Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes
View Post
We can deduce that Anderson and Macnaghten were boastfully claiming to know more than they actually did.
Anderson claimed that he could deduce the religious and ethnic background of the murderer from a house to house search that produced no leads.
Anderson claimed that he knew the identity of the murderer and that he was prepared to divulge his identity in the event that his publisher promised to indemnify him against any legal damages arising from his revelation of the murderer's identity.
In spite of being given the assurance he sought, he did not reveal the murderer's identity and, moreover, upon being publicly challenged to cite any incriminating evidence against his suspect, he declined to do so.
All of these facts suggest strongly that Anderson did not tell the truth.
Macnaghten made so many mistakes about Druitt and Kosminski that he can hardly be regarded as a reliable source of information about them.
He has Druitt being a 41 year old doctor.
He was a 31 year old lawyer and teacher.
He has him committing suicide shortly after the final murder in the series.
He actually committed suicide more than three weeks later.
Why do you think he makes these elementary mistakes?
If Druitt was a doctor who committed suicide shortly after the last murder, does it not look rather worse for him than if he is a teacher and lawyer who did not commit suicide until more than three weeks later?
Similarly, if Kosminski was confined in an asylum about four months after the last murder in the series, does it not look rather worse for him than if he was not actually certified until nearly two years after that murder?
And does it help Kosminski that he has homicidal tendencies and Ostrog that he is a homicidal maniac, when in fact there is no evidence for either claim and none that Macnaghten could adduce?
Macnaghten's evidence had to be private.
He could no more produce it than Anderson could produce his.
Leave a comment: