Proof of Innocence?

[Chris Phillips]

The really big question in all of this is not whether Druitt stayed in Wiltshire between cricket matches or took a day excursion to London in order to kill a prostitute, but whether Macnaghten was telling the truth.

We know Macnaghten lied about Ostrog, so why would he not also lie about Druitt and Kosminski?

Do we know Macnaghten lied about Ostrog rather than just being ignorant, as he was about so many other facts?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

Yes, I believe we do know. A lie is a lie whether told through ignorance or a wilful desire to mislead. The perfect time for Macnaghten to establish Ostrog's guilt as the Whitechapel murderer was 1891 when he was fully aware of Ostrog's confinement in Banstead Lunatic Asylum and wrote to the Medical Superintendent asking to be informed of his discharge. Two years later Ostrog was discharged "recovered."

Don't let's give Macnaghten too much credit in this shabby business.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris Phillips]

Hi Chris,

Yes, I believe we do know. A lie is a lie whether told through ignorance or a wilful desire to mislead. The perfect time for Macnaghten to establish Ostrog's guilt as the Whitechapel murderer was 1891 when he was fully aware of Ostrog's confinement in Banstead Lunatic Asylum and wrote to the Medical Superintendent asking to be informed of his discharge. Two years later Ostrog was discharged "recovered."

Don't let's give Macnaghten too much credit in this shabby business.

Regards,

Simon

I'm not sure from that whether you're saying it was ignorance or a wilful desire to mislead. But I think a lie needs to be intentional, not just the result of ignorance.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

Put on the spot, I'd say Macnaghten's short list of more likely suspects was a wilful desire to mislead.

Regards,

Simon

[Christer Holmgren]

Coming from a position of thinking that MacNaghtens memoranda is a truthful reflection of Macs beliefs, I must say that it would be reassuring if Simon is correct; it would at least allow us to believe in a chief of police who was on top of things instead of hopelessly lost in what seems to be factual as well as psychological fallacies.

[Gary Barnett]

a thought Gary, the september start time of 1.30 was not on a sunday was it.
it might be expected sunday games would not start until church was over.

As you say its end time that counts and even one of 6 or somewhat later would not preclude travel.

Hi Steve,

No, it was on Saturday, 15th September.

Gary

[Jay Hartley]

Not sure if this bears any relevance to anything, but it appears MJD was appearing in court in Bournemouth Tuesday 30th November representing James Druitt.

At the very least it is an interesting morsel of information.

Taken from CHRISTCHURCH TIMES, SATURDAY 1st DECEMBER 1888.

[Phil Kellingley]

We know Macnaghten lied about Ostrog, so why would he not also lie about Druitt and Kosminski?

MacNaghten was a serial liar. His autobiography has many instances of him claiming things he did but fact checking proves otherwise.

[Gary Barnett]

Not sure if this bears any relevance to anything, but it appears MJD was appearing in court in Bournemouth Tuesday 30th November representing James Druitt.

At the very least it is an interesting morsel of information.

Taken from CHRISTCHURCH TIMES, SATURDAY 1st DECEMBER 1888.

It was the 27th, so just a few days before he committed suicide.

[Jay Hartley]

It was the 27th, so just a few days before he committed suicide.

I stand corrected

[Phil Kellingley]

I know I'm late to this party and, firstly, I'd like to say that I think Joanna's find is significant. The same cannot be said for some of the comments...

He plays a match on the 30th which couldn’t have taken no (sic) more than 3 hours and very possibly less. .

And what evidence is there for that? None. Could rain have interrupted play? There are reports of a lot of rain at that particular time of year (it's quoted here somewhere). Or, perhaps, many of the batsmen were fairly inept and low scorers. (By the way there's a double negative in the original post which I'm assuming was unintentional).

Like so many discussions about any suspect theories are advanced to 'prove' points when they do no such thing. This is one such. All we have is the proof that Druitt was there on one day and there two days later. The balance of probability is that, as both matches were close to the family home, he stayed there in the interim. The probability (not possibility) that he returned to London specifically to commit a random murder is round about zero.

The only actual fact there is to suspect Druitt is that MacNaghten mentions him amongst his 3 suspects. (That someone commits suicide doesn't, on its own, implicate them in anything other than the fact they committed suicide). There appears to be no police record which mentions him. Hainsworth's ludicrous suggestions that other writers disguised him in their works deliberately is the stuff of fairy tales.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone can seriously consider Druitt as a suspect at all. From Howells and Skinner's book through others to Hainsworth's two volumes there is nothing but a trail of disinformation and conjecture without a shred of evidence that Druitt had ever been in the East End, never mind being a murderer.

[Michael Banks]

I know I'm late to this party and, firstly, I'd like to say that I think Joanna's find is significant. The same cannot be said for some of the comments...

Very generous of you to join us lesser humans.

And what evidence is there for that? None. Could rain have interrupted play? There are reports of a lot of rain at that particular time of year (it's quoted here somewhere). Or, perhaps, many of the batsmen were fairly inept and low scorers. (By the way there's a double negative in the original post which I'm assuming was unintentional).

Pointing out grammatical errors, whether intentional or not, speaks volumes Id say. Il write it out 100 times later.

Perhaps you should listen and take note of someone with an actual knowledge of cricket that you clearly don’t possess. The weather doesn’t come into it. The first team scored 62 whilst the second scored 25. We cannot be exact of course but any cricket fan would tell you that this game would have been almost impossible to drag out above 3 hours. It’s entirely entirely possible that the 2 innings could have been done and dusted in 2 hours. So it’s both reasonable, plausible and likely that the game was over in 2 or 3 hours. We don’t of course know what time the game began. No game would have started anywhere near as late as say 3.00 but even if that were the case then Druitt would still have had ample time to get to London. The likelier is that the game began somewhere around 11.00 but this is an unknown at this point in time.

