Reasons why?

[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]

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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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 Lewis,

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

Exactly.

Regards,

Simon

[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?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Macnaghten may have honestly reported that Ostrog's whereabouts were unknown, but he has the worrying habit of making mistakes that suggest that the case against his 'suspects' were much stronger than they actually were.

Druitt is 'said to be a doctor'.

At the time, it was considered to be likely that the murderer was a doctor and Druitt turns out to have been a doctor.

Who 'said' it?

Then Druitt 'disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder', which makes his suicide look rather more suspicious than if he committed suicide more than three weeks later.

Again, where could he have got this information from, other than Farquharson?

Then he says that Druitt 'was sexually insane' without providing any reference to anything that would support such an allegation.

He claims that Kosminski 'had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class' - a statement for which there is no evidence.

Where was his evidence?

Where is the evidence that any surveillance of Kosminski revealed any association by him with prostitutes?

He claims further that Kosminski 'had strong homicidal tendencies'.

Where was his evidence?

All the evidence suggests that he was harmless.

Then he claims that Kosminski 'was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889.'

It can hardly be denied that his choice of date makes Kosminski more plausible as the Whitechapel Murderer then the actual date of his removal, which was almost two years later.

If it was a genuine mistake, where would he have got this information from?

He stated further:

'There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'.'

Again, this makes Kosminski look more plausible as a suspect, but what were the circumstances?

Neither Anderson nor Swanson enlightens us.

If such circumstances existed, why is it that no one can tell us what they were?

And just in case anyone is inclined to take Macnaghten seriously, he describes Ostrog as a

'doctor [whose] antecedents were of the worst possible type'.

It is unusual, to say the least, for a doctor to have antecedents who are of the worst possible type.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lewis,

Yes.

The Metropolitan Police.

Regards,

Simon

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I’ve never heard anyone but yourself make that claim.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Macnaghten may have honestly reported that Ostrog's whereabouts were unknown, but he has the worrying habit of making mistakes that suggest that the case against his 'suspects' were much stronger than they actually were.

Druitt is 'said to be a doctor'.

At the time, it was considered to be likely that the murderer was a doctor and Druitt turns out to have been a doctor.

Who 'said' it?

Then Druitt 'disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder', which makes his suicide look rather more suspicious than if he committed suicide more than three weeks later.

Again, where could he have got this information from, other than Farquharson?

This is an Argument From Ignorance - just because you can’t name another source you assume that it must have been Farquaharsen. He made an incorrect assumption. If he was simply ‘copying’ him he’d have said the he’d committed suicide on the 9th. How can you make this claim when they both give different dates for Druitt’s suicide?

Then he says that Druitt 'was sexually insane' without providing any reference to anything that would support such an allegation.

The phrase has no meaning medically. Clearly what he was suggesting was that the killer was ‘mad’ (no sane person would commit these murders) and that the murders were of women who sold sex: therefore he uses the phrase sexually insane. You are portraying the term as if it’s an inaccurately diagnosed illness by Macnaghten. Another non-issue that you are elevating to bolster your argument.

He claims that Kosminski 'had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class' - a statement for which there is no evidence.

Where was his evidence?

I have no idea but what I do know, and what you know too, is that we have only the tiniest fragment of information on this case. Much is missing.

Where is the evidence that any surveillance of Kosminski revealed any association by him with prostitutes?

He claims further that Kosminski 'had strong homicidal tendencies'.

Where was his evidence?

All the evidence suggests that he was harmless.

Then he claims that Kosminski 'was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889.'

It can hardly be denied that his choice of date makes Kosminski more plausible as the Whitechapel Murderer then the actual date of his removal, which was almost two years later.

If it was a genuine mistake, where would he have got this information from?

He stated further:

'There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'.'

Again, this makes Kosminski look more plausible as a suspect, but what were the circumstances?

Neither Anderson nor Swanson enlightens us.

If such circumstances existed, why is it that no one can tell us what they were?

And just in case anyone is inclined to take Macnaghten seriously, he describes Ostrog as a

'doctor [whose] antecedents were of the worst possible type'.

It is unusual, to say the least, for a doctor to have antecedents who are of the worst possible type.

Is there atopic that you won’t introduce Kosminski into to?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Is there atopic that you won’t introduce Kosminski into to?

The subject under discussion is the Macnaghten Memorandum, and its reliability.

It mentions three possible suspects, including Kosminski.

It was not I, but Macnaghten, who 'introduced' Kosminski.

This is an Argument From Ignorance

Of course, it is nothing of the kind.

I quoted from an article by Joanna Whyman in Ripperologist.

I am quite sure that she was not writing from ignorance.

Clearly what he was suggesting was that the killer was ‘mad’

That is inaccurate; he was suggesting that Druitt was mad - and in a sexual way.

Much is missing.

And by a curious coincidence, the missing material seems invariably to be material that would corroborate farfetched claims made by certain senior police officers.