Reasons why?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Macnaghten did not claim that the Ripper was sexually insane.

He claimed that Druitt was sexually insane.

He was not entitled to make that statement.

You're splitting hairs PI. He was talking about Druitt as a possible ripper.

He was entitled to use any phrase that he wanted to. I find ‘entitled’ to be a very strange choice of word. Are you saying that he required someone’s permission? That he used that phrase is a complete non-issue. You appear to be clinging to this point for some inexplicable reason.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If I said that the ripper was a ‘madman’ or a ‘psycho’ would I really be censured for using those non-technically accurate terms?

Macnaghten did not claim that the Ripper was sexually insane.

He claimed that Druitt was sexually insane.

He was not entitled to make that statement.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In that case, Macnaghten had no right to make that statement.

It was a throwaway line PI. If I said that the ripper was a ‘madman’ or a ‘psycho’ would I really be censured for using those non-technically accurate terms? The fact that Macnaghten used ‘sexually insane’ is neither here nor there. He wasn’t compiling an FBI profile after all. It was simply what he came up with at the time. I really don’t know why you’re making an issue of it?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If he thought that Druitt might well have been the ripper then naturally he wouldn’t have had a normal psychology. Macnaghten wasn’t a 21st century psychologist or criminologist. He simply used a phrase ‘sexually insane’ probably to imply a madman that killed for sexual reasons.

In that case, Macnaghten had no right to make that statement.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In response to Herlock's # 165:


I think your main point is that Macnaghten, like Anderson and Swanson, was simply honestly recording and interpreting information that he had received from various sources.

I disagree.

They all go much further than that.

Macnaghten says that Druitt was sexually insane.

In # 154, I was on the receiving end of the following:

YOU think it is obvious. But you gorgot to tell us thst it was a privste take, did you not? You said it IS obvious, not that it was merely your own thougths.

And I had not even said anything about anyone!

I used to be routinely 'accused' of stating my opinion as fact.

I would like to know why those three policemen are allowed to get away with making unsubstantiated statements of fact.

Macnaghten stated as fact that Druitt was 'sexually insane' and that Kosminski had 'homicidal tendencies'.

Anderson called 'Kosminski' 'the murderer' and 'the criminal'.

Swanson called Kosminski a 'murderer'.

Neither Kosminski nor anyone else was ever convicted of any of the Whitechapel murders.

Kosminski was never even charged with committing any violent act.

You cannot argue that they were merely recording information they had received.

I’m a little confused at to why you call this a response to my post #165 as you haven’t addressed any of the points i made in that post.

I would like to know why those three policemen are allowed to get away with making unsubstantiated statements of fact.

I’m not suggesting that they should be. If we know for a fact that something is inaccurate or wrong it’s entirely legitimate to point it out. But that doesn’t make it entirely accurate to make further deductions from these. We can’t assume that errors are indicative of dishonesty for example. We can’t assume that one or two errors mean that everything that that person ever said was also wrong. It’s about balance. It’s about not allowing ourselves to get carried away.

Macnaghten stated as fact that Druitt was 'sexually insane' and that Kosminski had 'homicidal tendencies

If he thought that Druitt might well have been the ripper then naturally he wouldn’t have had a normal psychology. Macnaghten wasn’t a 21st century psychologist or criminologist. He simply used a phrase ‘sexually insane’ probably to imply a madman that killed for sexual reasons. It’s an totally unimportant point ], unnecessarily elevated to have some significance which it doesn’t merit.

Didn't Kosminski pull a knife on his sister-in-law? To Mac that might have indicated a tendency to murderous violence…nipped in the bud on that occasion. It’s another unimportant point.

You cannot argue that they were merely recording information they had received

I can’t understand why you might think that I (or anyone else) would? I wouldn’t dispute something that is so obviously true PI?

What I’m saying, and one of the things that you haven’t responded to as yet, is that as we don’t know what that information was so we cannot assess it therefore we cannot dismiss it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In response to Herlock's # 165:


I think your main point is that Macnaghten, like Anderson and Swanson, was simply honestly recording and interpreting information that he had received from various sources.

I disagree.

They all go much further than that.

Macnaghten says that Druitt was sexually insane.

In # 154, I was on the receiving end of the following:

YOU think it is obvious. But you gorgot to tell us thst it was a privste take, did you not? You said it IS obvious, not that it was merely your own thougths.

