Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reasons why?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post


    He got Druitt's age wrong--a mathematical error of some kind? 41 for 31 seems like an odd 'mistake'--and his reference to a 'doctor' is an enigma--but claiming the memo is error-filled is an exaggeration.

    There is a similar puzzle in the thumbnail description of Kozminski--the date of his supposed committal--but much of the rest of it seems reasonably accurate as far as we can tell.



    I am quite sure that I am not exaggerating.

    You describe one of Macnaghten's errors as an enigma and another as a puzzle.

    Macnaghten was drafting an official report and had access to official files.

    Do you really find it believable that in those files there was mention of Druitt being a doctor, of his sexual insanity, of Kosminski's homicidal tendencies, that Druitt died about three weeks before he did, that Kosminski was certified nearly two years before he was, that there was an eyewitness description of a suspect near Mitre Square that matched Kosminski's, and that Ostrog was a homicidal maniac?

    If not, then where do you suppose he got all that incorrect information from?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

      How do you know it is untrue?


      Because he was obviously unable to cite any medical opinion in support of what he claimed.

      Similarly, Anderson called his suspect 'the murderer', even though he was obviously unable to cite any incriminating evidence against him.

      Macnaghten and Anderson were making unsupported and exaggerated claims about all kinds of things.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
        Because he was obviously unable to cite any medical opinion in support of what he claimed.

        Similarly, Anderson called his suspect 'the murderer', even though he was obviously unable to cite any incriminating evidence against him.
        No; it's not "obvious."

        Both men were simply giving very brief sketches of their suspects in a broader context.

        Having a number of friends among the Druitt and Kozminski theorists, I think they would object to your word 'unable.'

        In fact, you don't know that Anderson or Macnaghten were unable to cite any evidence against their suspects--only that they didn't. That's a heck of a distinction.

        I operate on the entirely sensible position that, on some level, Anderson and Macnaghten--whether they were correct, or not--had some reason to suspect these two men and didn't simply draw their names out of thin air.

        As such, I am interested in exploring, in an intelligent way, why they might have believed this.

        It's a complicated discussion, and one I don't really wish to get into a shouting match over.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          Where Mac. had things wrong, that can be proven wrong, is likely because he didn't consult the files as often as he should.

          It is not a question of how often he consulted the files.

          The question is: why, when he was compiling a formal report, he appears not to have consulted the files at all.



          Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          It is likely to me that the principal source about Kozminski was his superior - Anderson, and when your superior tells you something, you don't write the complete opposite. It also suggests to me there were no official files on Kozminski that shows him to be a significant suspect.

          If Anderson really knew the truth about Kosminski and it was as explosive as he made it out to be, then why would there not have been a file containing such information about him?

          And if such a file existed, then why would Macnaghten not have consulted it and, at the same time, consulted all the other files and not made all the mistakes he did?

          And if he got his information from Anderson and if Swanson got his information from Anderson, then why does Swanson have Kosminski dying soon after the last murder was committed, whereas Macnaghten has him still being alive more than five years later?

          And if Swanson got his information from Anderson, then why did Anderson indicate to his publishers that Kosminski was still alive more than 20 years after the murders ended?



          Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          This thread though is about Druitt, and I'd like to know what makes you think he was not 'sexually insane'?

          I know there are no official papers describing his mental condition, so I know that you don't know, one way or the other.

          Macnaghten made several mistakes regarding medical matters: he thought Druitt was a doctor, and he thought he was qualified to diagnose insanity in the cases of both Druitt and Ostrog and to discern homicidal tendencies in Kosminski.

          Why did no-one else mention Druitt's alleged insanity?

          According to Abberline, there was absolutely nothing to suggest that Druitt was the Whitechapel Murderer.

          The person who didn't 'know one way or the other' is Macnaghten.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
            The question is: why, when he was compiling a formal report, he appears not to have consulted the files at all..
            It was not a "formal report" on Druitt or Kozminski.

            It was a rebuttal to The Sun's accusations against Thomas Cutbush. That was the focus of the report.

            His 'thumbnail' sketch of Druitt is comprised of two sentences.

            His sketch of Kozminski is four sentences, one separated by a semi-colon.

            Considering that it is not the main consideration of his report, he appears to have been going largely or entirely by memory in this section.

            As my old boss used to say, "it is what it is."

            It's your task to make sense of it. If you simply wish to throw it into the garbage bin, by all means do so.

            As for me, I find it an interesting document in many ways. Plenty of enigmas and puzzles to work out. A peek--but only a partial and imperfect one--under the tent.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

              In fact, you don't know that Anderson or Macnaghten were unable to cite any evidence against their suspects--only that they didn't. That's a heck of a distinction.

              I do know.

              Anderson was challenged in public to cite evidence in support of his allegations.

