Most ridiculous suspect

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[Abby Normal]

duplicate

[Abby Normal]

duplicate

[Abby Normal]

duplicate

[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

[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

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Well if we could conclusively prove those points beyond any reasonable doubt it would be a done deal case closed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But because we cannot do that, the whole excercise is to be able to produce sufficient and adequate facts and evidence to make him a suspect, a suspect who by reason of what is known about him in my opinion elevates him above other persons on interest and allows a proper inference to be drawn from what is known.

"Inference" - a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GUT]

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.

And even the quote from his lawyer is a long way from a confession.

when I saw him again I mentioned the Whitechapel murders to which he replied, “The lord was responsible for my acts, and that to him only could I confess.” I was so startled that for the moment I did not know what to do I then looked up the dates of the Whitechapel murders and selected two. When I saw Feigenbaum again and was talking with him I said: "Carl, were you in London from this date to that one," naming those selected. "Yes", he answered, and relapsed into silence. I then communicated with London and discovered that Feigenbaum was also there when other women fell victim to the knife of some mysterious assassin.”

Lawton mentions Whitechapel, he replies “The Lord is responsible for my acts, ….” Confession???

[Trevor Marriott]

And even the quote from his lawyer is a long way from a confession.

when I saw him again I mentioned the Whitechapel murders to which he replied, “The lord was responsible for my acts, and that to him only could I confess.” I was so startled that for the moment I did not know what to do I then looked up the dates of the Whitechapel murders and selected two. When I saw Feigenbaum again and was talking with him I said: "Carl, were you in London from this date to that one," naming those selected. "Yes", he answered, and relapsed into silence. I then communicated with London and discovered that Feigenbaum was also there when other women fell victim to the knife of some mysterious assassin.”

Lawton mentions Whitechapel, he replies “The Lord is responsible for my acts, ….” Confession???

No one has suggested he made a confession !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

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.

Im just curious after the warning from Admin everyone got last week,

Are you on a break?

[JeffHamm]

Getting back to Feigenbaums Lawyers statement to the press which you pour cold water on. I have to ask why would he lie about what was said to him, and what he did because he was in that position where he could have been asked by the press to elaborate and disclose what enquiries he himself had conducted to show Feigenbaum was in London at the time of the murders? If he was in fact lying he was playing a dangerous game, and there are other parts of his statement which have been corroborated.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

He would lie for the same reason McNaughton would lie. You and I both know it doesn't matter if we can prove why these people might lie, all that matters is that we cannot be sure they did not. Without independent confirmation of the truth of their statements then it's just unconfirmed.

And that's what we're mostly left with, a lot of single source bits of information. From an police standpoint, it's mostly "unconfirmed". From a historical perspective, it's mostly "unsubstantiated" - which at least lets us suggest that idea has precedence, or "preferred status" if you will. But, in the end, we really have nothing to pin the tail on the donkey.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

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

Just because there is not physical evidence to show categorically that ..... the private information that MM references was insubstantial .... and you see where this goes I hope?

You can't apply different criterion. Either the evidence is solid, or it's not, and when push comes to shove, there is no solid evidence against any of the suspects. it's all vapour.

- Jeff