Official Integrity (Off-Topic Discussion moved from Suspect thread)

[Adam Went]

Monty:

The only thing I can recommend you to do in regards to the Eddowes discussion is to go back through the original column and then the subsequent discussion, medical and scientific and logical fact was provided to you and everybody else in spades, not just by myself. If you still insist on being in denial and refuse to accept that it's the truth, then that's your own problem to deal with, because to the best of my knowledge you are the ONLY one who refuses to accept it as at least a strong possibility.

The difference between Macnaghten and the authors/researchers you name is the fact that the latter all at least attempted to uncover evidence to prove their respective suspects guilty, and believed that it was the case, whereas what you're saying in Macnaghten's case is that he just essentially plucked names from a hat because they were convenient and sounded good, made completely and throughly false accusations against them with a whole lot of misinformation when it would have been so simple for a man in his position to be so more accurate, just for the sake of it, and was still essentially singing the same tune 20 years later.....and yet he never actually suspected any one 'suspect'? Really? When you look at it like that, surely you will forgive my being uncertain of this idea.

And all in an attempt to defend Cutbush, who was certainly no angel with a halo compared to Druitt and Kosminski, was he?

No matter which way you want to slice it, Macnaghten was in the wrong. Even if it ever should come out that Druitt or Kosminski was JTR, it'll be no thanks to the efforts and information of Macnaghten that it is so.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Monty]

There's no need Adam,

I know full well what you provided. A handful of supposition and a leap in the imagination. You provided no 'fact' (comparing against your own drunken experiences is hardly labatory conditions) with regards Eddowes directly and concluded based on personal belief. Still, to be fair, the columns title alluded to such so I guess you stuck to the remit which was just your mere opinion.

However....

No, that's not what I'm saying. Its fairly clear you have a problem in comprehending what I am saying about Macnaghten, as you continue to use words such as 'suspects' and 'accusations'.

In the MM, Macnaghten presented the other 3 as more like likely than Cutbush, he doesn't present them as Jack the Ripper. (Though the Aberconway version he clearly states Druitt is favoured as a personal belief indicating an aknowledgement in lack of evidence, in a document quite clearly not intended for public viewing, at that stage anyway.)

In his book he doesn't name any individual at all.

Now whatever you views on the right or wrongs of his actions, some of which I actually agree with you, the simple fact his he does not directly name a suspect. He presents 3 possibilities and alludes to one. He is passing opinion, he clearly states he is passing opinion.

He is no different from a handful of others.

Monty

[Adam Went]

Monty:

There is a vast difference between fact being presented and fact being deliberately ignored. Anybody who looks at the case with no agenda of any kind in the forefront of their mind, must see that it is impossible that Eddowes was in any condition to be roaming the streets that night, and it could so easily have been prevented.

Besides, as you say, it is an opinion column, designed to put forth fresh suggestions and set off some discussions - not a scientific masterpiece. It achieved its objective and that's all that can be asked for.

In his memoirs, Macnaghten doesn't need to 'name' a suspect to be able to see where his beliefs lie. If Cutbush was being considered a potential suspect when the memorandum was written - and is indeed the reason why the memorandum was written in the first place - then it is a perfectly logical assumption that Macnaghten, in his own mind anyway, believed that Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog all had better cases against them for being JTR than Cutbush did. Would you agree with that much?

Whatever path he takes, Macnaghten makes himself no better....

If he was naming these men because he saw them as genuine suspects, then what i've been saying is correct and he chose the safety first path.

If he was naming these men because of the allegations against Cutbush and the connections that he had, then his views are prejudiced.

If he was naming these men just for the sake of doing it, like pulling raffle tickets from a barrel, then his conduct was reckless and unreasonable.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Monty]

Adam,

Again, as you've no idea of what Eddowes drank, her health, her resistance to drink nor her condition when she was released, you cannot state that she was in an unacceptable state with any certainty.

Anyone with a reasoned and logical mind will see you are spouting a personal belief and not ascertained fact.

You acknowledge Macnaghten doesn't name a suspect, contradicting what you stated earlier.

It was a misleading statement as there is a difference between bona fida suspect and stating a personal belief.

Macnaghten never named a suspect, to state otherwise is misleading and sways opinion, as it has done in your case.

Monty

[lynn cates]

the fall of roam

Hello Adam.

"Anybody who looks at the case with no agenda of any kind in the forefront of their mind, must see that it is impossible that Eddowes was in any condition to be roaming the streets that night"

Well spoke. I would have added "had no inclination" for good measure.

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Steady Lynn,

Anyone would take the impression you have an open mind.

Monty

[Abby Normal]

Hi All,

On reflection, perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on Dale Larner.

After all, he's only following in the footsteps of an old established tradition set in train by Macnaghten, Anderson and Swanson.

To wit, picking on someone completely innocent.

Regards,

Simon

I have a major beef with Anderson and his "definitely ascertained fact" that it was a Jew (AK). Among with that there is a whiff of prejudice and alot of boastfulness, it was so irresponsible and potentially dangerous that IMHO he loses all (OK-most)credibility.