And I had not even said anything about anyone!

I used to be routinely 'accused' of stating my opinion as fact.

I would like to know why those three policemen are allowed to get away with making unsubstantiated statements of fact.

Macnaghten stated as fact that Druitt was 'sexually insane' and that Kosminski had 'homicidal tendencies'.

Anderson called 'Kosminski' 'the murderer' and 'the criminal'.

Swanson called Kosminski a 'murderer'.

Neither Kosminski nor anyone else was ever convicted of any of the Whitechapel murders.

Kosminski was never even charged with committing any violent act.

You cannot argue that they were merely recording information they had received.

[Herlock Sholmes]

More 'private' information?

No, unknown information PI. The case is absolutely teeming with things that we don’t know and have no way of finding out. I’ll say it again, if we don’t know what x was, how can we assess it let alone seek to dismiss it?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

From a source that we don’t know.

More 'private' information?

[Wickerman]

You have just proved my point: paranoid delusions are obviously something more serious than depression...

What have I proven?

Obviously I'm no psychologist but as far as I know 'Paranoid Delusions' is your own fear someone is out to get you - not you going after someone else.

Druitt was not a fool, he certainly had a high degree of intelligence.
Why on earth would Druitt kill himself as a preventative measure against him thinking people are coming to kill him?

How ridiculous is that?

[Herlock Sholmes]

c.d. can't be arsed any more to continue going in circles. I am passing the baton to Herlock.

c.d.

Thanks c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You made the claim in # 153, Herlock.

Instead of reproducing in # 154 all the questions I posed in #152, why don't you try answering them?

I’ve now answered the questions from #152 but in general I’d prefer not to get distracted by Kosminski and Ostrog.

Would you respond to these points?:

1. Neither I or anyone else has anyway of knowing the content of Macnaghten’s private information because he never made public what it was and that as that is the case we have absolutely no way of assessing it’s source or it’s validity? And….

2. Neither you or anyone else has any way of knowing the content of Macnaghten’s private information because he never made public what it was and that as that is the case we have absolutely no way of criticising or dismissing its source or validity? And…

3. That whilst errors might be pointed to as showing the possibility of errors elsewhere they are not, in themselves, proof of dishonesty? And that errors aren’t exclusively the result of dishonesty? And…

4. Do you believe that it’s always the case that if someone makes a statement but doesn’t take the time (for an unknown reason) to back it up or to flesh it out with more information, that we should assume that the statement has no chance of being true and that we should dismiss it? And…..

5. Do you think that when we have a suspect named by an important source (someone that would certainly have been in a position to have received important information that perhaps wasn’t intended for public consumption) and one that we have absolutely no way of dismissing in terms of evidence do you think that the reasoned approach should be a) to completely dismiss that suspect, or b) to take the position that this was important information and that it’s better to accept its limitations and to keep an open mind on the subject on the grounds that there might be some truth to it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think Macnaghten was going a little further than that. Yes, he thought that Druitt, Kosminski, and Ostrog all were better suspects than Cutbush, but I believe that he also thought that Druitt was a better suspect than Kosminski and Ostrog.

He certainly did Lewis. He favoured Druitt until he retired from the force and possibly until his death.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Macnaghten claimed that Kosminski 'had strong homicidal tendencies' and that Ostrog was a 'homicidal maniac'.

What basis do you imagine he had for making those statements?

I have no idea PI. From a source that we don’t know. From an inaccurate source.

Macnaghten claimed that Druitt 'disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder' and that Kosminski 'was removed to an asylum' about four months later.

What basis do you imagine he had for making those statements?

From an inaccurate source?

Macnaghten claimed that Kosminski 'had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class'.

What basis do you imagine he had for making that statement?

From a source that we don’t know.

[Lewis C]

Exactly!

He says that Druitt is

more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders ...

but that the same applies to Kosminski and Ostrog!

I think Macnaghten was going a little further than that. Yes, he thought that Druitt, Kosminski, and Ostrog all were better suspects than Cutbush, but I believe that he also thought that Druitt was a better suspect than Kosminski and Ostrog.

[c.d.]

And if Herlock is smart he will refuse to accept the baton and will instead head to the sidelines to drink beer.

c.d.