Most ridiculous suspect

[FISHY1118]

I know that you’re allergic to facts and truth Fishy. No problem.

More insults , feel better now? ,

[FISHY1118]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n783253]

What is a pity is that it’s you that’s in denial of what’s been said. Firstly, no one on here (including myself) has said that Druitt was the ripper. Indeed many see him as a poor or weak suspect which is totally fine. Secondly, most people accept that we don’t know who the killer was. And thirdly, for most suspects it’s impossible to exonerate them with real evidence as opposed to doubt. The vast majority of posters would accept those three points I think. They would also accept that the theory that you support is the most laughable running joke in ripperology. And you have the nerve to comment on Druitt.

What is rich is your above request for acknowledgment “Hey Fishy etc,” when you, in front of every person on this thread, will notacknowledge what I said clearly and in black and white. You persist in saying that I said that anyone that rejects Druitt as a suspect is clueless when I didn’t. I very specifically qualified that by aiming the comment at any person who dismisses him ‘out of hand.’ Which, as the Dictionary that you ignore, tells all English speakers, means without due consideration.

Whatever further silly justifications you make it doesn’t change the fact that every single poster can read. Keep backtracking Fishy. I don’t mind but this should end now because your just sounding more and more

child like insults from you again , not interested , you butchered the druitt topic to suit your agenda . Clueless

[FISHY1118]

I don't think anyone misunderstands. You have gone out of your way to denigrate the opinion of one person in particular, who has done far more research than one article, and now you wish to portray yourself as the victim.

Well done you just said exactly what was done to me , thanks

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think you misunderstand , im not putting forward a theory that says druitt was the killer, ,merely that based on that article and much circumstantial evidence , my veiw was and has always been that he was extremely unlikely to be jtr , , and that article allows me to have that opinion , its a pity you others dont get that very point .. all that was required was a simple acknowledgement that hey fishy if that your opinion then your entitled to think that way. , it could of saved a lot of childish behaviour .

What is a pity is that it’s you that’s in denial of what’s been said. Firstly, no one on here (including myself) has said that Druitt was the ripper. Indeed many see him as a poor or weak suspect which is totally fine. Secondly, most people accept that we don’t know who the killer was. And thirdly, for most suspects it’s impossible to exonerate them with real evidence as opposed to doubt. The vast majority of posters would accept those three points I think. They would also accept that the theory that you support is the most laughable running joke in ripperology. And you have the nerve to comment on Druitt.

What is rich is your above request for acknowledgment “Hey Fishy etc,” when you, in front of every person on this thread, will notacknowledge what I said clearly and in black and white. You persist in saying that I said that anyone that rejects Druitt as a suspect is clueless when I didn’t. I very specifically qualified that by aiming the comment at any person who dismisses him ‘out of hand.’ Which, as the Dictionary that you ignore, tells all English speakers, means without due consideration.

Whatever further silly justifications you make it doesn’t change the fact that every single poster can read. Keep backtracking Fishy. I don’t mind but this should end now because your just sounding more and more desperate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Breath herlock , lol ,take a nice walk. Youll be fine ,

I’m fine and calm Fishy. Just laying down a few of those facts that you appear to have an aversion too.

Being criticised on the subject of Druitt by a supporter of the above theory is like being told that you have a poor attitude to women by The Yorkshire Ripper.

[Herlock Sholmes]

All this utter nonsense from your clueless comment. What a waste. Not worth the effort any more.

I know that you’re allergic to facts and truth Fishy. No problem.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby I agree with you somewhat, even if we have not heard the rippers name I feel the police did, and he was interviewed by the police at some point, [ perhaps more than once, and perhaps brought in for further questioning], and his name was in a file, perhaps with hundreds of others. Much like Sutcliffe

Regards Darryl

yup. and we even may still have heard of him... like a piggot or puckridge etc. but i agree. many serial killers have been on the police radar and suspected like sutcliff as you mention, before their eventually caught, sometimes much later.

but i would be remiss if i didnt say that i think im partially biased as ive never been one for phantom rippers, either in the specific circs of the case or in general.

[GBinOz]

I think you misunderstand , im not putting forward a theory that says druitt was the killer, ,merely that based on that article and much circumstantial evidence , my veiw was and has always been that he was extremely unlikely to be jtr , , and that article allows me to have that opinion , its a pity you others dont get that very point .. all that was required was a simple acknowledgement that hey fishy if that your opinion then your entitled to think that way. , it could of saved a lot of childish behaviour .

I don't think anyone misunderstands. You have gone out of your way to denigrate the opinion of one person in particular, who has done far more research than one article, and now you wish to portray yourself as the victim.

