Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reasons why?

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

  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Opinion stated repeatedly as fact.

    I don't come to the same conclusion therefore it isn't 'inescapable.' It's only 'inescapable' if you begin from a position of dogmatic certainty. Which you do.
    '​​​Almost immediately' isn't quantifiable by the way and Macnaghten was writing about an event that occurred 6 years previously after all. It's easy to dismiss anything if you deliberately set the bar at a level that precludes human error or an absence of knowledge of specific points.Your anti-Macnaghten crusade is pointless.

    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 after' is not 'quantifiable'.

    Of course it is.

    It means 'very soon after'.

    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.​​
    Last edited by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1; 01-19-2024, 08:35 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



    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.

    Farquharson had the strange habit of telling stories about people who had been expelled or dismissed from schools for serious (possibly sexual) offences:

    . . . . The defendant [Farquharson] was accused of maliciously saying to Mr. St. John Brodrick, M.P., that Mr. Gatty was expelled [from] the Charterhouse School, or was compelled to leave the school for a serious offence. . . .

    (The Morning Post, 17 June 1893)

    Witness [William Druitt] heard from a friend on the 11th of December that deceased had not been heard of at his chambers for more than a week. Witness then went to London to make inquiries, and at Blackheath he found that deceased had got into serious trouble at the school, and had been dismissed.

    (Acton, Chiswick & Turnham Green Gazette, 5 January 1889)


    Both Farquharson and Macnaghten repeated the erroneous idea that Druitt committed suicide very soon after the murder of Kelly:

    I give a curious story for what it is worth. There is a West of England member who in private declares that he has solved the mystery of 'Jack the Ripper.' His theory - and he repeats it with so much emphasis that it might almost be called his doctrine - is that 'Jack the Ripper' committed suicide on the night of his last murder... He states that a man with blood-stained clothes committed suicide on the night of the last murder, and he asserts that the man was the son of a surgeon, who suffered from homicidal mania.

    (The Bristol Times and Mirror, 11 February 1891)


    A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder ...

    (Macnaghten Memorandum, 1894)


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

    (Macnaghten, Days of My Years, 1914)


    Farquharson’s liking for manufacturing fictitious stories and passing them off as fact is revealed in a letter to a friend who was a keen collector of historical artefacts:

    You ought to write a short magazine article on it, not referring to your discoveries but based on them, a little fiction mixed in, on which to base your tale.

    (letter from Farquharson to General Pitt-Rivers, 1892)


    This seems to suggest that Farquharson exhibited an established pattern of behaviour where he told outlandish stories and then manufactured ‘proofs’ to support them.

    ...Farquharson broke into Browning’s study to steal his own exercises and had his friends lie about where he had been that morning.


    What is interesting about all three stories is Farquharson seems to have deliberately set out to damage the reputation of a man who he considered to be socially beneath him, and (certainly in the cases of Browning and Gatty and possibly in the case of Druitt), rumoured to be a homosexual.

    The purpose of this article has been to illustrate that there are links between the lies Farquharson told about Oscar Browning while at Eton, the stories he spread about Charles Gatty in 1892, and his claim that Montague Druitt was Jack the Ripper.


    (Henry Richard Farquharson, M.P. The Untrustworthy Source of Macnaghten’s ‘Private Information’?
    By JOANNA WHYMAN, Ripperologist 166 March 2020)


    As I have argued previously, it is most unlikely that Druitt's relatives would have suspected him, and for two reasons: first, there is evidence that his brother had not been in contact with him for a considerable time, at least weeks, and, secondly, if they had known of his movements at the time when the series of murders began, they would have known that he was in Dorset.

    There would have been no reason to suspect that he was even in Whitechapel, let alone eviscerating women there.

    Furthermore, Macnaghten mistakenly thought that Druitt lived with his relatives:

    I incline to the belief that the individual who held up London in terror resided with his own people ...

    (Melville Macnaghten, Days of My Years, 1913)


    It is that error on his part that enabled him to believe the private information he received:

    A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor ... He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.

    (Melville Macnaghten, Memorandum, 1894)


    Macnaghten was not even aware that Druitt's brother had to be informed that he was missing, having evidently been unaware of his movements for some considerable time.

