Was Jack or (were Jack’s) schizophrenic?

[Aethelwulf]

You can tell from that photo that Kosminski's brother had a fair moustache, but Lawende wouldn't know when he saw someone in real life whether his moustache was fair?

You'll get a lot less grief if you stop presenting opinions as fact.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You can tell from that photo that Kosminski's brother had a fair moustache, but Lawende wouldn't know when he saw someone in real life whether his moustache was fair?

If he couldn’t identify the colour of his moustache correctly why do you assume that he got his hair right which was partially covered by a cap?

And do you deny the fact that light can affect someone’s interpretation of colour?

Oh, and do you admit that you were wrong about the brothers dark moustache?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You'll get a lot less grief if you stop presenting opinions as fact.

And I suppose you don't present your opinions as facts?

You didn't write that you disagree with me.

You wrote a single word: 'Wrong'.

It's not a question of whether I get 'grief'.

It's a question of whether one can hold a normal conversation, which you evidently cannot.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If he couldn’t identify the colour of his moustache correctly why do you assume that he have got his hair right which was partially covered by a cap?

And do you deny the fact that light can affect someone’s interpretation of colour?

Oh, and do you admit that you were wrong about the brothers dark moustache?

You said the moustache could have looked lighter than it was because of the street lighting.

You have also said that Lawende could not have got a good look at the man because of the poor lighting.

You're the one one who has some explaining to do.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I wrote in another post, you claimed that the moustache may have looked lighter than it was because of the lighting, but that Lawende's evidence is questionable because of the poor street lighting.

And you say that I 'refuse to use logic and reason'!

Lighting affects perception of colour. This is an absolutely proven scientific fact which you are denying.

You complained - as has become customary here - that I made an invalid 'assumption' that Nichols' was the first murder.

That is nonsense.

Most researchers share my opinion.

Do they? A poll conducted on here in 2009 said that 69.15% felt that she was a victim whilst 30.85% said that she wasn’t. You are quite free to try another poll and the results might be different of course but I doubt whether the result would be anywhere near as clear cut as you assume.


Excuse me, but I wrote that most researchers share my opinion and your refutation of what I wrote is that only 69.15 percent of them share my opinion!

And you say I'M the one who refuses 'to use logic and reason'!

Again, you’ve failed to read properly. 69.15% disagree with you that Nichols was the first victim. They don’t agree with you.


You appear to believe ... that others should simply agree with you.

What is the point of a remark like that?

Because it’s true.

…..

So to sum up.

You got the colour of Kosminski’s brothers moustache wrong.

You got the fact that 69.15% disagreed that Nichols was the first victim wrong.

You refuse to accept the proven fact about the perception of colour and light.

You’ve provided no evidence that a coat described as ‘salt and pepper; was specifically worn by sailors.

You deny the fact that a hat and coat doesn’t prove someone’s occupation.

You claim that it’s proof that Druitt couldn’t have been the killer because he was far too busy.

You also think it’s proven logically that if a man is in x on the 30th and x on the 1st then he must have been in x on the 31st.

And you think that because, 134 years on, we can’t prove that an individual was a psychopath then we should eliminate him as a suspect.

And you get touchy when questioned about any of this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

• There is no reference to hair colour with Lawende's man, only facial hair. I have provided you with an actual example of a real man, stood in a real court room, being described as having a mustache that is a different colour to his hair. Described as inclined to 'sandy' or. ........'fair' with dark brown hair. Fair does not unequivocally mean blond. Therefore Koz could have had a fair mustache and dark hair, as the example I gave you.
• As H said, lighting can make a difference

Simple really, fair does not definitely mean blond, as a necktie and peaked cap does not mean a sailor.

That reminds me of something Wellington once said when someone said that he was Irish because he was born in Ireland. He said “if I had been born in a stable would that make me a horse!”

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Because it’s true.

…..

So to sum up.

You got the colour of Kosminski’s brothers moustache wrong.

You got the fact that 69.15% disagreed that Nichols was the first victim wrong.

And you get touchy when questioned about any of this.

You got the colour of Kosminski’s brothers moustache wrong.


I didn't get the colour wrong.

It is a thin dark moustache.

That doesn't make me wrong and you know it.



You got the fact that 69.15% disagreed that Nichols was the first victim wrong.


You're the one who is wrong about that.

You yourself stated that 69.15% agreed with me.



You refuse to accept the proven fact about the perception of colour and light.

You refuse to explain how the moustache could have looked 'lighter' than it really was in what you claim was poor lighting.




And you get touchy when questioned about any of this.

It appears that you get to decide what constitutes a fact. what is true, what constitutes presentation of an opinion as fact, and what amounts to getting touchy when being questioned about something.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You got the colour of Kosminski’s brothers moustache wrong.


I didn't get the colour wrong.

It is a thin dark moustache.

That doesn't make me wrong and you know it.

And yet you yourself said:

“You can tell from that photo that Kosminski's brother had a fair moustache.”

Make your mind up.



You got the fact that 69.15% disagreed that Nichols was the first victim wrong.


You're the one who is wrong about that.

You yourself stated that 69.15% agreed with me.

I posted the link for a reason and you still ignored it. The poll was about Tabram. 69.15% believed that she was a victim - disagreeing with your statement that most people believed that Nichols was the first.



You refuse to accept the proven fact about the perception of colour and light.

You refuse to explain how the moustache could have looked 'lighter' than it really was in what you claim was poor lighting.

They were standing under a lamp. It’s not difficult stuff PI.


And you get touchy when questioned about any of this.

It appears that you get to decide what constitutes a fact. what is true, what constitutes presentation of an opinion as fact, and what amounts to getting touchy when being questioned about something.

Well, I was right on the above three where you claimed that I was wrong.

Have you come up with that evidence about the coat yet? I’ve asked three times after all.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well, I was right on the above three where you claimed that I was wrong.

Have you come up with that evidence about the coat yet? I’ve asked three times after all.

You got the colour of Kosminski’s brothers moustache wrong.


I didn't get the colour wrong.

It is a thin dark moustache.

That doesn't make me wrong and you know it.

And yet you yourself said:

“You can tell from that photo that Kosminski's brother had a fair moustache.”

Make your mind up.




You really have come out in your true colours - haven't you?

You're twisting what I said in # 75.

I wrote:

You can tell from that photo that Kosminski's brother had a fair moustache, but Lawende wouldn't know when he saw someone in real life whether his moustache was fair?


I was referring to your perception that the moustache was fair.

You're just playing a game, in which a moustache of a dark-haired man miraculously becomes fair, and the suspect's fair moustache miraculously becomes dark because of 'poor' lighting that becomes bright when you want it to be bright.


Your comments are a combination of condescension, twisting, and baiting.

I have no intention of responding to any more of your provocations.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You got the colour of Kosminski’s brothers moustache wrong.


I didn't get the colour wrong.

It is a thin dark moustache.

That doesn't make me wrong and you know it.

And yet you yourself said:

“You can tell from that photo that Kosminski's brother had a fair moustache.”

Make your mind up.




You really have come out in your true colours - haven't you?

You're twisting what I said in # 75.

I wrote:

You can tell from that photo that Kosminski's brother had a fair moustache, but Lawende wouldn't know when he saw someone in real life whether his moustache was fair?


I was referring to your perception that the moustache was fair.

You're just playing a game, in which a moustache of a dark-haired man miraculously becomes fair, and the suspect's fair moustache miraculously becomes dark because of 'poor' lighting that becomes bright when you want it to be bright.


Your comments are a combination of condescension, twisting, and baiting.

I have no intention of responding to any more of your provocations.

A remarkable reaction but a not unexpected one. As I’ve asked you very politely three times for the evidence about the coat that Lawende mentioned (well, more the colour of a coat really) I was wondering how you might get out of responding? So you’re using the “I’m not talking to you anymore tactic.” Fine.