[FISHY1118]

No, it doesn't. If you put forward a theory you need evidence, not just assumption and speculation. FYI, it is not possible, or required, to prove a negative. His note was undated so no one knows when he wrote it, or the date of his dismissal, and even you would concede that there was more than one Friday in Nov 1888.

I think you misunderstand , im not putting forward a theory that says druitt was the killer, ,merely that based on that article and much circumstantial evidence , my veiw was and has always been that he was extremely unlikely to be jtr , , and that article allows me to have that opinion , its a pity you others dont get that very point .. all that was required was a simple acknowledgement that hey fishy if that your opinion then your entitled to think that way. , it could of saved a lot of childish behaviour .

[GBinOz]

Do you have any to suggest it wasnt , it works both ways , just remember that..

No, it doesn't. If you put forward a theory you need evidence, not just assumption and speculation. FYI, it is not possible, or required, to prove a negative. His note was undated so no one knows when he wrote it, or the date of his dismissal, and even you would concede that there was more than one Friday in Nov 1888.

[FISHY1118]

FROM A DICTIONARY OF PHRASES




1. Is the above definition a mirage?
2. Is the above definition a forgery?
3. Is the above definition a misprint?

or…….

Is the above an definitive, English language, childishly easy to understand, explanation of the meaning of the phrase ‘out of hand?’ - Yes it is.

Did I use that particular phrase in my original statement when I added it to the word ‘clueless?’ - Yes I did.

Is it possible for any reasonable poster to misinterpret what I said in my original statement? - No it isn’t.

The point requires no further discussion. The evidence is in black and white and you and The Baron don’t have the integrity to admit what’s in front of your eyes. Very sad.

…..

Yes, let’s move on.

All this utter nonsense from your clueless comment. What a waste. Not worth the effort any more.

[FISHY1118]

So, back the the most ridiculous suspect.

Surely the definition of a ridiculous suspect/theory is one that persists even after it has been shown to have been nonsense?

Like a theory which has the Queen’s grandson visiting an artists studio which we know didn’t exist at the time. And that he had some kind of affair with a woman that lived at an address that didn’t exist at the time. And that the Prince and this woman then had a marriage that wasn’t recorded at a church that didn’t exist and that no one ever mentions being present at. And that she was subsequently removed from that non-existent studio and sent to a non-existent hospital for an unrecorded operation that no one ever mentioned being present at or being aware of. And that the victims of the ripper were butchered by a 71 year old man who had had to retire from practice because of the effects of a stroke (although we have the word of a medium to support this.) And that a coachman with zero connection to the Royal family and a famous painter who also had zero connection to the Royal family carried mutilated corpses from a Royal carriage, which no one spotted in the streets of Whitechapel at the time (Royal carriages might have made regular jaunts through the slums though of the East End of course) across the pavements of Whitechapel unseen or ignored by the incurious or visually impaired inhabitants of Whitechapel.

And the person that supports this calls a man that was named by a respected Chief Constable of the Met a ridiculous suspect. You really couldn’t make this stuff up. Thankfully most posters who don’t consider Druitt a particularly strong suspect still have the integrity of an open mind.

Breath herlock , lol ,take a nice walk. Youll be fine ,

[FISHY1118]

Is this the assumption to which you refer?:

Assuming it was November 30th on which occurred Druitt's dismissal, the few facts of the case fall nicely into place, assuming it was his dismissal which finally prompted his suicide. The 30th was a Friday, which hearkens back to his suicide note: 'Since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother, and the best thing for me was to die.'

Do you have any evidence to show that Druitt was actually dismissed on 30 Nov, or the date that he wrote his suicide note, or that Friday 30 Nov was the Friday to which he was referring, or is the depth of your knowledge on the subject just ""Druitt" in the suspects section here" ?

Do you have any to suggest it wasnt , it works both ways , just remember that..

[GBinOz]

Read ""Druitt"" in the suspects section here.
then by all means get back to me. .

Is this the assumption to which you refer?:

Assuming it was November 30th on which occurred Druitt's dismissal, the few facts of the case fall nicely into place, assuming it was his dismissal which finally prompted his suicide. The 30th was a Friday, which hearkens back to his suicide note: 'Since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother, and the best thing for me was to die.'

Do you have any evidence to show that Druitt was actually dismissed on 30 Nov, or the date that he wrote his suicide note, or that Friday 30 Nov was the Friday to which he was referring, or is the depth of your knowledge on the subject just ""Druitt" in the suspects section here" ?

[Ms Diddles]

In short, if anything should be avoided at all costs, it’s over-confidence. There’s far too much in this case that we just don’t know.

Yeah!

I'm totally with you on this, Herlock!

From where I'm sitting, we simply don't have enough hard facts to warrant such over-confidence.

We all have our individual assessments of the information, but these are largely based on conjecture and supposition.

I don't know whodunit, and I have no issue with admitting that!

I'd genuinely love to know though!