Reasons why?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well, Herlock, you were unable to substantiate your assertion that

Macnaghten had evidence that he thought pointed to Druitt.


Now you write:

I’m no expert in mental health issues but I wonder how prevalent it is for someone to have a setback in life, have a decline in mental health and then commit suicide all within the space of three weeks?

What three weeks?

The evidence is that it happened within the space of a few days.

It evidently was not a decline but a sudden breakdown.


You also write:

To claim that there is ‘evidence that his suicide must have been connected to something else' just doesn’t hold water

and

what if they had found evidence that he was the ripper


More private information?

It is very convenient - is it not?- that there is 'private information' about Druitt being the Whitechapel Murderer, given by relatives of his to Macnaghten, and then private information about the murders, given by the school to Druitt, which the school then keeps private, and presumably was privately acquired by it.

Whatever the nature of the incident that led to his dismissal may have been, there is absolutely no reason to suspect that it had anything to do with the Whitechapel murders.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Macnaghten had some basis for making the statements that he did...

Otherwise, we would have to conclude that he was lying or simply enjoyed making things up.

Macnaghten claimed that Kosminski 'had strong homicidal tendencies' and that Ostrog was a 'homicidal maniac'.

What basis do you imagine he had for making those statements?


Macnaghten claimed that Druitt 'disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder' and that Kosminski 'was removed to an asylum' about four months later.

What basis do you imagine he had for making those statements?


Macnaghten claimed that Kosminski 'had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class'.

What basis do you imagine he had for making that statement?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, Herlock, you were unable to substantiate your assertion that

Macnaghten had evidence that he thought pointed to Druitt.

He clearly did. He even wrote it down.


Now you write:

I’m no expert in mental health issues but I wonder how prevalent it is for someone to have a setback in life, have a decline in mental health and then commit suicide all within the space of three weeks?

What three weeks?

My mistake.

The evidence is that it happened within the space of a few days.

It evidently was not a decline but a sudden breakdown.

Speculation and nothing more PI. Unless you were there, following him around, you simply can’t know that. I honestly don’t know why you make statements like this?

You also write:

To claim that there is ‘evidence that his suicide must have been connected to something else' just doesn’t hold water

and

what if they had found evidence that he was the ripper


More private information?

Do you know why he was sacked from the school PI? No. Neither does anyone else so pretty much anything is a possibility. And the suggestion that it might have been kept a secret to protect the reputation of the school can hardly be considered surprising. Especially in the Victorian era.

It is very convenient - is it not?- that there is 'private information' about Druitt being the Whitechapel Murderer, given by relatives of his to Macnaghten, and then private information about the murders, given by the school to Druitt, which the school then keeps private, and presumably was privately acquired by it.

You believe in a conspiracy to assassinate the most powerful man on the planet and in a huge cover-up to hide the fact and yet you find it totally unbelievable that someone in Victorian London just might have wanted to keep something private? A bit of balance PI, please.

Whatever the nature of the incident that led to his dismissal may have been, there is absolutely no reason to suspect that it had anything to do with the Whitechapel murders.

And there’s absolutely no reason to suspect that it didn’t.

Do you really want to keep going around in these circles PI?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Macnaghten claimed that Kosminski 'had strong homicidal tendencies' and that Ostrog was a 'homicidal maniac'.

What basis do you imagine he had for making those statements?


Macnaghten claimed that Druitt 'disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder' and that Kosminski 'was removed to an asylum' about four months later.

What basis do you imagine he had for making those statements?


Macnaghten claimed that Kosminski 'had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class'.

What basis do you imagine he had for making that statement?

Why are you so convinced that you can’t be wrong PI?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Contrary to your assertion, Herlock, it is not clear that Macnaghten had any evidence that suggested that Druitt was the Whitechapel Murderer nor that he 'wrote it down'.

It is not, as you claim, merely speculation on my part that he had a sudden breakdown.

It is in his suicide note, which contains an allusion to his dismissal.

The evidence we have is that he committed suicide soon after his dismissal and that it was his dismissal that triggered it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why are you so convinced that you can’t be wrong PI?

I am waiting for c.d.'s answers.

It seems you do not have any.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Contrary to your assertion, Herlock, it is not clear that Macnaghten had any evidence that suggested that Druitt was the Whitechapel Murderer nor that he 'wrote it down'.