    The whole story about Druitt was invented.
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


    Both Macnaghten and Farquharson claimed that Druitt committed suicide almost immediately after the murder of Mary Kelly.

    Both were wrong.

    Macnaghten was in a position to know that that was not true, yet believed it to be true.

    Those are all facts - not opinions.

    The inescapable conclusion is that he had been fed wrong information by the person who first told the fiction about the timing of Druitt's suicide.
    Opinion stated repeatedly as fact.

    I don't come to the same conclusion therefore it isn't 'inescapable.' It's only 'inescapable' if you begin from a position of dogmatic certainty. Which you do.
    '​​​Almost immediately' isn't quantifiable by the way and Macnaghten was writing about an event that occurred 6 years previously after all. It's easy to dismiss anything if you deliberately set the bar at a level that precludes human error or an absence of knowledge of specific points. Your anti-Macnaghten crusade is pointless.

    Leave a comment:


  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Opinion stated as fact.

    Both Macnaghten and Farquharson claimed that Druitt committed suicide almost immediately after the murder of Mary Kelly.

    Both were wrong.

    Macnaghten was in a position to know that that was not true, yet believed it to be true.

    Those are all facts - not opinions.

    The inescapable conclusion is that he had been fed wrong information by the person who first told the fiction about the timing of Druitt's suicide.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


    Of course he heard an invented story - invented by Farquharson.

    That is why both Macnaghten and Farquharson claimed that Druitt committed suicide almost immediately after the murder of Mary Kelly.



    Opinion stated as fact.

    Leave a comment:


  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    None of which in any way have a bearing on what Macnaghten said unless you believe that Macnaghten simply heard an invented story in 1891 and chose it at random to provide a third name for his list. That’s up to you of course.

    Of course he heard an invented story - invented by Farquharson.

    That is why both Macnaghten and Farquharson claimed that Druitt committed suicide almost immediately after the murder of Mary Kelly.



    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


    I have already given examples of other made-up stories, complete with inaccuracies and colourful additions.
    None of which in any way have a bearing on what Macnaghten said unless you believe that Macnaghten simply heard an invented story in 1891 and chose it at random to provide a third name for his list. That’s up to you of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    You have nothing to back up that statement.

    I have already given examples of other made-up stories, complete with inaccuracies and colourful additions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


    It suggests he made the story up.

    The fact that he has Druitt committing suicide almost immediately after the murder of Kelly is also inaccurate.

    I suppose that is also some 'added colour to a sensational story'.

    Such sensational stories, with so much added colour, are invariably made-up.
    You have nothing to back up that statement.

    Leave a comment:


  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    The fact that he mentions blood stained clothing is clearly inaccurate. People often add colour to a sensational story….it doesn’t prove the story false.

    It suggests he made the story up.

    The fact that he has Druitt committing suicide almost immediately after the murder of Kelly is also inaccurate.

    I suppose that is also some 'added colour to a sensational story'.

    Such sensational stories, with so much added colour, are invariably made-up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


    I agree with you that you do not know what happened.

    That is why I find it curious that you should think that Druitt's relatives would have learned that he came home with blood on him, especially when you appear to concede that he did not live with them.

    The man who you say backs up Macnaghten's story claimed that Druitt had blood stained clothes on the night of Mary Kelly's murder.

    When I say that he made up that story, you describe that as 'opinion stated as fact'.

    You said that the ‘whole story’ was made up just after specifically writing about Macnaghten (not Farquaharsen) Plus, when you did mention Farquaharsen it was simply to quote the opinion of another person.

    I would be interested to know why you take seriously a story told by someone who by his own admission liked to mix fiction with fact.
    And I would be interested to know why you think that an MP, with no connection to any investigation, three years after the ripper murders and three years before the memorandum just happens to point a finger at the guy mentioned in that memorandum?

    The fact that he mentions blood stained clothing is clearly inaccurate. People often add colour to a sensational story….it doesn’t prove the story false.

    You have your opinions and I have mine. I’ve explained why I think it extremely unlikely that Macnaghten plucked Druitt’s name out of thin air (which you have chosen not to address - but you’re not alone in that omission of course) I don’t know why you feel the need to keep on with this?

