Most ridiculous suspect

[GBinOz]

Just because there is no physical evidence to show categorically that he was in London at the the times of the canonical murders, you cannot say he was not in London because you have no evidence to show where he was at the times of those murders.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It is for the proposer of a theory to prove his case, not for his peers to disprove it. Even showing that a ship owned by a suspects employer was in port near Whitechapel on the nights of the C5 in not sufficient. Proof must be proffered that the suspect was in the employ of that owner on board that ship on the nights in question. JMO.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

I’ve asked this before but why is it that on the subject of Druitt some posters are so desperate to dismiss him that it leads them to manipulate, ignore and lie. They twist, bend, contort and distort in all manner of frankly embarrassing ways. WHY?
If you have to resort to making things up to make your points then rock bottom has long ago been scraped.

I do not dismiss Druitt, or make things up. However, MacNaughten got nearly every fact about both Druitt and Kosminski wrong. He then resorted to attempting to reinforce his opinion by saying he also had private information, to which we can not be privy, to support his contentions. Abberline said that the only tie between Druitt and the case was the proximity of the suicide to the last murder, which MacNaughten also got wrong. While not dismissing Druitt's candidacy, I wonder if he may not have been a scapegoat rather than a perpetrator? JMO.

Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

duplicate

[Abby Normal]

duplicate

[Abby Normal]

duplicate

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy!

Surely the difference is that there is no evidence which would imply that Feigenbaum was elsewhere at the time of the Whitechapel murders.

There is evidence that would indicate that Sickert was in Dieppe.

I will concede that the evidence (from what I recall) is not entirely watertight, but on balance I'm personally inclined to go with it.

Hi D., sorry but i don't see it that way. Indicate is not the same as proof . Yes he visited france , but that cant be substantiated at the time of the c5 which as i said hasnt been proven ... so as a ripper suspect he should not be dismissed in my opinion . if its good for Trevor its good for me.. respectfully .fishy.

[Ms Diddles]

Thanks Trevor ,you just made the same case for walter sickert. There is no evidence/proof to show he was in France, so he could well have been in London also at the time of the c5.

Hi Fishy!

Surely the difference is that there is no evidence which would imply that Feigenbaum was elsewhere at the time of the Whitechapel murders.

There is evidence that would indicate that Sickert was in Dieppe.

I will concede that the evidence (from what I recall) is not entirely watertight, but on balance I'm personally inclined to go with it.

[FISHY1118]

There is no desparation only by those who want to eliminate him

Just because there is no physical evidnce to show categorically that he was in London at the the times of the canonical murders, you cannot say he was not in London because you have no evidence to show where he was at the times of those murders.

There are inferences that can be drawn from the other facts and evidence to suggest he was and he is a much better suspect than your Druitt

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks Trevor ,you just made the same case for walter sickert. There is no evidence/proof to show he was in France, so he could well have been in London also at the time of the c5.

[jmenges]

I’ve asked this before but why is it that on the subject of Druitt some posters are so desperate to dismiss him that it leads them to manipulate, ignore and lie. They twist, bend, contort and distort in all manner of frankly embarrassing ways. WHY?

Some posters need to stop being dishonest and utterly embarrassingly pathetic and get a grip. Some don’t find Druitt a strong suspect. Fine, who cares, so what. We’ve heard your boring nonsense a million times over. If your not interested in this particular part of the case why don’t you do the whole Ripperological world a favour and simply let it go and make posts on stamp collecting or badger grooming. I know that your humongous egos might not allow this or that you that your trolling hobby might be ruined but that’s just tough. If you have to resort to making things up to make your points then rock bottom has long ago been scraped.

Before we receive another cascade of reports on this thread and it’s lights out for everyone, please review the policy below and adjust your posts accordingly.

Personal Attacks Policy:

If you are not sure what constitutes a personal attack, as a general rule anything with the pronouns "you" or "your" that is not a compliment should just be avoided. If a negative statement is about the person and not the topic, it constitutes an attack. "This idea is silly" is not a personal attack. "Your silly idea" or "You keep repeating the same silly ideas...." is.

Remove the personal from your statements. If a poster makes a single mild attacking post that says something like "you are being ridiculous" they probably will not receive an infraction for a single slip. It happens, let's agree to be grown ups. However if they make several "mild" attacks in a single thread and have a general attacking/snide tone, that is worth reporting. Persistent mild attacks grow to serious, significant attacks and turns into sniping matches as opposed to on-topic, valuable conversations.

