![]() ![]() All three, as the notes make clear, were investigated (there is a reference to Druitt’s family) if the notes are taken in conjunction with the rest of Macnaghten’s statement, there was indeed not a shred of proof against Druitt, Kosminski or Ostrog. ![]() He offers them up only as alternatives to Cutbush, says quite clearly that ‘no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one’ and goes on to name as possible suspects the three men, ‘any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders’. This is a misreading of what Macnaghten has said. These are often misinterpreted, and his three suspects – Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog – are assumed to be the only ones. Similarly, too much weight can be given to the Macnaghten notes. ![]() – would not have been forced to try solving the case with hindsight and by contradicting one another in print. What is also often overlooked is that if the case had been solved, the investigators – that is Smith, Abberline, Anderson, Swanson, et al. Whatever the truth, Fido’s theorizing does underline the point that these complex explanations were necessitated only by the shortage of original documentation. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |