Reasons why?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course, it is nothing of the kind.

I quoted from an article by Joanna Whyman in Ripperologist.

I am quite sure that she was not writing from ignorance.

It means to assume that something must be true just because an alternative explanation can’t be suggested. It doesn’t imply an insult to the writer. Just because we don’t know who Macnaghten got his information from but we do know about Farquaharsen we can’t just assume that he must have got his info from him. Which is exactly what you are suggesting.




That is inaccurate; he was suggesting that Druitt was mad - and in a sexual way.

Which is entirely reasonable if he suspected that he was the ripper. It’s also possible that Druitt might have been dismissed due to some inappropriate sexual behaviour. The ‘sexually insane’ point is simply an irrelevant distraction. Time and again we have gone over this but you won’t let it go. Again…Macnaghten wasn’t making a medical diagnosis he just used a phrase which he, as a layman, felt was appropriate. You treat this as if he was an incompetent Doctor misdiagnosing a patient.




And by a curious coincidence, the missing material seems invariably to be material that would corroborate farfetched claims made by certain senior police officers.

‘Far fetched’ being purely your opinion of course. Just to be clear.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Any discussion of Macnaghten and Druitt results in a tissue of questions and points which always get responded too (whether those responses are agreed with or not) but responses are less forthcoming when questions and points are raised from the other side. I no longer find this ‘strange’ as its par for the course on this topic.

In an earlier post PI spoke about the resources that Macnaghten had available to him and it’s a point that I echo. We have Macnaghten compiling a response to the claim about Cutbush and deciding to provide a list of likelier candidates and so, with all of those resources, he names a criminal, a ‘lunatic’ and a highly respectable Barrister, Schoolteacher and MCC member who had absolutely no record of violence and whose father was a former surgeon and prominent Dorset Doctor and whose uncle wrote a standard surgeon’s text book. A man who counted solicitors and Church of England vicars among his family members. Not only that but the man was related by marriage to one of Macnaghten’s best friends; the also very highly respected Sir Vivian Majendie who was The Queen’s Chief Inspector of Explosives. Now….if we could for a second just put this anti-Macnaghten/Druitt crusade to one side…does no one think….what?! It’s a bit like someone suggesting likely Bible John suspects and naming Peter Tobin (ok) Angus Sinclair (ok) and Billy Connolly (wtf!) Macnaghten had graveyards full of dead criminals and asylums full of violent lunatics with no chance of ever being free…and yet he names Druitt. And some people just say “ok” and move on as if he’s the most natural choice in the world. Macnaghten could even have really lied and claimed that a relative of this criminal had provided him with evidence of his guilt or did Macnaghten only believe in telling lies against people of his own class in society?

The cry is always ‘well he committed suicide just after the completion of the murders.’ Did he? Macnaghten is of course insistent that Kelly was the last murder but he was far from alone in that. His good friend Munro, to name but one, believed that Mackenzie was also a victim, so why didn’t he name someone who died post-Mackenzie? Druitt simply can’t have been the only possible name. He’d have had no problem naming some nobody that died after Mackenzie did, but no….he names Druitt.

By naming some nonentity he would have had someone whose movements would have been far, far more difficult (if not impossible) to trace if anyone decided to do a bit of digging. Not so with Druitt of course. Court appearances, meetings with clients, cricket club meetings, social gatherings etc. And as we see from Farquaharsen, politicians aren’t always the souls of discretion so what if Druitt’s name had somehow got out in connection to this series of horrible murders. Wouldn’t there have been a danger of his solicitor brother taking legal action? Would the family have just quietly accepted Monty being named? Why risk this when Mac could easily have named Fred Smith, wife beater who died in 1890 (yes, I made him up but you understand my point) All this just to name a man that died before a murder that many felt was by the ripper. Really?

To me, none of this is remotely plausible but then again we do see a kind of Druitt obsession which I think tends to warp judgment and isn’t conducive to calm reflection. It’s at this point that I’ll add (for the thousandth time btw) none of this remotely makes Druitt guilty and of course we have no physical evidence against Druitt. Although this applies to all suspects of course it tends to be stated more often against Druitt and with more vehemence, as if other ‘unlikely’ suspects should stay in the running but Druitt should be eradicated. Why is that? I’ve never understood it. Why does no one become vehement about Chapman or Hutchinson or Kelly or Mann? Mention Druitt and hackles rise and fangs are drawn.