Everything that I’ve said to you on this thread has been entirely reasonable and without anger or insult. All that I’ve ‘accused’ you of is of assuming things to be true when there might be other, perhaps more likely, explanations and of presenting your own opinions and interpretations as if they are proven fact. I’ve been taken aback by your over-reaction and I don’t think that I’m alone in that surprise. You’ve posted on a few threads and each is pretty much the same kind of thing with you.

I was hoping for an answer about the coat though because I was interested in the answer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok, it looks like I’m getting no answer to my politely asked and about the salt and pepper coat so I’ll sum up and I’ll do it calmly, and without bias….

This was the claim from PI:

“As I said earlier, I believe one of the reasons that Lawende said that the suspect had the appearance of a sailor was that he was wearing a pepper and salt coloured loose fitting jacket, which was commonly worn by sailors.”

I have never said that the coat couldn’t have been one commonly worn by sailors only that I knew of no evidence of such a coat being common to sailors. Therefore I requested evidence confirming this.

Up to this point in time no evidence has been provided that a coat described as ‘salt and pepper’ was specifically connected to sailors. It was a simple enough request after all. I’ve looked online and can find no evidence of any coat of that description or name but of course that doesn’t mean that one doesn't exist, but if PI is stating this as evidence then the onus is on him to back up this claim. If it is indeed the case that no evidence for this exists then it can only have been assumption on his part without basis in fact.

Furthermore, if this is the case, then this leaves only the wearing of peaked cap as a reason why Lawende said that the man with Eddowes looked like a sailor which, as I’m sure that everyone would agree, is a stretch of the imagination to say the least.

I’m happy to leave it at that.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

There’s no evidence that Druitt liked cheese either so would you say that he couldn’t have eaten cheese. When will you get this? Just because we have no evidence of him being a psychopath doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have been one. Look at Bundy as an example. You’re asking the impossible. If Druitt was guilty and he’d been caught and then interviewed how do you know what they would or wouldn’t have discovered?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bundy occasionally exhibited disturbing behavior at an early age. Louise's younger sister Julia recalled awakening from a nap to find herself surrounded by knives from the kitchen, and three-year-old Ted standing by the bed, smiling.^[22] Bundy's childhood neighbor Sandi Holt described him as a bully, saying, "He liked to terrify people... He liked to be in charge. He liked to inflict pain and suffering and fear."^[23]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy

Now take a look at Druitt's Wikipedia entry.

Apart from the unfortunate mental illness, it is a biography any of us would be proud of if it were ours.

It is quite obvious that he didn't torture animals as a child nor murder women in adulthood.

It is the same with any serial murderer you care to look at.

They look completely different from Druitt.

Here are some examples of serial murderers who tortured animals:



PETER KUERTEN


Peter Kürten was born into a poverty-stricken, abusive family in Mülheim am Rhein on 26 May 1883, the oldest of thirteen children (two of whom died at an early age).[9] Kürten's parents were both alcoholics who lived in a one-bedroom apartment,[10] and Kürten's father frequently beat his wife and children, particularly when he was drunk. When intoxicated, Kürten's father often forced his wife and children to assemble before him before ordering his wife to strip naked and engage in intercourse with him as his children watched.[11] He was jailed for eighteen months in 1897 for repeatedly raping his eldest daughter,[12] who was aged 13.[13] Shortly thereafter, Kürten's mother obtained a separation order, and later remarried and relocated to Düsseldorf.[14]

In 1888, Kürten attempted to drown one of his playmates. Four years later, he befriended a local dog-catcher who lived in the same building as his family, and began accompanying him on his rounds. This individual often tortured and killed the animals he caught, and Kürten soon became an active and willing participant in torturing the animals.[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_K%C3%BCrten

DOES THIS SOUND EVEN REMOTELY LIKE MONTAGUE DRUITT??



RUDOLF PLEIL


Known as Der Totmacher, at the age of nine, Pleil had to support his parents through border smuggling and was repeatedly arrested.
In 1939, when he was 15, he left home and began working as a butcher, but quit after a few weeks. He worked as a shipboy on barges on the Elbe and Oder.
In the summer of 1939 he was hired as a machine boy on a merchant ship to South America.
Pleil became a cook in a labor camp, where he killed and ate cats.