    Leave a comment:


  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    I didn’t say that he lived with his family. When someone hears of something it doesn’t follow that they heard it directly.

    I don’t know what happened and neither do you. The difference is that I don’t claim to know.

    I agree with you that you do not know what happened.

    That is why I find it curious that you should think that Druitt's relatives would have learned that he came home with blood on him, especially when you appear to concede that he did not live with them.

    The man who you say backs up Macnaghten's story claimed that Druitt had blood stained clothes on the night of Mary Kelly's murder.

    When I say that he made up that story, you describe that as 'opinion stated as fact'.

    I would be interested to know why you take seriously a story told by someone who by his own admission liked to mix fiction with fact.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


    Where is the evidence that Druitt lived with relatives of his in London?

    If he had come home with blood on him, why would his relatives have known about that?
    I didn’t say that he lived with his family. When someone hears of something it doesn’t follow that they heard it directly.

    I don’t know what happened and neither do you. The difference is that I don’t claim to know.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



    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.

    Farquharson had the strange habit of telling stories about people who had been expelled or dismissed from schools for serious (possibly sexual) offences:

    . . . . The defendant [Farquharson] was accused of maliciously saying to Mr. St. John Brodrick, M.P., that Mr. Gatty was expelled [from] the Charterhouse School, or was compelled to leave the school for a serious offence. . . .

    (The Morning Post, 17 June 1893)

    Witness [William Druitt] heard from a friend on the 11th of December that deceased had not been heard of at his chambers for more than a week. Witness then went to London to make inquiries, and at Blackheath he found that deceased had got into serious trouble at the school, and had been dismissed.

    (Acton, Chiswick & Turnham Green Gazette, 5 January 1889)


    Both Farquharson and Macnaghten repeated the erroneous idea that Druitt committed suicide very soon after the murder of Kelly:

    I give a curious story for what it is worth. There is a West of England member who in private declares that he has solved the mystery of 'Jack the Ripper.' His theory - and he repeats it with so much emphasis that it might almost be called his doctrine - is that 'Jack the Ripper' committed suicide on the night of his last murder... He states that a man with blood-stained clothes committed suicide on the night of the last murder, and he asserts that the man was the son of a surgeon, who suffered from homicidal mania.

    (The Bristol Times and Mirror, 11 February 1891)


    A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder ...

    (Macnaghten Memorandum, 1894)


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

    (Macnaghten, Days of My Years, 1914)


    Farquharson’s liking for manufacturing fictitious stories and passing them off as fact is revealed in a letter to a friend who was a keen collector of historical artefacts:

    You ought to write a short magazine article on it, not referring to your discoveries but based on them, a little fiction mixed in, on which to base your tale.

    (letter from Farquharson to General Pitt-Rivers, 1892)


    This seems to suggest that Farquharson exhibited an established pattern of behaviour where he told outlandish stories and then manufactured ‘proofs’ to support them.

    ...Farquharson broke into Browning’s study to steal his own exercises and had his friends lie about where he had been that morning.


    What is interesting about all three stories is Farquharson seems to have deliberately set out to damage the reputation of a man who he considered to be socially beneath him, and (certainly in the cases of Browning and Gatty and possibly in the case of Druitt), rumoured to be a homosexual.

    The purpose of this article has been to illustrate that there are links between the lies Farquharson told about Oscar Browning while at Eton, the stories he spread about Charles Gatty in 1892, and his claim that Montague Druitt was Jack the Ripper.


    (Henry Richard Farquharson, M.P. The Untrustworthy Source of Macnaghten’s ‘Private Information’?
    By JOANNA WHYMAN, Ripperologist 166 March 2020)


    As I have argued previously, it is most unlikely that Druitt's relatives would have suspected him, and for two reasons: first, there is evidence that his brother had not been in contact with him for a considerable time, at least weeks, and, secondly, if they had known of his movements at the time when the series of murders began, they would have known that he was in Dorset.

    There would have been no reason to suspect that he was even in Whitechapel, let alone eviscerating women there.

    Furthermore, Macnaghten mistakenly thought that Druitt lived with his relatives:

    I incline to the belief that the individual who held up London in terror resided with his own people ...

