Was Jack or (were Jack’s) schizophrenic?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think your personal comments are completely unwarranted.

Why do you class any criticism as personal? All that I’ve said is that we should exercise caution when making deductions and interpretations because every one of us is capable of interpreting incorrectly. You on the other hand appear totally confident that every one of your interpretations are correct. Over-confidence is the issue.

I would like to be taken seriously by people whose opinion I value.

And that’s fine, whoever those people are, but you keep claiming to know things that you can’t possibly know.

All the biographies of serial killers are of murderers who at one time were unidentified murderers.

Yes, and if they hadn’t been caught and interviewed, we might never have known anything about their childhood or their general behaviour growing up. And as we can’t know what Druitt might or might not have done in childhood or what he did in private we shouldn’t make assumptions.

The police were not looking for someone like Druitt.

And what did the Victorian police know about serial killers? Pretty much nothing. If they had interviewed someone like Ted Bundy would they, without evidence, have thought it remotely possible that he could have been the killer? Not a chance.

When the murderers were identified, the vast majority fitted the usual profiles in terms of background, interests, behaviour, education, criminal record and occupation.

Druitt does not fit at all.

He is the very opposite of a serial murderer.

Thats a meaningless sentence.

We are not dealing with a lottery.

Profiling isn’t an exact science. It’s a series of generalities. Not all serial killers are the same. If we adopt a ‘detection by numbers’ approach we are in danger of ignoring killers that don’t fit into that neat little box. You can’t accurately profile a man 134 years after his death with no details to go on. All we have are pieces of ‘surface’ information. Killers can appear perfectly normal on the surface to those around them so how much greater is the issue of assessment 134 years later and with a complete absence of information.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Forget serial killer history. What we’re talking about here is reason, logic and common sense.

You know absolutely zero about Druitt’s childhood. None of us do. So you are making an unfounded claim.

Why the hell can’t you understand what I’m saying. All of the serial killers in the books that you’ve read (and we’ve all read loads of books on the subject) were all caught. So there lives were then looked into. They were questioned and interviewed. This never happened with Druitt or indeed any ripper suspect so we can’t say what Druitt did or didn’t do as a child. Nor can we say it of Kosminski or Bury or whoever. But you persistently claim to ‘know’ something that you can’t possibly know an every time that you do this your credibility takes a nosedive.

If you want to be taken seriously (and for all I know you might not want to be taken seriously) then you really, and I mean really need to stop stating your opinions as if they are proven facts. It doesn’t matter what you’ve based your opinions on or how you’ve arrived at your deductions they are still only your own personal interpretations. There’s nothing wrong with interpretations because we all do it but we don’t all claim them as facts.

Do you ever consider that you might be wrong on any issue? Because you give the overwhelming impression that you don’t and that you are convinced that because you’ve ‘deduced’ something then it must be correct.

I think your personal comments are completely unwarranted.

I would like to be taken seriously by people whose opinion I value.

All the biographies of serial killers are of murderers who at one time were unidentified murderers.

The police were not looking for someone like Druitt.

When the murderers were identified, the vast majority fitted the usual profiles in terms of background, interests, behaviour, education, criminal record and occupation.

Druitt does not fit at all.

He is the very opposite of a serial murderer.

We are not dealing with a lottery.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I refer you to Trevor Marriott's post of a few weeks ago in which he said that he had recently read the profiles of more than 60 serial killers and not found a single one remotely similar to Aaron Kosminski's.

I have recently read more than a hundred and there is not the slightest resemblance between them and Druitt's.

After a while, it becomes pretty obvious that there are patterns, in terms of family background, interests, behaviour, criminal record, and occupation.

Those warning signs are completely absent in Druitt's case.

I suggest that anyone who doubts what I am writing do the same as I did and read the biographies of real serial killers.

Forget serial killer history. What we’re talking about here is reason, logic and common sense.

You know absolutely zero about Druitt’s childhood. None of us do. So you are making an unfounded claim.

Why the hell can’t you understand what I’m saying. All of the serial killers in the books that you’ve read (and we’ve all read loads of books on the subject) were all caught. So there lives were then looked into. They were questioned and interviewed. This never happened with Druitt or indeed any ripper suspect so we can’t say what Druitt did or didn’t do as a child. Nor can we say it of Kosminski or Bury or whoever. But you persistently claim to ‘know’ something that you can’t possibly know an every time that you do this your credibility takes a nosedive.

If you want to be taken seriously (and for all I know you might not want to be taken seriously) then you really, and I mean really need to stop stating your opinions as if they are proven facts. It doesn’t matter what you’ve based your opinions on or how you’ve arrived at your deductions they are still only your own personal interpretations. There’s nothing wrong with interpretations because we all do it but we don’t all claim them as facts.

Do you ever consider that you might be wrong on any issue? Because you give the overwhelming impression that you don’t and that you are convinced that because you’ve ‘deduced’ something then it must be correct.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

I refer you to Trevor Marriott's post of a few weeks ago in which he said that he had recently read the profiles of more than 60 serial killers and not found a single one remotely similar to Aaron Kosminski's.

I have recently read more than a hundred and there is not the slightest resemblance between them and Druitt's.

After a while, it becomes pretty obvious that there are patterns, in terms of family background, interests, behaviour, criminal record, and occupation.

Those warning signs are completely absent in Druitt's case.

I suggest that anyone who doubts what I am writing do the same as I did and read the biographies of real serial killers.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We have a different attitude toward evidence.

Yes. You appear to make it up as you go along.

I am not looking for proof that someone was not a serial murderer.

It is enough that Druitt's 'profile' is definitely not that of a serial killer or an animal torturer.

Not nearly enough.

What I am looking for is a profile that fits that of a serial killer.

Quite obviously, Druitt, Sickert and Lechmere's do not.

Neither does Kosminski's.

You are trying to play ‘detection by numbers.’ As if you can solve crimes by the application of equations. Profiles are not conclusive. They are generalisations.

To claim that Druitt couldn’t have tortured animals is nonsense. Not all killers tortured animals for a start. But the point is that you appear not to be able to accept a point of reason. And that is that you can’t make a positive claim of something when we have no evidence to go on.

Theres no point in discussing this further if you can’t accept this very obvious point.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

We have a different attitude toward evidence.

I am not looking for proof that someone was not a serial murderer.

It is enough that Druitt's 'profile' is definitely not that of a serial killer or an animal torturer.

What I am looking for is a profile that fits that of a serial killer.

Quite obviously, Druitt, Sickert and Lechmere's do not.

Neither does Kosminski's.

[Ms Diddles]

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.

Also, where would one expect to find a record of such activities?

Unless a letter was discovered from a family member or colleague stating something along the lines of "Caught Montie trying to pull the legs off a frog down by the pond yet again. Sigh! When will he ever learn that such behaviour is most unseemly," I just don't see how we would ever know.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.