To this day people beleive the case was solved in the 80's and that JtR was a Polish Jew. or as my brother-inlaw insists "..some crazy Jew"

[GregBaron]

Christian forgiveness...

I have a major beef with Anderson and his "definitely ascertained fact" that it was a Jew (AK). Among with that there is a whiff of prejudice and alot of boastfulness, it was so irresponsible and potentially dangerous that IMHO he loses all (OK-most)credibility.

To this day people beleive the case was solved in the 80's and that JtR was a Polish Jew. or as my brother-inlaw insists "..some crazy Jew"

Yes Abby, but if in fact it was a crazy Jew, e.g.; J. Levy, then all must be forgiven...



Greg

[DVV]

An extremist anti-Semite would incriminate a normal Jew. The crazy Jew theory only displays moderate anti-Semitism.

[Scott Nelson]

Oh, OK. Now we know.

[Adam Went]

Monty:

Judging from what we do know of Eddowes' character, and the condition that she was found in and taken to Bishopsgate in, it is no leap of faith to make a conclusion as to her condition at the time. That being said, it is then no "borderline" guessing game to state whether or not she was still under the influence - given the handful of hours that had elapsed between arrest and release, it is a certainty that she was still, to some degree, under the influence of alcohol. Was she drunk? No, probably not. But she was absolutely not in any condition to be making her way around the streets, and to release a woman onto the streets during the middle of Jack's reign, still partially intoxicated, was nothing short of irresponsible.....

However, we've already been over this before, and unless you've some fresh evidence (or in fact, to be more precise, any evidence at all) to counter what i've been saying throughout, we had best move on.

Lynn:

Many thanks.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Monty]

Monty:

Judging from what we do know of Eddowes' character, and the condition that she was found in and taken to Bishopsgate in, it is no leap of faith to make a conclusion as to her condition at the time. That being said, it is then no "borderline" guessing game to state whether or not she was still under the influence - given the handful of hours that had elapsed between arrest and release, it is a certainty that she was still, to some degree, under the influence of alcohol. Was she drunk? No, probably not. But she was absolutely not in any condition to be making her way around the streets, and to release a woman onto the streets during the middle of Jack's reign, still partially intoxicated, was nothing short of irresponsible.....

However, we've already been over this before, and unless you've some fresh evidence (or in fact, to be more precise, any evidence at all) to counter what i've been saying throughout, we had best move on.

Lynn:

Many thanks.

Cheers,
Adam.

I have as much evidence as you did Adam, yet you condemned as much as Macnaghten.

Hutt stated she was fit to be released. Hutt with 9 years of experience stated she was sober enough to be released, as was the Citys policy.

What was Eddowes character? Seeing as you knew her so well.

Its these kind of assumptions that cloud and draw supposition as fact. Its damaging to the truth and insulting to peoples reputation dead or alive.

You have done nothing more that the very same thing you accuse Macnaghten of.

Seeing as you obviously have nothing to support you accusation, other than assumption, then I can see why you prefer we move one.

Monty

[Ally]

No, probably not. But she was absolutely not in any condition to be making her way around the streets, and to release a woman onto the streets during the middle of Jack's reign, still partially intoxicated, was nothing short of irresponsible.....

Not only is someone 125 years on less qualified to make an assumption about her degree of sobriety, but it is also ludicrous to make statements like "in the middle of Jack's reign". This is a statement that can only be made with hindsight, as at the time, there was no "middle" to speak of, there was no "Jack", there was no "reign". Two women had been killed weeks ago, and the police were hardly responsible for rounding up every grown woman on the street to keep them safe. Not then, and not now.

[The Good Michael]

I have as much evidence as you did Adam, yet you condemned as much as Macnaghten.

Hutt stated she was fit to be released. Hutt with 9 years of experience stated she was sober enough to be released, as was the Citys policy.

What was Eddowes character? Seeing as you knew her so well.

Its these kind of assumptions that cloud and draw supposition as fact. Its damaging to the truth and insulting to peoples reputation dead or alive.

You have done nothing more that the very same thing you accuse Macnaghten of.

Seeing as you obviously have nothing to support you accusation, other than assumption, then I can see why you prefer we move one.

I agree with all this, yet without this kind of exploration, we couldn't find Hutchinson and Fleming guilty. Just joking. I agree with all you've said here. There is too much of this derogation of policemen and assumptions of how a person was as a human being. The sad part is, it is as if these kinds of things are often brought up for the purpose of supporting a hypothesis that has not yet been put forth; a deceitful foreshadowing if you will. It doesn't mean this is the case here, but I've seen it often enough.

Mike

[lynn cates]

singing my song

Hello Ally.

"at the time, there was no "middle" to speak of, there was no "Jack", there was no "reign". Two women had been killed weeks ago."

Just so. Now you are singing my song.

Cheers.
LC