Reasons why?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You have decided that he’s not credible. That’s purely your own opinion.

It is not purely my own opinion.

He claimed that Druitt was sexually insane.

How could he possibly have known that?

He claimed that Kosminski had strong homicidal tendencies.

Asylum records disprove that.

He claimed that Ostrog was a homicidal maniac.

He was not.

He thought that Druitt was a doctor, which means he could hardly have been aware of the dismissal or the reference to it in the suicide note.

That means that he did not even know the basic facts of the case.

He claimed that Kosminski had a great hatred of prostitutes.

There is no evidence to support that, and he could not possibly have known it to be a fact, yet he stated it as a fact.

He made numerous categorical statements of fact when he could not possibly have known them to be facts.

He did not state them as opinions or suppositions or assumptions.

It is quite obvious that he is not credible.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I’ve shown that you are wrong. Just accept it PI.

I showed a few posts ago that you contradicted yourself, but I haven't noticed any sign that you've accepted it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course it is important, even though it is not a fact.

That is why Macnaghten mentioned it.

It is also important that what Macnaghten wrote is not credible.

You have decided that he’s not credible. That’s purely your own opinion which is of course up to you. I’ve made my own position clear. The idea that Macnaghten named Druitt at random is just…..well, it’s a bit silly imo.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is relevant.

The original point was about barristers having knowledge of the nature of sexual murder.

You said, in post #213 “It seems clear that the mention of barristers relates to criminal lawyers, which excludes Druitt.”


I responded in post 216 “Why does it exclude Druitt?”


You said in post # 217 “Because he was not a criminal lawyer.”



So you were very clearly excluding Druitt because you thought that he wasn’t a criminal lawyer. I’ve shown that you are wrong. Just accept it PI.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes it is because it’s not a fact that’s important to the case.

Of course it is important, even though it is not a fact.

That is why Macnaghten mentioned it.

It is also important that what Macnaghten wrote is not credible.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Thats not relevant PI.

It is relevant.

The original point was about barristers having knowledge of the nature of sexual murder.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is hardly trivial when it is made about someone together with an insinuation that he committed a series of sexual murders.

Yes it is because it’s not a fact that’s important to the case. Anyone thinking back to a conversation can misremember 31 for 41. Or misremember someone’s job. I’d say that the part about potentially being Jack The Ripper would have taken up his attention.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Was young charged with having committed a sexual murder?

Thats not relevant PI. You simply said that he wasn’t a criminal Lawyer. I pointed out that he was. He represented Henry Young in court in a criminal case. Therefore, by definition, he was a criminal lawyer. He did civil cases too of course.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Btw, PI, any acknowledgment on the ‘criminal lawyer’ point?

Was Young charged with having committed a sexual murder?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Simply because he used a random phrase ‘sexually insane?’ It’s another very trivial point. No even remotely important.

It is hardly trivial when it is made about someone together with an insinuation that he committed a series of sexual murders.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Btw, PI, any acknowledgment on the ‘criminal lawyer’ point?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Simply because he used a random phrase ‘sexually insane?’ It’s another very trivial point. No even remotely important.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Mac only claimed to suspect Druitt because of private information. He did not allege, as far as I am aware, that the police had carried out a detailed investigation, and that he had just refreshed his memory from the reports when making his observations. What he actually knew, and whether he remembered it all correctly, is just supposition. We cannot know.

As far as I can see, there was no police investigation of either Druitt or Kosminski.

Moreover, Macnaghten's allegation that Druitt was sexually insane is no more credible than his allegation that Kosminski had strong homocidal tendencies, which is contradicted by the evidence, or that Ostrog was a homicidal maniac, which is obviously untrue.

If Macnaghten had privileged information about the events leading up to Druitt's suicide, then he would surely have known about his dismissal and the allusion to it in the suicide note.

But it is evident that he did not know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mac only claimed to suspect Druitt because of private information. He did not allege, as far as I am aware, that the police had carried out a detailed investigation, and that he had just refreshed his memory from the reports when making his observations. What he actually knew, and whether he remembered it all correctly, is just supposition. We cannot know.

Bingo.

And yet strident efforts are made to ‘dismiss’ him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then what is the argument about?

I have been arguing that Macnaghten did not know that Druitt was dismissed from the school.

If you do not wish to contest that, then fine, but that means that Macnaghten was poorly informed and a most unreliable source for information about Druitt.

If he did not know that Druitt was dismissed, then presumably he did not know about the inquest nor the suicide note which appears to refer to his dismissal.

No. We can’t say that.

In that case, what reliance can be placed on anything else Macnaghten wrote about Druitt?

Because we have no reason for doubting it.

And I haven’t said that he did know (except for in that typo post - which I’ve explained) which is why I keep asking why you keep persisting with the point?