Reasons why?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes it is.

It is not.

It is not reasonable at all to allege that someone was sexually insane in the absence of any evidence.

I am confident that most readers agree with me on that point.

PI, I know what I have or haven't argued.

I suggest you re-read what you actually wrote.

You did indeed use a circular argument, by referring to the supposed sexual insanity of the murderer as justification for the statement that Druitt was sexually insane.

Macnaghten said the 10th or near to it. If he'd included the night of the murder he would have said 'the 9th or near to it'

He did include the night of the murder as a possible date.

What I am saying is that things can occur which don't get recorded. Therefore we shouldn't dismiss them on that basis which is what you are doing.

But when I say that it is very likely that Druitt and Kosminski each had an alibi for at least one of the murders, you dismiss what I say.

In response, you have written, 'Druitt had no alibi' and that I 'invented' an alibi for him as well as Kosminski.

If you think we should not dismiss unrecorded alibis, then should you be making such categorical statements?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is not.

It is not reasonable at all to allege that someone was sexually insane in the absence of any evidence.

I am confident that most readers agree with me on that point.

We have no evidence that Macnaghten had no evidence. You are making an assumption to make your point. Again.




I suggest you re-read what you actually wrote.

You did indeed use a circular argument, by referring to the supposed sexual insanity of the murderer as justification for the statement that Druitt was sexually insane.

You’re making an assumption. Again.




He did include the night of the murder as a possible date.

Where?




But when I say that it is very likely that Druitt and Kosminski each had an alibi for at least one of the murders, you dismiss what I say.

In response, you have written, 'Druitt had no alibi' and that I 'invented' an alibi for him as well as Kosminski.

If you think we should not dismiss unrecorded alibis, then should you be making such categorical statements?

To say that Druitt had an alibi is a lie. Nothing more, nothing less.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We have no evidence that Macnaghten had no evidence. You are making an assumption to make your point. Again.

I am not making an assumption.

If Macnaghten had evidence, he could have referred to it, instead of merely making an assertion.

The same goes for Anderson.

You’re making an assumption. Again.

I am not making an assumption.

You have repeatedly used a circular argument, that Macnaghten was justified in stating that Druitt was sexually insane on the ground that the murderer would have been sexually insane.

Where?

on or about the 10th of November includes the 9th of November.

To say that Druitt had an alibi is a lie. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have stated repeatedly that Druitt had an alibi.

Perhaps you would be so good as to clarify that you are not accusing me of being a liar.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im not going to continue with ‘yes it is’ and ‘no it isn’t.’


on or about the 10th of November includes the 9th of November.


Of course it doesn’t. You are adopting a ‘win at all costs’ approach here. You simply cannot believe your statement to be true. If he’d meant the 9th as a starting point he’d have said it. He meant the 10th or after. I’m not going to continue to respond if you don’t discuss the case reasonably and rationally.


I have stated repeatedly that Druitt had an alibi.

Perhaps you would be so good as to clarify that you are not accusing me of being a liar.

I will.

Druitt categorically did not have an alibi.

You say that he did.

The evidence proves this untrue.

If you knowingly say something untrue then you are telling a lie.

There is no ‘polite’ way of saying it.

If you want me not to say it…..don’t say things which is untrue.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You simply cannot believe your statement to be true.

I do.

I will.

Druitt categorically did not have an alibi.

You say that he did.

The evidence proves this untrue.

If you knowingly say something untrue then you are telling a lie.

There is no ‘polite’ way of saying it.

If you want me not to say it…..don’t say things which is untrue.

In that case, you are calling me a liar.

[Doctored Whatsit]

And what source would have informed Farquharson that Druitt had bloodstained clothes on the night of the murder?

We don't know the source, do we? Nor do we know whether Farquharson got it wrong, or whether he embellished the tale, for example. Everything is open to pure speculation.

And Druitt did not have an alibi. Available information may be interpreted to suggest that his involvement was unlikely, but not that he couldn't have been in the East End at the times appropriate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We don't know the source, do we? Nor do we know whether Farquharson got it wrong, or whether he embellished the tale, for example. Everything is open to pure speculation.

Exactly Doc. As we can’t assume that something did happen we shouldn’t assume that something didn’t.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We don't know the source, do we? Nor do we know whether Farquharson got it wrong, or whether he embellished the tale, for example. Everything is open to pure speculation.

We do know that Farquharson liked to spice up his stories with a little fiction mixed in.

[Doctored Whatsit]

We do know that Farquharson liked to spice up his stories with a little fiction mixed in.

Agreed. That's why I wrote that we don't know whether he embellished his tale, and that everything is open to speculation.

[rjpalmer]

Agreed. That's why I wrote that we don't know whether he embellished his tale, and that everything is open to speculation.

I wonder if it is really accurate to suggest that Farquharson was telling Pitt Rivers to lie.

In the Ripperologist article, Johanna Whyman repeats Farquharson's suggestion to Pitt Rivers (a well-known archeologist) that he do the following:

"…Now you have made so many discoveries you ought to be able to form a pretty clear idea of the daily life of our predecessors here. 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. A Briton at Rotherly making love to a girl at Woodcuts. You could show us how they dressed, their ornaments, their horses, the mode of life, their means of locomotion, the character of the land round &c &c. All this would immensely interest us & then the learned would pick holes in your tale, as improbable & you would then prove them wrong by the production of your various proofs in your collection."

She is interpreting this statement in the worst way possible, but as far as I can gather, all he is suggesting is that Pitt Rivers should write a fictional 'tale' in order to present his archeological ideas in a popular format to a wider audience. I can't see where he is suggesting that Pitt-Rivers be dishonest--only that this would help popularize these theories. If critics attacked the account, he could then show proofs from his collection to show that what he presented in his tale could be backed up with actual historical evidence from his archeological digs. Ie., how people lived back then.

It doesn't strike me as sinister as Whyman is making it out to be.