DOES HE COMPARE IN ANY WAY WITH DRUITT?



FRANK GUST


Frank Gust (born May 24, 1969 in Oberhausen) is a German serial killer. He has been dubbed Rhein-Ruhr-Ripper by the media, because his actions show similarities with Jack the Ripper and mainly committed in the Rhine-Ruhr region in western Germany.

Gust is classified as a sexual sadist. At a very young age, he showed a tendency to commit animal abuse. He experienced lust by torturing, killing and gutting animals. At age 13 he broke into morgues to act out his necrophiliac inclinations. After he was arrested, Gust stated that his greatest desire was to touch the beating heart of a dying woman.

He killed at least four women, including two prostitutes.

DOES HE SEEM LIKE DRUITT?




MARC HOFFMAN


Marc Hoffmann was born the son of a former sailor and a nurse in Plettenberg in the Sauerland.
Hoffmann was teased during his school years due to his strong preponderance, his bow-legs and a speech disorder rendering him an outsider.[1]
After completing elementary school, Hoffmann attended secondary school. His academic achievements were below average, which is why he had to repeat a grade in both elementary and secondary school. At the age of 16, Hoffmann dropped out of secondary school after completing the eighth grade.[1]

Hoffman worked in a construction yard for eleven months. Hoffmann spent his spare time increasingly playing first-person shooters, at this time also developing a fondness for violence and horror films. Hoffmann soon discovered his sexually sadistic inclinations and began to torment and kill frogs and mice that he himself caught.[1]


DOES HE SEEM LIKE DRUITT?




Note that Pleil was a sailor and Gust's father was a sailor, but whenever I point out the connection between the merchant navy and the Whitechapel murders, I am ridiculed.

I would point out that none of Kuerten, Pleil, Gust or Hoffmann was a schoolteacher, none of them was a lawyer, none of them played cricket, and none of them came from a long line of doctors, although they may have come from a long line of sadists.

It is obvious that Druitt did not torture animals.

One need only read through the biographies of a couple of hundred serial killers - as I have done - to see that Druitt could not possibly have been the Whitechapel Murderer.

[Ms Diddles]

It is the same with any serial murderer you care to look at.

They look completely different from Druitt.

Here are some examples of serial murderers who tortured animals:



PETER KUERTEN


Peter Kürten was born into a poverty-stricken, abusive family in Mülheim am Rhein on 26 May 1883, the oldest of thirteen children (two of whom died at an early age).[9] Kürten's parents were both alcoholics who lived in a one-bedroom apartment,[10] and Kürten's father frequently beat his wife and children, particularly when he was drunk. When intoxicated, Kürten's father often forced his wife and children to assemble before him before ordering his wife to strip naked and engage in intercourse with him as his children watched.[11] He was jailed for eighteen months in 1897 for repeatedly raping his eldest daughter,[12] who was aged 13.[13] Shortly thereafter, Kürten's mother obtained a separation order, and later remarried and relocated to Düsseldorf.[14]

In 1888, Kürten attempted to drown one of his playmates. Four years later, he befriended a local dog-catcher who lived in the same building as his family, and began accompanying him on his rounds. This individual often tortured and killed the animals he caught, and Kürten soon became an active and willing participant in torturing the animals.[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_K%C3%BCrten

DOES THIS SOUND EVEN REMOTELY LIKE MONTAGUE DRUITT??



RUDOLF PLEIL


Known as Der Totmacher, at the age of nine, Pleil had to support his parents through border smuggling and was repeatedly arrested.
In 1939, when he was 15, he left home and began working as a butcher, but quit after a few weeks. He worked as a shipboy on barges on the Elbe and Oder.
In the summer of 1939 he was hired as a machine boy on a merchant ship to South America.
Pleil became a cook in a labor camp, where he killed and ate cats.

DOES HE COMPARE IN ANY WAY WITH DRUITT?



