Reasons why?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

c.d.

Thanks c.d.

[Wickerman]

You have just proved my point: paranoid delusions are obviously something more serious than depression...

What have I proven?

Obviously I'm no psychologist but as far as I know 'Paranoid Delusions' is your own fear someone is out to get you - not you going after someone else.

Druitt was not a fool, he certainly had a high degree of intelligence.
Why on earth would Druitt kill himself as a preventative measure against him thinking people are coming to kill him?

How ridiculous is that?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

From a source that we don’t know.

More 'private' information?

[Herlock Sholmes]

More 'private' information?

No, unknown information PI. The case is absolutely teeming with things that we don’t know and have no way of finding out. I’ll say it again, if we don’t know what x was, how can we assess it let alone seek to dismiss it?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In response to Herlock's # 165:


I think your main point is that Macnaghten, like Anderson and Swanson, was simply honestly recording and interpreting information that he had received from various sources.

I disagree.

They all go much further than that.

Macnaghten says that Druitt was sexually insane.

In # 154, I was on the receiving end of the following:

YOU think it is obvious. But you gorgot to tell us thst it was a privste take, did you not? You said it IS obvious, not that it was merely your own thougths.

And I had not even said anything about anyone!

I used to be routinely 'accused' of stating my opinion as fact.

I would like to know why those three policemen are allowed to get away with making unsubstantiated statements of fact.

Macnaghten stated as fact that Druitt was 'sexually insane' and that Kosminski had 'homicidal tendencies'.

Anderson called 'Kosminski' 'the murderer' and 'the criminal'.

Swanson called Kosminski a 'murderer'.

Neither Kosminski nor anyone else was ever convicted of any of the Whitechapel murders.

Kosminski was never even charged with committing any violent act.

You cannot argue that they were merely recording information they had received.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In response to Herlock's # 165:


I think your main point is that Macnaghten, like Anderson and Swanson, was simply honestly recording and interpreting information that he had received from various sources.

I disagree.

They all go much further than that.

Macnaghten says that Druitt was sexually insane.

In # 154, I was on the receiving end of the following:

YOU think it is obvious. But you gorgot to tell us thst it was a privste take, did you not? You said it IS obvious, not that it was merely your own thougths.

And I had not even said anything about anyone!

I used to be routinely 'accused' of stating my opinion as fact.

I would like to know why those three policemen are allowed to get away with making unsubstantiated statements of fact.

Macnaghten stated as fact that Druitt was 'sexually insane' and that Kosminski had 'homicidal tendencies'.

Anderson called 'Kosminski' 'the murderer' and 'the criminal'.

Swanson called Kosminski a 'murderer'.

Neither Kosminski nor anyone else was ever convicted of any of the Whitechapel murders.

Kosminski was never even charged with committing any violent act.

You cannot argue that they were merely recording information they had received.

I’m a little confused at to why you call this a response to my post #165 as you haven’t addressed any of the points i made in that post.

I would like to know why those three policemen are allowed to get away with making unsubstantiated statements of fact.

I’m not suggesting that they should be. If we know for a fact that something is inaccurate or wrong it’s entirely legitimate to point it out. But that doesn’t make it entirely accurate to make further deductions from these. We can’t assume that errors are indicative of dishonesty for example. We can’t assume that one or two errors mean that everything that that person ever said was also wrong. It’s about balance. It’s about not allowing ourselves to get carried away.

Macnaghten stated as fact that Druitt was 'sexually insane' and that Kosminski had 'homicidal tendencies

If he thought that Druitt might well have been the ripper then naturally he wouldn’t have had a normal psychology. Macnaghten wasn’t a 21st century psychologist or criminologist. He simply used a phrase ‘sexually insane’ probably to imply a madman that killed for sexual reasons. It’s an totally unimportant point ], unnecessarily elevated to have some significance which it doesn’t merit.

Didn't Kosminski pull a knife on his sister-in-law? To Mac that might have indicated a tendency to murderous violence…nipped in the bud on that occasion. It’s another unimportant point.

You cannot argue that they were merely recording information they had received

I can’t understand why you might think that I (or anyone else) would? I wouldn’t dispute something that is so obviously true PI?

