Most ridiculous suspect

[FISHY1118]

I was hoping for a more honest response Fishy. It’s pretty weak to tell me what I ‘meant,’ when what I ‘meant,’ is there very clearly and very specifically for anyone to read. You got it wrong. Why is it such a big deal for some people to admit to being wrong?

it was honest , i cant help if i think thats how you ment it , im just being honest , so we disagree . people do it all the time .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just to repeat

. Anyone that dismisses Druitt out of hand is simply clueless

In black and white and not a mirage. Impossible to misinterpret but you’ve managed to.

[Herlock Sholmes]

clueless is clueless , you know what you ment

I was hoping for a more honest response Fishy. It’s pretty weak to tell me what I ‘meant,’ when what I ‘meant,’ is there very clearly and very specifically for anyone to read. You got it wrong. Why is it such a big deal for some people to admit to being wrong?

[FISHY1118]

This is what I said Fishy.



So unless I’ve somehow managed to alter my post I don’t see how you can continue with the point. It’s quite clear what I meant. Not that anyone who doesn’t think Druitt is a reasonable suspect is clueless but anyone who simply dismisses him out of hand and without proper consideration.

So why are you objecting to something that I never said?

clueless is clueless , you know what you ment

[FISHY1118]

Like?

for people to make a point he wasnt the killer

[FISHY1118]

Sorry Fishy but you’re simply making things up. Druitt’s cricket playing has been researched in depth and there is absolutely nothing that prevents him from being the ripper on that score (and believe me, people have tried.) Again, and just because some people have a tendency to equate me saying that Druitt is a reasonable suspect with me saying that he was definitely the ripper, we cannot eliminate Druitt - but that applies to many suspects of course. It’s down to our individual judgment to decide how strong or weak a suspect he is. If someone considers him a weak suspect then that’s fine, I don’t lose sleep over it, but its still baffling why people will go to any lengths to try and get him out of the way though.

t’s down to our individual judgment to decide how strong or weak a suspect he is. If someone considers him a weak suspect then that’s fine,

isnt that better than clueless ? thats the best post youve had all week .

[FISHY1118]

Im sorry Fishy but I sense that you’re indulging in a bit of wish-thinking here because Sickert is an integral part of the theory that you favour. If someone revealed evidence that Druitt was in France, apparently enjoying himself, 2 days before an accepted ripper murder (and accepting that travel was slower in those days), at the very least I’d have to admit that this would point to a probability that he wasn’t present at the murder. It’s not 100% proof of course and I haven’t claimed that but by anyone’s standards it’s a powerful point against him.

I think youve lost your way ion this topic , hint ''clueless'', you should go back and work out why i objected to it i the first place .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Regardles of all that there is a mountain of evidence that suggest he wasnt the killer.

Like?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You missed the whole point of the dicussion . Suggest you go back to the word ''clueless'' from herlock.

This is what I said Fishy.

Anyone that dismisses Druitt out of hand is simply clueless

So unless I’ve somehow managed to alter my post I don’t see how you can continue with the point. It’s quite clear what I meant. Not that anyone who doesn’t think Druitt is a reasonable suspect is clueless but anyone who simply dismisses him out of hand and without proper consideration.

So why are you objecting to something that I never said?

[FISHY1118]

fishy
herlock said those who dismiss druitt "out of hand" are clueless. you see the difference I hope.

He was in england at least, was known to visit london and at one point had an office there. His suicide coincides with the end of the C5 and he generally fits the witness descriptions. More importantly he was suspected by a senior police officer-at the time.

Im sorry but Sickert as a suspect is almost as ridiculous, if not more in some ways, than maybrick. the royal conspiracy and its off shoot goofball theories, while making for good movies, has been a black eye on Ripperology about the same as Maybrick and the stupid diary. There are similar ridiculous suspects-like Van Gogh and lewis carrol etc, but luckily they have been pretty much drummed out of existance, and rightfully so. Unfortunately the crackpot theories of sickert and maybrick have not-but hopefully this thread will go a little ways toward that end.



when one has to resort to these type of desperate defenses, similar to a certain diary thread title, it just shows how weak and ridiculous a suspect actually is.

Regardles of all that there is a mountain of evidence that suggest he wasnt the killer. And its the labeling of ''clueless'' by herlock when people put forward a case agaisnst druitt that i object to . Nothing more .

Simple point ive already made yes sickert is unlikly to be the killer , but dont use the unproven fact he was in france at the time of the murders to eliminate him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I assume that this is a sentiment you would also aim at all of those posters who share your assumption that the scrapbook is some sort of hoax and yet still admit quite freely to being able to see Florence Maybrick's initials on Kelly's wall? What exactly is your message to those comrades of yours who do not fall in line with your inability to see what everyone else sees so plainly?

I think this one (Farson, 1973) is probably my favourite, by the way, though I am struck by two post-Maybrick versions (Sugden and Marriott) which carried splendid versions also despite their authors' utter hostility to Maybrick as a candidate for Jack.

Hello Ike,

As you know I tend to avoid diary debate but this is just something that I’ve always found a little problematical about the letters. It’s simply the way that they are formed. The F looks smaller than the M and also different in style. There’s also a an unusually large gap (imo) between the two letters with, I believe some other ‘marking’ in between them. Now you’ll have to take my word that I’ve never dipped my fingers in blood, but I have dipped them in paint. I’ve done a painting or two that way, and if you dip your finger into paint (or blood) it’s as easy to write neatly and with well formed letters as it is with a pen. I can’t see why the letters are so poorly formed?

Also, why were the letters written so low down on the wall - at the level of the bed? It seems a bit awkward to say the least. Surely he could have found a piece of wall space that was blood-free and written the letters more legibly and in a more easy to see location if the killers intent was to leave a message to be seen?

[FISHY1118]

Why not? If Wally Sickert could swim The Channel and be back in Dieppe the following week, why can't a man take two three-hour train trips within the span of a week?

Bournemouth to London is closer to 100 miles than 200.

You missed the whole point of the dicussion . Suggest you go back to the word ''clueless'' from herlock.

[Iconoclast]

PS Try not to be nauseous this time, if you can. I appreciate you haven't actually studied the case much. Most of us have seen this photograph many times before.

[Iconoclast]

This load of guff about the phantom initials is just embarrassing.

I assume that this is a sentiment you would also aim at all of those posters who share your assumption that the scrapbook is some sort of hoax and yet still admit quite freely to being able to see Florence Maybrick's initials on Kelly's wall? What exactly is your message to those comrades of yours who do not fall in line with your inability to see what everyone else sees so plainly?

I think this one (Farson, 1973) is probably my favourite, by the way, though I am struck by two post-Maybrick versions (Sugden and Marriott) which carried splendid versions also despite their authors' utter hostility to Maybrick as a candidate for Jack.

[Iconoclast]

Must be a real sickener for you. There you are, harping on about the case being closed on the ripper and someone starts a thread that doesn't even mention Maybrick, but canvasses opinion on the most absurd suspects. And guess what, Maybrick features very heavily. Gutted for you and your crusade of utter nonsense.

Goodness, I've had many many years of this kind of amateurish, indolent, second-rate analysis to deal with. Everything - every single thing - is just water off a duck's back to me, I promise you. I have seen every type of ill-thought-out argument against Maybrick and - unsurprisingly - not a single one of them sticks.