              He was unable to do so.

              Look at what he actually wrote and what he left out!

              He mentions a search of people's homes, which we know produced no leads.

              If there had been any evidence against the suspect resulting from a search, then he would have mentioned the search that yielded evidence against the suspect and not a search that did not yield evidence against the suspect!

              The very fact that in his initial version of what happened, the suspect was already confined in an asylum at the time that the identification took place suggests that he was not a suspect at all, because if he had been a suspect then the identification would surely have been arranged before he was confined in an asylum!

              It should be obvious to anyone who has read the interview with Anderson in which he referred to his suspect as 'the murderer,' in spite of the fact that no trial ever took place, that he was not giving a factual account of what really happened.



              Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

              It's a complicated discussion, and one I don't really wish to get into a shouting match over.

              That is why I have avoided using bold type - in order to spare your senses, Roger.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                I do know.

                Anderson was challenged in public to cite evidence in support of his allegations.

                He was unable to do so.
                (My emphasis in bold).

                I think you'll find that I'm not Sir Robert Anderson's greatest fan. There are legitimate reasons for doubting his 'solution.'

                However, you've got your foot to the accelerator and are racing over speed bumps...which isn't a particularly good way to proceed.

                Edmund Reid did indeed challenge Anderson in a published statement.

                Anderson didn't respond.

                I can't, in good conscience, conclude that he was unable to respond.

                Only that he didn't.

                I don't think it does anyone any good to go beyond what the evidence allows us to reasonably conclude.

                To me, a better way of thinking about it is that Reid was confident and emboldened enough to make the challenge in the first place.

                Just bear in mind that our Kozminskite friends will argue that Reid was kept 'out of the loop.'

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                  Just bear in mind that our Kozminskite friends will argue that Reid was kept 'out of the loop.'


                  I know, but what they cannot possibly explain is why Abberline would have been 'kept out of the loop'.

                  In particular, Anderson claimed that Scotland Yard decided, in or shortly after October 1888, that the murderer had to be a Polish Jew.

                  If this were true, then why would Abberline have continued to look for Gentile suspects and ultimately conclude that the murderer had likely been a Polish Gentile?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



                    I am quite sure that I am not exaggerating.

                    You describe one of Macnaghten's errors as an enigma and another as a puzzle.

                    Macnaghten was drafting an official report and had access to official files.

                    Do you really find it believable that in those files there was mention of Druitt being a doctor, of his sexual insanity, of Kosminski's homicidal tendencies, that Druitt died about three weeks before he did, that Kosminski was certified nearly two years before he was, that there was an eyewitness description of a suspect near Mitre Square that matched Kosminski's, and that Ostrog was a homicidal maniac?

                    If not, then where do you suppose he got all that incorrect information from?
                    From whole cloth made up out of thin air?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      My view on Druitt FWIW:

                      1. Definitely NOT JTR.
                      2. Murdered by a masonic cabal to keep him quiet about the knowledge he had of JTR's and Astrakhan's identities.

                      I suspect this will not be a popular point of view.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post
                        My view on Druitt FWIW:

                        1. Definitely NOT JTR.
                        2. Murdered by a masonic cabal to keep him quiet about the knowledge he had of JTR's and Astrakhan's identities.

                        I suspect this will not be a popular point of view.

                        Don't tell me Astrakhan was a member of staff at Druitt's school!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                          Too many 'Ripperologists' are eager to toss out the bathwater, not bothering to even wonder if there's a baby somewhere in the bubbles.
                          I’ve always found it strange that although we have no evidence to support any suspect, the phrase ‘but there’s no evidence’ is always thrown at Druitt as if he alone should be dismissed on those grounds. We always see an enthusiasm to dismiss him and to assume that MacNaghten was a liar (without evidence for it). As you say “throwing the baby out with the bath water” without considering what might have gone unrecorded (or what might have been recorded but was now missing.)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            I’ve always found it strange that although we have no evidence to support any suspect, the phrase ‘but there’s no evidence’ is always thrown at Druitt as if he alone should be dismissed on those grounds.

                            On the contrary, I have argued that there is no evidence against others, including Kosminski.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                              On the contrary, I have argued that there is no evidence against others, including Kosminski.
                              So would you say that all suspects should be dismissed or would you say that it’s possible that there might more to some suspects? Macnaghten clearly felt that there was reason for suspecting Druitt

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                koz is mentioned by three senior police officers and druitt was tje favored suspect of one, and mentioned by a boatload of other contemps. other than abberlines suspect chapman, theyre the two best police suspects we have.

                                you can dismiss them if you like, but it dosnt matter, because suspects they remain.
                                "Is all that we see or seem
                                but a dream within a dream?"

                                -Edgar Allan Poe


                                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                                -Frederick G. Abberline

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X