FRANK GUST


Frank Gust (born May 24, 1969 in Oberhausen) is a German serial killer. He has been dubbed Rhein-Ruhr-Ripper by the media, because his actions show similarities with Jack the Ripper and mainly committed in the Rhine-Ruhr region in western Germany.

Gust is classified as a sexual sadist. At a very young age, he showed a tendency to commit animal abuse. He experienced lust by torturing, killing and gutting animals. At age 13 he broke into morgues to act out his necrophiliac inclinations. After he was arrested, Gust stated that his greatest desire was to touch the beating heart of a dying woman.

He killed at least four women, including two prostitutes.

DOES HE SEEM LIKE DRUITT?




MARC HOFFMAN


Marc Hoffmann was born the son of a former sailor and a nurse in Plettenberg in the Sauerland.
Hoffmann was teased during his school years due to his strong preponderance, his bow-legs and a speech disorder rendering him an outsider.[1]
After completing elementary school, Hoffmann attended secondary school. His academic achievements were below average, which is why he had to repeat a grade in both elementary and secondary school. At the age of 16, Hoffmann dropped out of secondary school after completing the eighth grade.[1]

Hoffman worked in a construction yard for eleven months. Hoffmann spent his spare time increasingly playing first-person shooters, at this time also developing a fondness for violence and horror films. Hoffmann soon discovered his sexually sadistic inclinations and began to torment and kill frogs and mice that he himself caught.[1]


DOES HE SEEM LIKE DRUITT?




Note that Pleil was a sailor and Gust's father was a sailor, but whenever I point out the connection between the merchant navy and the Whitechapel murders, I am ridiculed.

I would point out that none of Kuerten, Pleil, Gust or Hoffmann was a schoolteacher, none of them was a lawyer, none of them played cricket, and none of them came from a long line of doctors, although they may have come from a long line of sadists.

It is obvious that Druitt did not torture animals.

One need only read through the biographies of a couple of hundred serial killers - as I have done - to see that Druitt could not possibly have been the Whitechapel Murderer.

I'm sorry PI, but I am really struggling to follow your logic on this one.

You've provided a list of serial killers who, it has been established tortured animals and then compared this to Druitt's fairly illustrious biography on Wikipedia.

Just because there is nothing there that is indicative of him being cruel to animals does not mean it didn't happen, it simply means that it is not an established fact that he indulged in such vices.

Unless he was caught in the act, and it was recorded somewhere we would never know.

The chances of him being caught and in that case it being recorded somewhere for posterity must be staggeringly slim.

Therefore it is not "obvious that Druitt did not torture animals" all we can say is that there is nothing recorded to confirm that he did.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is the same with any serial murderer you care to look at.

They look completely different from Druitt.

Here are some examples of serial murderers who tortured animals:



PETER KUERTEN


Peter Kürten was born into a poverty-stricken, abusive family in Mülheim am Rhein on 26 May 1883, the oldest of thirteen children (two of whom died at an early age).[9] Kürten's parents were both alcoholics who lived in a one-bedroom apartment,[10] and Kürten's father frequently beat his wife and children, particularly when he was drunk. When intoxicated, Kürten's father often forced his wife and children to assemble before him before ordering his wife to strip naked and engage in intercourse with him as his children watched.[11] He was jailed for eighteen months in 1897 for repeatedly raping his eldest daughter,[12] who was aged 13.[13] Shortly thereafter, Kürten's mother obtained a separation order, and later remarried and relocated to Düsseldorf.[14]

In 1888, Kürten attempted to drown one of his playmates. Four years later, he befriended a local dog-catcher who lived in the same building as his family, and began accompanying him on his rounds. This individual often tortured and killed the animals he caught, and Kürten soon became an active and willing participant in torturing the animals.[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_K%C3%BCrten

DOES THIS SOUND EVEN REMOTELY LIKE MONTAGUE DRUITT??