    (Melville Macnaghten, Days of My Years, 1913)


    It is that error on his part that enabled him to believe the private information he received:

    A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor ... He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.

    (Melville Macnaghten, Memorandum, 1894)


    Macnaghten was not even aware that Druitt's brother had to be informed that he was missing, having evidently been unaware of his movements for some considerable time.

    The whole story about Druitt was invented.
    Opinion stated as fact.

    Leave a comment:


  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    I take the approach that a suspect being named by a very senior police officer is worthy of interest at least. Especially when it involves a suspect that was mentioned by someone 3 years previously who came from the area where the suspects family lived ...


    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.

    Farquharson had the strange habit of telling stories about people who had been expelled or dismissed from schools for serious (possibly sexual) offences:

    . . . . The defendant [Farquharson] was accused of maliciously saying to Mr. St. John Brodrick, M.P., that Mr. Gatty was expelled [from] the Charterhouse School, or was compelled to leave the school for a serious offence. . . .

    (The Morning Post, 17 June 1893)

    Witness [William Druitt] heard from a friend on the 11th of December that deceased had not been heard of at his chambers for more than a week. Witness then went to London to make inquiries, and at Blackheath he found that deceased had got into serious trouble at the school, and had been dismissed.

    (Acton, Chiswick & Turnham Green Gazette, 5 January 1889)


    Both Farquharson and Macnaghten repeated the erroneous idea that Druitt committed suicide very soon after the murder of Kelly:

    I give a curious story for what it is worth. There is a West of England member who in private declares that he has solved the mystery of 'Jack the Ripper.' His theory - and he repeats it with so much emphasis that it might almost be called his doctrine - is that 'Jack the Ripper' committed suicide on the night of his last murder... He states that a man with blood-stained clothes committed suicide on the night of the last murder, and he asserts that the man was the son of a surgeon, who suffered from homicidal mania.

    (The Bristol Times and Mirror, 11 February 1891)


    A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder ...

    (Macnaghten Memorandum, 1894)


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

    (Macnaghten, Days of My Years, 1914)


    Farquharson’s liking for manufacturing fictitious stories and passing them off as fact is revealed in a letter to a friend who was a keen collector of historical artefacts:

    You ought to write a short magazine article on it, not referring to your discoveries but based on them, a little fiction mixed in, on which to base your tale.

    (letter from Farquharson to General Pitt-Rivers, 1892)


    This seems to suggest that Farquharson exhibited an established pattern of behaviour where he told outlandish stories and then manufactured ‘proofs’ to support them.

    ...Farquharson broke into Browning’s study to steal his own exercises and had his friends lie about where he had been that morning.


    What is interesting about all three stories is Farquharson seems to have deliberately set out to damage the reputation of a man who he considered to be socially beneath him, and (certainly in the cases of Browning and Gatty and possibly in the case of Druitt), rumoured to be a homosexual.

    The purpose of this article has been to illustrate that there are links between the lies Farquharson told about Oscar Browning while at Eton, the stories he spread about Charles Gatty in 1892, and his claim that Montague Druitt was Jack the Ripper.


    (Henry Richard Farquharson, M.P. The Untrustworthy Source of Macnaghten’s ‘Private Information’?
    By JOANNA WHYMAN, Ripperologist 166 March 2020)


    As I have argued previously, it is most unlikely that Druitt's relatives would have suspected him, and for two reasons: first, there is evidence that his brother had not been in contact with him for a considerable time, at least weeks, and, secondly, if they had known of his movements at the time when the series of murders began, they would have known that he was in Dorset.

    There would have been no reason to suspect that he was even in Whitechapel, let alone eviscerating women there.

    Furthermore, Macnaghten mistakenly thought that Druitt lived with his relatives:

    I incline to the belief that the individual who held up London in terror resided with his own people ...

    (Melville Macnaghten, Days of My Years, 1913)


    It is that error on his part that enabled him to believe the private information he received:

    A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor ... He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.

    (Melville Macnaghten, Memorandum, 1894)


    Macnaghten was not even aware that Druitt's brother had to be informed that he was missing, having evidently been unaware of his movements for some considerable time.

    The whole story about Druitt was invented.
    Last edited by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1; 01-18-2024, 09:24 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X