Like so many discussions about any suspect theories are advanced to 'prove' points when they do no such thing. This is one such. All we have is the proof that Druitt was there on one day and there two days later. The balance of probability is that, as both matches were close to the family home, he stayed there in the interim. The probability (not possibility) that he returned to London specifically to commit a random murder is round about zero.

And what am I, for example trying to ‘prove.’ The original information was suggested as either eliminating Druitt or showing him to have been less likely to have been guilty. All that I, and others have done is to view the information objectively and in light of the known facts. One or two (and it looks like you can be added to that list) saw this as an opportunity to gleefully dismiss Druitt. Why so keen I have to ask? Is that a reasoned, unbiased approach? The FACTS are that this very good discovery doesn’t even approach eliminating him but you’re at liberty to continue your wish-thinking of course. You’re ‘zero’ comment shines a light on your approach.

The only actual fact there is to suspect Druitt is that MacNaghten mentions him amongst his 3 suspects. (That someone commits suicide doesn't, on its own, implicate them in anything other than the fact they committed suicide). There appears to be no police record which mentions him. Hainsworth's ludicrous suggestions that other writers disguised him in their works deliberately is the stuff of fairy tales.

Opinion stated as facts. Obvious bias.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone can seriously consider Druitt as a suspect at all. From Howells and Skinner's book through others to Hainsworth's two volumes there is nothing but a trail of disinformation and conjecture without a shred of evidence that Druitt had ever been in the East End, never mind being a murderer.

And I find it difficult to understand why anyone without an agenda would simply dismiss something that came from a Chief Constable of the Met who’s very close friend was related to the Druitt family by marriage. It’s a dismissal of convenience. Only a tiny proportion of suspects can be dismissed with actual evidence.

Thank you for that rather condescending post.

Yet again we see the vehemence that the subject of Druitt causes. Calm, reasoned and unbiased? I wish.

[Chris Phillips]

The original information was suggested as either eliminating Druitt or showing him to have been less likely to have been guilty. All that I, and others have done is to view the information objectively and in light of the known facts. One or two (and it looks like you can be added to that list) saw this as an opportunity to gleefully dismiss Druitt. Why so keen I have to ask? Is that a reasoned, unbiased approach? The FACTS are that this very good discovery doesn’t even approach eliminating him but you’re at liberty to continue your wish-thinking of course. You’re ‘zero’ comment shines a light on your approach.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I would say again that there are two aspects to this.

One is the question of whether Druitt would have had time to get back to London that day. In the absence of information about when the game ended, there's no difficulty about that.

The other is simply the fact that this tells us Druitt was in Dorset on 30 August as well as 1 September. Regardless of any issues of timing, to my mind that certainly makes it less likely that he was in London on 31 August. I think that is just common sense.

And while I agree this doesn't eliminate Druitt as a suspect, I think it makes him very improbable. So I'd say that whether it approaches eliminating him is a question of degree and a matter of opinion.

[Christer Holmgren]

This all makes me think of many TV crime series and a lot of crime fiction, where a cunning killer with a target in, say, London, travels to, say, Cambridge and establishes an alibi there, signing his name in a hotel ledger. Then, in the middle of the night when everybody is asleep, he sneaks back to London, kills his target and returns back to Cambridge in time for the hotel breakfast the following morning.

Although this is largely the stuff of script writers, I am sure it has been tried in real life at times. However, the salient point is that this kind of crime is committed with a motive in mind, and a defined, irreplacable victim. The killer HAS TO get to London.

The killer of Polly Nichols was most likely a so called killer of strangers. The only motive there was, was the deeds themselves, allowing the killer to aquire a body. So, I ask myself, if this was the agenda of serial killer Montague Druitt, why on earth would he go to London and back from Blandford, when he could find a victim in Bournemouth or Southampton, for example? Surely, these cities also offered prostitutes? Why did it need to be Whitechapel, a district to which, as far as we know, Druitt had no links at all? Why travel 180 kilometres, just about three times as long as the journey to Bournemouth, to look for prey?

Just like Chris, I find it very improbable that Druitt left the area inbetween the two cricket games, an area where he had his family staying.

[R. J. Palmer]

MacNaghten was a serial liar. His autobiography has many instances of him claiming things he did but fact checking proves otherwise.

First off, he didn't capitalize the N. The name was Macnaghten.

Secondly, you're making a bold claim. Do you care to elaborate? If you're going to dismiss someone as a 'serial liar,' you probably will want to give at least three or four examples to justify the "serial' part of this pronouncement.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I've actually read Days of My Years and fact-checked much of it, and in particular the criminal cases Macnaghten discussed. I wanted to do so to gauge the reliability of his memory and judgment.

I know that Chris P. found an instance where Macnaghten's memory was flawed in his memoirs, but on the whole, I thought that he came across as quite accurate and trustworthy.

Considerably more so than Sir Robert Anderson, who by contrast makes any number of strange and remarkable claims, including a bizarre admission that he destroyed what turned out to be vital evidence in a criminal case of national importance. The man who had drawn his attention to this evidence was Melville Macnaghten, but Anderson evidently dismissed him (wrongly enough) as a fool.

It came back to bite Sir Robert on the backside, which is why felt the need to mention it in his own memoir.

My own conclusion was that Macnaghten was more reliable than Anderson, not less reliable. Please give your evidence that he was a "serial liar."

Thanks,

RP