RUDOLF PLEIL


Known as Der Totmacher, at the age of nine, Pleil had to support his parents through border smuggling and was repeatedly arrested.
In 1939, when he was 15, he left home and began working as a butcher, but quit after a few weeks. He worked as a shipboy on barges on the Elbe and Oder.
In the summer of 1939 he was hired as a machine boy on a merchant ship to South America.
Pleil became a cook in a labor camp, where he killed and ate cats.

DOES HE COMPARE IN ANY WAY WITH DRUITT?



FRANK GUST


Frank Gust (born May 24, 1969 in Oberhausen) is a German serial killer. He has been dubbed Rhein-Ruhr-Ripper by the media, because his actions show similarities with Jack the Ripper and mainly committed in the Rhine-Ruhr region in western Germany.

Gust is classified as a sexual sadist. At a very young age, he showed a tendency to commit animal abuse. He experienced lust by torturing, killing and gutting animals. At age 13 he broke into morgues to act out his necrophiliac inclinations. After he was arrested, Gust stated that his greatest desire was to touch the beating heart of a dying woman.

He killed at least four women, including two prostitutes.

DOES HE SEEM LIKE DRUITT?




MARC HOFFMAN


Marc Hoffmann was born the son of a former sailor and a nurse in Plettenberg in the Sauerland.
Hoffmann was teased during his school years due to his strong preponderance, his bow-legs and a speech disorder rendering him an outsider.[1]
After completing elementary school, Hoffmann attended secondary school. His academic achievements were below average, which is why he had to repeat a grade in both elementary and secondary school. At the age of 16, Hoffmann dropped out of secondary school after completing the eighth grade.[1]

Hoffman worked in a construction yard for eleven months. Hoffmann spent his spare time increasingly playing first-person shooters, at this time also developing a fondness for violence and horror films. Hoffmann soon discovered his sexually sadistic inclinations and began to torment and kill frogs and mice that he himself caught.[1]


DOES HE SEEM LIKE DRUITT?




Note that Pleil was a sailor and Gust's father was a sailor, but whenever I point out the connection between the merchant navy and the Whitechapel murders, I am ridiculed.

I would point out that none of Kuerten, Pleil, Gust or Hoffmann was a schoolteacher, none of them was a lawyer, none of them played cricket, and none of them came from a long line of doctors, although they may have come from a long line of sadists.

It is obvious that Druitt did not torture animals.

One need only read through the biographies of a couple of hundred serial killers - as I have done - to see that Druitt could not possibly have been the Whitechapel Murderer.

Ive explained this to you but you simply aren’t getting it. The killers that you mention were all identified. Their lives were then investigate and they themselves were interviewed. This never happened with the Whitechapel Murderer whoever he was. You could say ‘ you clearly didn’t torture animals as a child because you appeared to have had a very normal childhood.’ I certainly did, but you can’t state this as a fact. How can you possibly know what I or anyone else got up to as a child? It’s simplistic in the extreme just to say ‘well x had a normal looking life so he couldn’t have become a serial killer.’ To be honest PI I’m at a loss to see why you can’t grasp this point. Of course Druitt might have had a perfectly blameless childhood but as we have no detailed record of his childhood then it cannot be stated as a fact. How do you know that if Druitt was guilty and had been interviewed that he wouldn’t have confessed to torturing animals? Let’s face it, he wouldn’t have done it in the family dining room would he? This would apply to any suspect.

We simply can’t claim something as a proven fact when no investigation was ever done that might have uncovered such details.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm sorry PI, but I am really struggling to follow your logic on this one.

You've provided a list of serial killers who, it has been established tortured animals and then compared this to Druitt's fairly illustrious biography on Wikipedia.

Just because there is nothing there that is indicative of him being cruel to animals does not mean it didn't happen, it simply means that it is not an established fact that he indulged in such vices.

Unless he was caught in the act, and it was recorded somewhere we would never know.

The chances of him being caught and in that case it being recorded somewhere for posterity must be staggeringly slim.

Therefore it is not "obvious that Druitt did not torture animals" all we can say is that there is nothing recorded to confirm that he did.

Exactly Ms D. I can’t understand how this point can be made either. Information is unlikely to have been discovered if no one looked.