn't give any hints as to the source of this "private information." It could have come from a family friend or a co-worker.
Andy S.
(Message edited by Aspallek on July 26, 2005)
(Message edited by Aspallek on July 26, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1953
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 5:35 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
Basing a suspect's probable guilt on the thumbnail sketches we have of them is the standard approach in "Ripperology", and I think it is an utterly fatal mistake. So, in some ways, comparing Macnaghten to Cornwell or Williams is invalid, because in the latter cases they were clearly committing the no-no of combing the known details of their supsects' lives and 'fitting them up' (ah! he had fistula!)...
This doesn't mean Druitt was the Ripper, because circumstantial evidence can be misleading as hell.
So why do you completely ignore your own advice when it comes to your own suspects for writing the wretched diary?
Basing a suspect's probable guilt on the thumbnail sketches we have of them is the standard approach in "Diary World", and I think it is an utterly fatal mistake. Many theorists clearly commit the no-no of combing the known details of their supsects' lives and 'fitting them up' (ah! he had writing ambitions; she probably had inner demons to deal with; both tell lies!)...
This doesn't mean either was the diary author, because circumstantial evidence can be misleading as hell.
Why are all the rules turned upside down, or simply ignored, when the suspects are still alive and it's not a case of murder?
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1558
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 6:56 am: |
|
RJ,
Don't do it, man.
Please don't do it.
It's not worth it.
All your friends and,
--John
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 670
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 12:44 am: |
|
Luke Whitley ---Sorry. I didn't mean to snub your question, I am just now catching up to it. I meant the chapter on Druitt in Paul Begg's "JtR The Facts." Basically, Begg is arguing that the biographical information that MM knows and/or doesn't know about Druitt (at least in 1894) seemingly could be explained if we assumed Macnaghten was working from the PC's police report about the suicide in Chiswick. At least that's how I understand it. The report would have been traced after the private information had reached Macnaghten from Dorset (?) , and finding the report seemingly confirmed the rumor that was in circulation.
John--No worries. I think both Stan and Caz misunderstood my point. My fault, perhaps. I'm only pondering here the difference between historic vs. contemporary suspicion. In regards to Macnaghten, Littlechild, Anderson, etc., we simply don't know the reason why they suspected the people they suspected. Or at least not entirely. We can dismiss them, of course, or debate their reliability; yet, in the end, we are stuck arguing from a position of ignorance because we don't have all the information. We're then reduced to judging the likeliness of their suspects based on two-dimensional "thumbnail" sketches. How much can you really know about a guy, merely because he played cricket and practiced law?
It seems to me that the same thing can't really be said about Cornwell, Feldman, Wallace, and other contemporary theorists because the whole of their case is out in the open. Since there isn't any historical precedent for suspicion, we can't be said to be reasoning from ignorance. The meal has been served and we find it wanting. At least that's how I see it. Cheers, RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on July 28, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1959
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 1:40 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
How much can you really know about a guy, merely because he played cricket and practiced law?
I'm sorry but this infuriates me. You don't know a whole lot more about the suspects you believe were involved in creating the diary. But the point is, they are alive and you could find out a hell of a lot more, if you were truly interested in whether you are on the right track or so way off you'll never find your way back.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1570
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 2:48 pm: |
|
I warned you, RJ.
Not even the Druitt threads are safe, apparently.
It's like a fungus, spreading as time crawls along.
-- John |
Luke Whitley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 9:59 am: |
|
Hi R.J.
Thank you for the reply.
I have now ordered a copy of "JtR, the facts" from my local bookshop.
Much obliged my friend.
Regards.
LUKE WHITLEY |
Jeff Flowers
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 5:07 pm: |
|
Druitt was always my favorite suspect for the simple reason that police at the time thought he was responsible. I know; that's not a conviction in a court of law, but usually the police are right. Not always, but usually. I wasn't aware of his "thriving" success in the field of law referred to in another post; I would have to see the evidence. As far as I know, Druitt fit the profile of a serial killer; a social failure (law degree, but teaching at a boys school) in his late 20's or early 30's with a known history of emotional problems (including, obviously, suicidal tendencies), no relationship with women, etc. Teaching at an all-boy school and membership on a cricket team could point to some kind of over-masculinization (I know, I'm reaching). The suicide itself is a bit odd; stones in the pockets? Someone else could have knocked him unconscious and put them there. Like a policeman.... |
Peter Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 7:00 am: |
|
Would M J Druitt be a suspect if the MM memo did not exist?
Is the 'drowned doctor' contemporary rumour any support for a 'drowned schoolteacher' suspect?
Regards
Pete |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 5:30 pm: |
|
Mr Russo has got a 'thing' about Macnaghten for some reason or other. If the errors in Mr Russo's published writings on Macnaghten are anything to go by then he is way out on his assessment. Macnaghten was a respected senior officer who took a great interest in his men. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 497
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 3:57 pm: |
|
" If the errors in Mr Russo's published writings on Macnaghten are anything to go by then he is way out on his assessment."
I've got Stan's book - which I heartily recommend to everyone - and would like to know what you believe is erroneous in his text.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Rosey O'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 5:03 am: |
|
Hi Folks,
As per other threads on the name DRUITT...and add the letters "QC" (Queen's Council), one wonders why the eminent MacNaghten "QC" mistook his fellow "QC" for a doctor? MMMmmm...
Rosey :-) |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page