Reasons why?

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis,

You wrote, "Lies" means that Macnaghten said things that he knew weren't true.

Exactly.

Regards,

Simon

Thanks for the clarification, Simon. I'm trying to think of a possible motive for Macnaghten to lie. All that I've been able to think of so far is to protect Thomas Cutbush. Do have any in mind?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lewis,

You wrote, "Lies" means that Macnaghten said things that he knew weren't true.

Exactly.

Regards,

Simon

[Lewis C]

Hi All,

Once you grasp the fact that Macnaghten's memorandum was a litany of demonstrable lies, everything else begins to fall into place.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

"Lies" means that Macnaghten said things that he knew weren't true. I've always figured that where he got his facts wrong, he was mistaken, rather than saying things that he knew to be false.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Once you grasp the fact that Macnaghten's memorandum was a litany of demonstrable lies, everything else begins to fall into place.

Regards,

Simon

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

They prove nothing nor suggest anything.

I do not know what was the point of your #363.

The point I made in my # 362 is that your statement in your # 361 is incorrect.

You did not address this important fact in your # 363.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi P.I.,

Do you have a source for this?

I don't recall the M.P. saying anything about the suspect's family, other than he was the son of a surgeon.

Cheers,

RP

I think you are right about that, Roger.

It seems that it has been assumed that Farquharson claimed to have obtained his information from relatives of Druitt.

There does not seem to be any other possible explanation.

[rjpalmer]

There is the further coincidence that the member of parliament claimed that Druitt's family suspected him of having committed the murders...

Hi P.I.,

Do you have a source for this?

I don't recall the M.P. saying anything about the suspect's family, other than he was the son of a surgeon.

Cheers,

RP

[Herlock Sholmes]

I honestly would not have prolonged this exchange had you not made the comment quoted above, which is not true.

I quote the opening paragraph of # 341, which I posted on my return:

There are strong indications that Farquharson - the person who mentioned the 'suspect' three years before Macnaghten did so - made up the story about Druitt, including the 'private information', and fed it to a receptive Macnaghten.

I then quoted from an article by Joanna Whyman, published a few years ago in Ripperologist.

I did not make exactly the same points as I had previously.






I suggest that the points I and Joanna Whyman made are of interest and are not based on prejudice.

They prove nothing nor suggest anything. I’ll repeat this hopefully for the last time PI (unusually optimistic for me perhaps)…..

I don’t for a single, solitary, fleeting second believe that Macnaghten plucked Druitt’s name purely because of his suicide. Nothing that you can say will convince me of that. I’ve given my reasons numerous times which you (and certain others) have chosen to ignore. That’s fine, it’s your choice.

You wouldn’t change my opinion on this if you stated your opinion a dozen times every day for a year. I have my opinion and I am clear about what I base my opinion on.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So what are you hoping to gain and why are you so bothered about this that after being away from posting for a period, and despite the fact that the subject has lain dormant in the meantime, you feel the need to open it up again with exactly the same points as soon as you return?

I honestly would not have prolonged this exchange had you not made the comment quoted above, which is not true.

I quote the opening paragraph of # 341, which I posted on my return:

There are strong indications that Farquharson - the person who mentioned the 'suspect' three years before Macnaghten did so - made up the story about Druitt, including the 'private information', and fed it to a receptive Macnaghten.

I then quoted from an article by Joanna Whyman, published a few years ago in Ripperologist.

I did not make exactly the same points as I had previously.

If someone has an interesting, open-minded point to make about Druitt or Macnaghten I’ll certainly listen.

I suggest that the points I and Joanna Whyman made are of interest and are not based on prejudice.

[Herlock Sholmes]

People are entitled to express an opinion - especially on a forum.

They undoubtedly are PI. In fact I’ve already said that. You have repeated your opinion numerous times and I’ve responded with mine. This constant repetition achieves absolutely nothing unless you feel that by repeating it you will some how force me into submitting to your own opinion? So what are you hoping to gain and why are you so bothered about this that after being away from posting for a period, and despite the fact that the subject has lain dormant in the meantime, you feel the need to open it up again with exactly the same points as soon as you return?

I do not see how you can claim that Farquharson and Macnaghten independently made what is in essence the same mistake.

What would have been their sources?