What I’m saying, and one of the things that you haven’t responded to as yet, is that as we don’t know what that information was so we cannot assess it therefore we cannot dismiss it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If he thought that Druitt might well have been the ripper then naturally he wouldn’t have had a normal psychology. Macnaghten wasn’t a 21st century psychologist or criminologist. He simply used a phrase ‘sexually insane’ probably to imply a madman that killed for sexual reasons.

In that case, Macnaghten had no right to make that statement.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In that case, Macnaghten had no right to make that statement.

It was a throwaway line PI. If I said that the ripper was a ‘madman’ or a ‘psycho’ would I really be censured for using those non-technically accurate terms? The fact that Macnaghten used ‘sexually insane’ is neither here nor there. He wasn’t compiling an FBI profile after all. It was simply what he came up with at the time. I really don’t know why you’re making an issue of it?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If I said that the ripper was a ‘madman’ or a ‘psycho’ would I really be censured for using those non-technically accurate terms?

Macnaghten did not claim that the Ripper was sexually insane.

He claimed that Druitt was sexually insane.

He was not entitled to make that statement.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Macnaghten did not claim that the Ripper was sexually insane.

He claimed that Druitt was sexually insane.

He was not entitled to make that statement.

You're splitting hairs PI. He was talking about Druitt as a possible ripper.

He was entitled to use any phrase that he wanted to. I find ‘entitled’ to be a very strange choice of word. Are you saying that he required someone’s permission? That he used that phrase is a complete non-issue. You appear to be clinging to this point for some inexplicable reason.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You're splitting hairs PI. He was talking about Druitt as a possible ripper.

He was entitled to use any phrase that he wanted to. I find ‘entitled’ to be a very strange choice of word. Are you saying that he required someone’s permission? That he used that phrase is a complete non-issue. You appear to be clinging to this point for some inexplicable reason.

I am not splitting hairs.

Macnaghten was not entitled to state that Druitt was sexually insane without some substantiation, which he does not provide.

Where is the evidence that Druitt was sexually insane?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not splitting hairs.

Macnaghten was not entitled to state that Druitt was sexually insane without some substantiation, which he does not provide.

Where is the evidence that Druitt was sexually insane?

How many times do we have to explain this PI. WE have no evidence. But clearly Macnaghten felt that HE did. We have no way of assessing this without jumping to conclusions.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

How many times do we have to explain this PI. WE have no evidence. But clearly Macnaghten felt that HE did. We have no way of assessing this without jumping to conclusions.

Macnaghten felt?

Here is what Macnaghten actually wrote:

A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.

Did Macnaghten feel that Druitt was a doctor - and who would have told him he was a doctor?

Did he only feel that Druitt was sexually insane or did the same source that informed him he was a doctor give him that information too, as well as the juicy information that Druitt disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder?

As for the private information: why is it that everyone seems to be assuming that it came directly from Druitt's family?

Macnaghten did not say it did.

For all we know, Macnaghten may have heard that someone had heard from a relative of Druitt that another relative of Druitt suspected him of being the murderer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Macnaghten felt?

Here is what Macnaghten actually wrote:

A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.

Did Macnaghten feel that Druitt was a doctor - and who would have told him he was a doctor?

Did he only feel that Druitt was sexually insane or did the same source that informed him he was a doctor give him that information too, as well as the juicy information that Druitt disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder?

As for the private information: why is it that everyone seems to be assuming that it came directly from Druitt's family?

Macnaghten did not say it did.

For all we know, Macnaghten may have heard that someone had heard from a relative of Druitt that another relative of Druitt suspected him of being the murderer.

I haven’t said that the private information came directly from the family as we don’t know where he heard it from because he didn’t say. Why is this so important to you? It might have come directly from a family member or via an intermediary. We don’t know. And when I saw ‘we’ I include you in that PI.

We don’t know why he used the term ‘sexually insane’ either. Maybe he heard it from the person who gave him the private information? Again PI, we don’t know.

When we don’t know something there can often be multiple possible explanations. None of which, in this case, can we confirm or disprove. My position is exactly that…..we have unknowns here that we can’t assess. You appear to feel that you know the answers to those unknowns. I can’t understand why you should take this approach?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The fact that Macnaghten thought that Druitt was a doctor is an indication of the quality of his information.

Whoever supplied him with his 'private information' evidently did not tell him the most basic fact about Druitt: what he did for a living.