Convoluted means of attacking someone will be considered attacks. Like pornography, we know it when we see it.
Any attempt to circumvent the rules and insult or defame a poster by not naming them, but including them in a collective group like "people who..." or "members of a group of Ripperologists" or "the cabal/cartel" conspiracy is ... will earn double infraction points. Insulting someone and attempting to get out of the penalty by being shady is double the offense.

Responding to someone's personal attack with a personal attack of your own will still earn you an infraction. "S/he started it" is not an excuse.

JM

[Trevor Marriott]

No, Abby is 100% correct. He cannot, repeat cannot be placed in England at the time.

The kind of desperate invention that some posters have to resort to on this subject.

There is no desparation only by those who want to eliminate him

Just because there is no physical evidnce to show categorically that he was in London at the the times of the canonical murders, you cannot say he was not in London because you have no evidence to show where he was at the times of those murders.

There are inferences that can be drawn from the other facts and evidence to suggest he was and he is a much better suspect than your Druitt

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

All that we should hope is that suspects are considered fairly, open-mindedly and by applying various criteria and criticisms reasonably and consistent to all suspects. But is that what we get from some quarters?

No one else saw or heard MacNaugten receiving his ‘private info,’ - so this is a problem.

No one else saw or heard Lawton being told by Feigenbaum that he had a desire to kill and mutilate women, yet this isn’t a problem.

MacNaughten wasn’t a career police officer which makes him incompetent to make any judgment calls, and this is a problem.

Robert Anderson also wasn’t a career police officer, but that isn’t a problem.

We have no way of confirming the validity of MacNaghten’s private information, and that is a problem.

Not one single officer, apart from Anderson and his subordinate mentions or confirms that any identification of the ripper ever occurred, and this isn’t a problem.

The minor errors like calling Druitt a Doctor and saying he was 41 instead of 31 are a big problem.

The discrepancies in what Anderson said about Kosminski and what is known to have occurred apparently isn’t a problem.

Druitt can’t be physically placed in Whitechapel and that is a problem.

Feigenbaum can’t even be placed in the country and that isn’t a problem.

Druitt wasn’t known to have been violent and that is a problem.

Apart from brandishing a knife at his sister (in law?) but not actually harming her we have no evidence that Kosminski was ever violent and that is no problem.

Druitt had no known links to women which meant that he might have been gay which is a problem.

Kosminski had no known link to women but that isn’t a problem.

Druitt was dead when Mackenzie died and this is a problem.

Kosminski was in Colney Hatch when Coles was murdered but this isn’t a problem.


Does anyone see a kind of pattern here?

Perhaps I’m expecting too much from some?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve asked this before but why is it that on the subject of Druitt some posters are so desperate to dismiss him that it leads them to manipulate, ignore and lie. They twist, bend, contort and distort in all manner of frankly embarrassing ways. WHY?

Some posters need to stop being dishonest and utterly embarrassingly pathetic and get a grip. Some don’t find Druitt a strong suspect. Fine, who cares, so what. We’ve heard your boring nonsense a million times over. If your not interested in this particular part of the case why don’t you do the whole Ripperological world a favour and simply let it go and make posts on stamp collecting or badger grooming. I know that your humongous egos might not allow this or that you that your trolling hobby might be ruined but that’s just tough. If you have to resort to making things up to make your points then rock bottom has long ago been scraped.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
>>cant even be placed in england during autumn of terror

Wrong, his ship was there, and it may still possible to track him down

No, Abby is 100% correct. He cannot, repeat cannot be placed in England at the time.

The kind of desperate invention that some posters have to resort to on this subject.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
>>accused by his lawyer lol

This is a strong evidence against him so your lol is Wrong

Without his Lawyers ‘statement’ no one would have mention him. There isn’t a single, solitary fact that connects him to the Whitechapel murders. The fact that he was a murderer in America doesn’t qualify.

He murdered a non-prostitute.
Not in the streets.
In a room where someone else was present.
He didn’t mutilate.

In America.

More desperation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
>>and whos death coincides with the end of the c5.

The c5 is a term created by Macnaghten himself to support his theory, Mckenzie murder rules Druitt out, so Wrong again.

100% untrue.

Another desperate invention by claiming as a certainty (Mackenzie as a victim) when it’s unknown.

The kind of desperate invention that some posters have to resort to on this subject.