When did I claim that he wrote it down? Again I’ll state the obvious but I really don’t understand why I should have to. You have no evidence that Macnaghten lied. Not a smidgeon PI. Not the tiniest scintilla. Just as I have no proof.

It is not, as you claim, merely speculation on my part that he had a sudden breakdown.

It is in his suicide note, which contains an allusion to his dismissal.

No it doesn’t. You’re speculating that it did. Why can’t you see the difference?

The evidence we have is that he committed suicide soon after his dismissal and that it was his dismissal that triggered it.

It said “since Friday..” and nothing more. There is absolutely nothing the could preclude a longer standing problem which culminated with him deciding on the Friday that he was going to commit suicide. All else is conjecture. When we are faced with an unknown as we clearly are here why can’t you simply accept it? It’s not a sign of weakness to admit that there are things that we simply have no way of knowing but you are reluctant to do so. I’m not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am waiting for c.d.'s answers.

It seems you do not have any.

Constantly repeating a speculation that Macnaghten lied, with zero evidence for it, is not constructive. It’s the equivalent of simply saying “no it wasn’t,” or “no he didn’t,” to everything.

Again, I have no way of proving that Macnaghten wasn’t lying and you have no way of proving that he was - this is a statement of categorical fact - and yet you simply refuse the let it stand. Why?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You made the claim in # 153, Herlock.

Instead of reproducing in # 154 all the questions I posed in #152, why don't you try answering them?

[c.d.]

I am waiting for c.d.'s answers.

It seems you do not have any.

c.d. can't be arsed any more to continue going in circles. I am passing the baton to Herlock.

c.d.

[c.d.]

And if Herlock is smart he will refuse to accept the baton and will instead head to the sidelines to drink beer.

c.d.

[Lewis C]

Exactly!

He says that Druitt is

more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders ...

but that the same applies to Kosminski and Ostrog!

I think Macnaghten was going a little further than that. Yes, he thought that Druitt, Kosminski, and Ostrog all were better suspects than Cutbush, but I believe that he also thought that Druitt was a better suspect than Kosminski and Ostrog.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Macnaghten claimed that Kosminski 'had strong homicidal tendencies' and that Ostrog was a 'homicidal maniac'.

What basis do you imagine he had for making those statements?

I have no idea PI. From a source that we don’t know. From an inaccurate source.

Macnaghten claimed that Druitt 'disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder' and that Kosminski 'was removed to an asylum' about four months later.

What basis do you imagine he had for making those statements?

From an inaccurate source?

Macnaghten claimed that Kosminski 'had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class'.

What basis do you imagine he had for making that statement?

From a source that we don’t know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think Macnaghten was going a little further than that. Yes, he thought that Druitt, Kosminski, and Ostrog all were better suspects than Cutbush, but I believe that he also thought that Druitt was a better suspect than Kosminski and Ostrog.

He certainly did Lewis. He favoured Druitt until he retired from the force and possibly until his death.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You made the claim in # 153, Herlock.

Instead of reproducing in # 154 all the questions I posed in #152, why don't you try answering them?

I’ve now answered the questions from #152 but in general I’d prefer not to get distracted by Kosminski and Ostrog.

Would you respond to these points?:

1. Neither I or anyone else has anyway of knowing the content of Macnaghten’s private information because he never made public what it was and that as that is the case we have absolutely no way of assessing it’s source or it’s validity? And….

2. Neither you or anyone else has any way of knowing the content of Macnaghten’s private information because he never made public what it was and that as that is the case we have absolutely no way of criticising or dismissing its source or validity? And…

3. That whilst errors might be pointed to as showing the possibility of errors elsewhere they are not, in themselves, proof of dishonesty? And that errors aren’t exclusively the result of dishonesty? And…

4. Do you believe that it’s always the case that if someone makes a statement but doesn’t take the time (for an unknown reason) to back it up or to flesh it out with more information, that we should assume that the statement has no chance of being true and that we should dismiss it? And…..

5. Do you think that when we have a suspect named by an important source (someone that would certainly have been in a position to have received important information that perhaps wasn’t intended for public consumption) and one that we have absolutely no way of dismissing in terms of evidence do you think that the reasoned approach should be a) to completely dismiss that suspect, or b) to take the position that this was important information and that it’s better to accept its limitations and to keep an open mind on the subject on the grounds that there might be some truth to it?