I’m often accused of being over-cautious or even negative but that’s just opinion which doesn’t bother me. I don’t mind stating one thing with confidence though…..I don’t for a single second believe that Macnaghten named Druitt simply because of when he died. It makes no sense whatsoever. But I’ll repeat…this in no way means that Druitt was guilty. But he might have been. We don’t know. None of us know.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

‘Far fetched’ being purely your opinion of course. Just to be clear.

On the contrary.

If Anderson's claims had not been far-fetched, he would have been able to respond when challenged to substantiate them.

Just because we don’t know who Macnaghten got his information from but we do know about Farquaharsen we can’t just assume that he must have got his info from him.

Farquharson claimed that Druitt committed suicide on the night of the last murder, and that he had private information about the circumstances surrounding the suicide.

Macnaghten claimed exactly three years later that Druitt committed suicide on the night of the last murder or possibly the following day, and that he had private information about the circumstances surrounding the suicide.

There is no record of anyone else, during that interval, making a similar claim about the timing of the suicide.

It is therefore entirely reasonable to deduce that Macnaghten got his information from Farquharson.

Which is entirely reasonable if he suspected that he was the ripper.

It is not reasonable at all to allege that someone was sexually insane in the absence of any evidence.

What you are proposing is a circular argument: we think Druitt was the murderer; the murderer must have been sexually insane; therefore Druitt must have been sexually insane.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why does no one become vehement about Chapman or Hutchinson or Kelly or Mann? Mention Druitt and hackles rise and fangs are drawn.

Is there atopic that you won’t introduce Kosminski into to?

Some of the comments published online elsewhere about my defence of Lechmere are so offensive as to render them barely printable.

I have defended Druitt, Lechmere and Kosminski.

I do not know why anyone would object to that.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Farquharson claimed that Druitt committed suicide on the night of the last murder, and that he had private information about the circumstances surrounding the suicide.

Macnaghten claimed exactly three years later that Druitt committed suicide on the night of the last murder or possibly the following day, and that he had private information about the circumstances surrounding the suicide.

There is no record of anyone else, during that interval, making a similar claim about the timing of the suicide.

It is therefore entirely reasonable to deduce that Macnaghten got his information from Farquharson.

It is possible, but not necessarily accurate, as it is also reasonable to deduce that Mac. might have got his information from the same source as Farquharson.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It is possible, but not necessarily accurate, as it is also reasonable to deduce that Mac. might have got his information from the same source as Farquharson.

And what source would have informed Farquharson that Druitt had bloodstained clothes on the night of the murder?

[rjpalmer]

Hi P.I.,

if your opinion of Macnaghten is this low, as it obviously must be, how do you (and Joanna Whyman) know that you don't have it backwards and Macnaghten is the source for Farquharson's story?

Why does this rumor mill only run in one direction?

If Macnaghten's belief about Druitt's possible guilt date to 1891, couldn't Farquharson have received his information directly or indirectly from Macnaghten instead of the other way round?

In a criminal case, isn't it far more likely that an MP would have gotten his information from the cops, rather than the cops got their information from an MP?

Cheers.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi P.I.,

if your opinion of Macnaghten is this low, as it obviously must be, how do you (and Joanna Whyman) know that you don't have it backwards and Macnaghten is the source for Farquharson's story?

Why does this rumor mill only run in one direction?

If Macnaghten's belief about Druitt's possible guilt date to 1891, couldn't Farquharson have received his information directly or indirectly from Macnaghten instead of the other way round?

In a criminal case, isn't it far more likely that an MP would have gotten his information from the cops, rather than the cops got their information from an MP?

Cheers.

Well, Roger, as I understand it, Macnaghten did not point the finger at Druitt until three years after Farquharson's story first surfaced.

If it had been the other way round, then I would be inclined to agree with you.

But if Farquharson obtained his information from Macnaghten, then that would mean that Macnaghten had private information about Druitt's being seen with bloodstained clothing on the night of the last murder.

How on earth could he have obtained such information?

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the contrary.

If Anderson's claims had not been far-fetched, he would have been able to respond when challenged to substantiate them.

And when was he challenged to substantiate them? Or is this another assumption….that he wouldn’t have been able to substantiate had he been asked? In which case it’s a pointless suggestion.

Farquharson claimed that Druitt committed suicide on the night of the last murder, and that he had private information about the circumstances surrounding the suicide.