As I predicted you yet again ignore the ‘with all of his resources’ point. Nothing can be gained from continuing this pointless discussion. It clearly means more to you than it does to me. And before you become defensive I’ll state that I’m just as guilty as you are for prolonging this pointlessness. We interpret these things differently. This situation is unlikely to change. Honestly PI, I’m bored with this. If someone has an interesting, open-minded point to make about Druitt or Macnaghten I’ll certainly listen. The conversation that we are having serves no purpose and is of no real interest to anyone.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And you finish with a bit of opinion stated as fact. Again.

People are entitled to express an opinion - especially on a forum.

So you believe that he was telling the truth then?

Of course not.

He was repeating the misinformation first spread by Farquharson.


It’s either true or an error. We know that it’s not true. So that leaves…?

It is neither; it is misinformation.


Its was the same form of error but it was different in detail.

It was in essence the same error.


Which is you yet again stating your opinion as fact. It’s getting to be a habit.

I am in the habit of drawing the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence.


He said….with his people. Not family.

What kind of people do you think he had in mind?

I do not see how you can claim that Farquharson and Macnaghten independently made what is in essence the same mistake.

What would have been their sources?

[Herlock Sholmes]

'Sticking to a certain line' does not constitute being 'on some kind of crusade'!

The fact that Farquharson claimed that Druitt committed suicide on 9 November but Macnaghten had the suicide taking place on or about the following day does not imply any disagreement; 'on or about the 10th of November' includes 9 November.

The point is that you are you are linking Farquaharsen’s story and MacNaghten’s memorandum. My point is that if Mac was simply echoing Farquaharsen wouldn’t he have simply repeated that Druitt committed suicide on the 9th? But he didn’t.

I did not state that I 'believe that this conveniently makes Macnaghten a liar'.

So you believe that he was telling the truth then?

Anyone familiar with the case knew or knows that Druitt did not commit suicide until more than three weeks after the last murder.

And you’ve stated that because….?

For a Member of Parliament to start spreading a story that the suicide took place within hours of the murder is not just an error.

It’s either true or an error. We know that it’s not true. So that leaves…?

For a senior policeman, with all his resources, to repeat the mistake takes some explaining.

Im glad you used the phrase PI because it allows me to repeat the point that you consistently ignore……why would a senior policeman like Macnaghten (with all his resources) who could have chosen from any number of dead criminals or lunatics, have selected an upper class Barrister and Schoolteacher who was related by marriage to one of his best friends? Where on the scale between ‘unlikely’ and ‘no chance’ should we place that?

They were not 'alighting on two errors'; it was the same error.

Its was the same form of error but it was different in detail.

As I stated, the inescapable conclusion is that the policeman got his wrong information from the member of parliament, who had started spreading the story three years before.

Which is you yet again stating your opinion as fact. It’s getting to be a habit.

There is the further coincidence that the member of parliament claimed that Druitt's family suspected him of having committed the murders, knowing - presumably by some means of divination - that he had had blood stained clothing on the night of the murder, and the senior policeman claiming that Druitt lived with his family - which he did not.

He said….with his people. Not family.

As for your argument about 'the extreme unlikeliness of Melville Macnaghten plucking Druitt’s name out of thin air', he did not do so.

He plucked Druitt's name based on the misinformation he had received about him.

And you finish with a bit of opinion stated as fact. Again.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I was simply stating a fact. ‘Almost immediately,’ as a phrase, isn’t quantifiable. You describe it as ‘very soon afterwards,’ which also isn’t quantifiable. They are phrases used in the absence of an exact time. When an exact time isn’t known. I went out this morning ‘very soon after’ I received a phone call at 10.00. So what time did I leave the house PI? 10.05? 10.10? 10.15? I know. You don’t. Because ‘very soon after’ isn’t quantifiable.

Farquaharsen said that Druitt committed suicide on the 9th (the day of Kelly’s murder) This was wrong of course. Does this mean that Druitt didn’t commit suicide? No. It simply means that he knew that Druitt committed suicide sometime after the last murder but made an incorrect assumption. Macnaghten however suggested “on or about the 10th.” So the day after or possibly even a day or so later. So there’s no exact agreement or Mac would have said that he committed suicide on the 9th. But he didn’t did he?

