Most ridiculous suspect

[FISHY1118]

I’ve no desire to continue discussing anything with you. I dislike dishonesty and distortion. You did it previously and got banned. Stick to your silly conspiracies Fishy. You and The Baron are a well matched pair.

You dislike everything and anybody that doesn't agree wiith you , its your dishonesty and name calling and general insults that you display here that are quite appalling . And now you resort to a previous topic we discussed once befor to avoid and hide your embarrassment. ,because you cant be honest enough to admit you were wrong about calling people clueless when dismissing druitt. Shameful.,Baron called you out on it and you sooked up, thats all there is to it .

[GBinOz]

Then after the last murder of kelly on the 9th Nov goes silent , kills himself on 30th Nov or around the first week of Dec, his suicide note found on him says ''since friday [being the 30th of nov ] . '[I]Since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother, and the best thing for me was to die."

Two things that are why Druitt is my worse suspect list , if he killed the C5 i doubt very much it took since friday Nov 30th to feel like he was going to be like his mother and go insane, and the best thing for me to do is die . Surley after kelly, the killer was well past insane .

Why do you assume ''since friday [being the 30th of nov ]"?? Druitt left his letter at Blackheath when he departed on Saturday 1st Dec, never to return. Who says "since Friday" when referring to the day before? Most people would say "since yesterday". The likely hood is that he was referring to a Friday before 30 Nov, possibly even Friday 9 Nov. It is not known when he wrote the letter, just that it was Saturday 1 Dec or before. I am not a Druitt advocate, but if you are going to mount a relentless campaign against his candidacy you possibly need to be more logical with your strategy.

[FISHY1118]

Why do you assume ''since friday [being the 30th of nov ]"?? Druitt left his letter at Blackheath when he departed on Saturday 1st Dec, never to return. Who says "since Friday" when referring to the day before? Most people would say "since yesterday". The likely hood is that he was referring to a Friday before 30 Nov, possibly even Friday 9 Nov. It is not known when he wrote the letter, just that it was Saturday 1 Dec or before. I am not a Druitt advocate, but if you are going to mount a relentless campaign against his candidacy you possibly need to be more logical with your strategy.

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

[Darryl Kenyon]

Who Herlock?

Anderson or Macnaghten? They can't both have been telling the truth.

Regards,

Simon

In regards to the ripper Simon, they could have both been telling the truth on what they personally believed.

Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

Im not so sure about that Herlock.

As you know, Ive often said all the ripper suspects are weak, some just less weaker than others. But I think weve heard his name.

Out of my list of least weak named ripper suspects- Hutch, Bury, chapman, kelly, Koz, lech, Druitt, one by itself is weak. But its kind of like the saying about one stick is easy to break but a bundle together is hard. Put them all together and I think we have a better chance than not that the ripper is in there. add in names like Barnett, richardson, Bowyer, flemming, tumblety, and it gets a little stronger still. add in all the names associated with the case-other witnesses, police, long shot suspects and id say that number rises to almost a near certainty.

IMHO weve heard his name before.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

You dislike everything and anybody that doesn't agree wiith you ,

Abby and I disagree on how strong Lechmere is a suspect. Do I dislike Abby? - Of course I don’t.
Tristan doesn’t think that Druitt is a particularly good suspect. Do I dislike Tristan? - Of course I don’t.
Aethelwulf and I disagree on the strength of the case against Bury. Do I dislike Wulf? - Of course I don’t.
Daryl doesn’t think that Druitt is a particularly strong suspect. Do I dislike Daryl? - Of course I don’t.
Trevor and I disagree on quite a few things. Do I dislike Trevor? - Of course I don’t.
Iconolclast and I disagree on the diary. Do I dislike Ike? - Of course I don’t.
Erobitha and I disagree on the diary. Do I dislike Erobitha? - Of course I don’t.
George and I have disagreed on issues relating to Berner Street. Do I dislike George? - Of course I don’t.

I could of course extend this very boring list but I won’t. My issue was with you because you are making untrue statements which are clearly contradicted by black and white evidence. And The Baron because he simply follows me from thread to thread making silly Druitt-related comments.

its your dishonesty and name calling and general insults that you display here that are quite appalling .

I’ve called you dishonest and nothing more. And the evidence is in black and white that shows that you are being untruthful. So I’m just stating a fact……unlike you.

And now you resort to a previous topic we discussed once befor to avoid and hide your embarrassment. ,because you cant be honest enough to admit you were wrong about calling people clueless when dismissing druitt. Shameful.,Baron called you out on it and you sooked up, thats all there is to it .

As you keep trying to claim that you know what I’m thinking, as opposed to what I’ve actually said, I’ll tell you what you’re clearly thinking….

”Please stop pointing out the meaning of the phrase ‘out of hand’ but your showing everyone that I’m being dishonest’ “

FROM A DICTIONARY OF PHRASES

. out of hand

2. Without due discussion or consideration.She's s o stubborn that she just rejected my suggestion ou t of hand.We'd like to try some alternative treatm ents. They're a bit unconventional, but please don 'tdismiss them out of hand.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No suspects are without faults and doubts and disagreements of course (including Druitt of course) When we look at Kosminski (who some claim with a degree of over-confidence whilst mocking Druitt) we have to consider those faults and doubts and not gloss over them. He was a man who ate food from the gutter and heard voices in his head. Surely the vast majority of women would have given him the widest of berths had he approached them in the streets? Apart from the incident with his sister (sister-in-law?) we have no evidence of violence against women and no evidence that he frequented prostitutes or had any interest in sex. His only confrontation with the police was the dog walking incident. He was named by a man (Anderson) who has been accused by researches of being unreliable on many issues. He was ‘supported’ by Swanson in a marginalia that some researches (Trevor being one) seriously question the genuineness of. He was ‘identified’ at a highly unorthodox identification parade that was never recorded and that no one but Anderson mentions. Not one other officer has come forward in the preceding years to claim that he was present or even aware of this identification.

I certainly don’t dismiss the Kosminski/Cohen theory but it’s worth pointing these things out when other suspects shortcomings are pointed out. Especially when this ‘pointing out’ is done with such unfounded confidence and glee.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[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!

[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" ?

[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..

[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]

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.

[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.