Macnaghten claimed exactly three years later that Druitt committed suicide on the night of the last murder or possibly the following day, and that he had private information about the circumstances surrounding the suicide.

You could at least read your own posts PI.

... he committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888 ...

(Macnaghten, Days of My Years, 1914)

The 10th wasn’t the night of the murder.


There is no record of anyone else, during that interval, making a similar claim about the timing of the suicide.

It is therefore entirely reasonable to deduce that Macnaghten got his information from Farquharson.

So just to be clear on your thinking PI you’re saying that if there’s no record of something we can safely assume that it couldn’t have existed? Your idea of ‘reasonable’ appears to be different to mine.

It is not reasonable at all to allege that someone was sexually insane in the absence of any evidence.

Im not going to waste time on this point with you PI. It’s quite deliberate on your part. You know it’s not a valid point and yet you keep bringing it up as if it is.

What you are proposing is a circular argument: we think Druitt was the murderer; the murderer must have been sexually insane; therefore Druitt must have been sexually insane.

That’s clearly not what I’m suggesting at all PI. Please try and stay relevant.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, Roger, as I understand it, Macnaghten did not point the finger at Druitt until three years after Farquharson's story first surfaced.

If it had been the other way round, then I would be inclined to agree with you.

But if Farquharson obtained his information from Macnaghten, then that would mean that Macnaghten had private information about Druitt's being seen with bloodstained clothing on the night of the last murder.

How on earth could he have obtained such information?

Farquaharsen could have added that part.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And what source would have informed Farquharson that Druitt had bloodstained clothes on the night of the murder?

How do you know that Druitt didn’t have blood stained clothes on the night of the murder?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That’s clearly not what I’m suggesting at all PI. Please try and stay relevant.

That is exactly what you have argued.

And when was he challenged to substantiate them? Or is this another assumption….that he wouldn’t have been able to substantiate had he been asked? In which case it’s a pointless suggestion.

It is not an assumption.

It is well known that Anderson was challenged to substantiate his allegations and that he made no response.

You could at least read your own posts PI.

... he committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888 ...

(Macnaghten, Days of My Years, 1914)

The 10th wasn’t the night of the murder.

I did not claim that the 10th was the night of the murder.

Contrary to your assertion, I did not contradict myself in any way.

What I actually wrote was:

'Macnaghten claimed exactly three years later that Druitt committed suicide on the night of the last murder or possibly the following day.'

So just to be clear on your thinking PI you’re saying that if there’s no record of something we can safely assume that it couldn’t have existed? Your idea of ‘reasonable’ appears to be different to mine.

To be clear on my thinking: we should draw conclusions based on actual evidence, and not on an assumption that some evidence existed, even though there is no trace of it.

Im not going to waste time on this point with you PI. It’s quite deliberate on your part. You know it’s not a valid point and yet you keep bringing it up as if it is.

It is a valid point and here it is again:

It is not reasonable at all to allege that someone was sexually insane in the absence of any evidence.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

How do you know that Druitt didn’t have blood stained clothes on the night of the murder?

I did not state that Druitt did not have blood stained clothes on the night of the murder.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Farquaharsen could have added that part.

And Macnaghten could have added some parts of his own, such as his claim that Druitt was said to be a doctor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is exactly what you have argued.

PI, I know what I have or haven't argued.



It is not an assumption.

It is well known that Anderson was challenged to substantiate his allegations and that he made no response.

Can you provide evidence of Anderson being directly challenged on this issue please?




I did not claim that the 10th was the night of the murder.

Contrary to your assertion, I did not contradict myself in any way.

What I actually wrote was:

'Macnaghten claimed exactly three years later that Druitt committed suicide on the night of the last murder or possibly the following day.'

And I have shown by reposting the quote that you yourself posted that Macnaghten said the 10th or near to it. If he'd included the night of the murder he would have said 'the 9th or near to it ' Why do you have to dispute every single point no matter what?



To be clear on my thinking: we should draw conclusions based on actual evidence, and not on an assumption that some evidence existed, even though there is no trace of it.

And to be clear....I'm not saying that x certainly occurred even though we have no recorded evidence for it. What I am saying is that things can occur which don't get recorded. Therefore we shouldn't dismiss them on that basis which is what you are doing. It's about being open to possibilities and not simply adhering to a preconception.



It is a valid point and here it is again:

It is not reasonable at all to allege that someone was sexually insane in the absence of any evidence.

Yes it is.