You are alighting on two errors where 2 different people, 3 years apart named two different days. And you appear to believe that this conveniently makes Macnaghten a liar? And in taking this line you completely ignore any reasons put forward pointing out the extreme unlikeliness of Melville Macnaghten plucking Druitt’s name out of thin air to name a respected Barrister and schoolteacher from an extremely prominent family as a potential Jack the Ripper. Stick to that line if you want to PI, you’re fully entitled to an opinion, as are all of us, but you should be wary of trying too hard to dismiss Druitt but it can’t fail but to make it look like you are on some kind of crusade.

'Sticking to a certain line' does not constitute being 'on some kind of crusade'!

The fact that Farquharson claimed that Druitt committed suicide on 9 November but Macnaghten had the suicide taking place on or about the following day does not imply any disagreement; 'on or about the 10th of November' includes 9 November.

I did not state that I 'believe that this conveniently makes Macnaghten a liar'.

Anyone familiar with the case knew or knows that Druitt did not commit suicide until more than three weeks after the last murder.

For a Member of Parliament to start spreading a story that the suicide took place within hours of the murder is not just an error.

For a senior policeman, with all his resources, to repeat the mistake takes some explaining.

They were not 'alighting on two errors'; it was the same error.

As I stated, the inescapable conclusion is that the policeman got his wrong information from the member of parliament, who had started spreading the story three years before.

There is the further coincidence that the member of parliament claimed that Druitt's family suspected him of having committed the murders, knowing - presumably by some means of divination - that he had had blood stained clothing on the night of the murder, and the senior policeman claiming that Druitt lived with his family - which he did not.

As for your argument about 'the extreme unlikeliness of Melville Macnaghten plucking Druitt’s name out of thin air', he did not do so.

He plucked Druitt's name based on the misinformation he had received about him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not stating opinion as fact.

I am not on a crusade.

I do not 'begin from a position of dogmatic certainty'.

If I wanted to, I could retort that those are all opinions on your part, presented as fact.

I do not preclude human error on Macnaghten's part, but he made rather too many mistakes, especially when you consider that he had access to the files on the cases about which he was writing.

In this case, however, - and I note that you repeatedly failed to address this point - he repeated an error already made by someone else, even though he was in a position to establish the true facts.

You claim that 'almost immediately' is not 'quantifiable'.

Of course it is.

It means 'very soon afterwards'.

Farquharson claimed that Druitt 'committed suicide on the night of his last murder'.

Macnaghten claimed that Druitt

'disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder' and'committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888'.

I do not understand why you are disputing that.

I was simply stating a fact. ‘Almost immediately,’ as a phrase, isn’t quantifiable. You describe it as ‘very soon afterwards,’ which also isn’t quantifiable. They are phrases used in the absence of an exact time. When an exact time isn’t known. I went out this morning ‘very soon after’ I received a phone call at 10.00. So what time did I leave the house PI? 10.05? 10.10? 10.15? I know. You don’t. Because ‘very soon after’ isn’t quantifiable.

Farquaharsen said that Druitt committed suicide on the 9th (the day of Kelly’s murder) This was wrong of course. Does this mean that Druitt didn’t commit suicide? No. It simply means that he knew that Druitt committed suicide sometime after the last murder but made an incorrect assumption. Macnaghten however suggested “on or about the 10th.” So the day after or possibly even a day or so later. So there’s no exact agreement or Mac would have said that he committed suicide on the 9th. But he didn’t did he?

You are alighting on two errors where 2 different people, 3 years apart named two different days. And you appear to believe that this conveniently makes Macnaghten a liar? And in taking this line you completely ignore any reasons put forward pointing out the extreme unlikeliness of Melville Macnaghten plucking Druitt’s name out of thin air to name a respected Barrister and schoolteacher, with no record of violence or criminality, and who came from an extremely prominent family as a potential Jack the Ripper. This isn’t believable. Stick to that line if you want to though PI, you’re fully entitled to an opinion, as we all are, but you should be wary of trying too hard to dismiss Druitt because it can’t fail but to make it look like you are on some kind of crusade. Most people who feel Druitt to be a poor suspect simply leave it at knowing that he cannot be dismissed on evidence. You appear to be unable to do that. I don’t know why Druitt is so important to you?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

how could farquharson make up the whole story about druitt, when druitts own brother found out that he had gotten in serious trouble at the school and been dismissed?

I was not referring to the undisputed facts about Druitt's dismissal, disappearance and suicide.