Druitt.

[FISHY1118]

This is another time you could have linked or restated your answers.

Another time you were asked to do your own research. Its all here for you , just as it is on the Richardson thread . It bores me to go over the same old stuff .

I'll no longer entertain those who argue for argument sake , ive given my opinions based solely on the evidence provided . They may be right , they may be wrong, but until such time new evidence ""proves" my wrong ill just ignore the posters who think they know better .

So unless you have some new jtr related evidence ,leave the rabbit hole nonsense to someone while gives a toss .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another time you were asked to do your own research. Its all here for you , just as it is on the Richardson thread . It bores me to go over the same old stuff .

I'll no longer entertain those who argue for argument sake , ive given my opinions based solely on the evidence provided . They may be right , they may be wrong, but until such time new evidence ""proves" my wrong ill just ignore the posters who think they know better .

So unless you have some new jtr related evidence ,leave the rabbit hole nonsense to someone while gives a toss .

The questions haven’t been answered. I completely re-read the thread on Friday. So bad luck.

I notice that you’ve made no comment on the Sickert letter. Good to see that we can now consign him to the joke suspect bin alongside old Sir William.

[FISHY1118]

The questions haven’t been answered. I completely re-read the thread on Friday. So bad luck.

I notice that you’ve made no comment on the Sickert letter. Good to see that we can now consign him to the joke suspect bin alongside old Sir William.

The above hasnt been understood . Stop wasting my time. You can put whom ever you want where ever you like, just as ive done with my bin for Druitt ,Lechmere and Maybrick

[Herlock Sholmes]

The above hasnt been understood . Stop wasting my time. You can put whom ever you want where ever you like, just as ive done with my bin for Druitt ,Lechmere and Maybrick

I’ve looked through every single post on this thread and so I can say with absolute confidence that when you said that you had answered my questions you were not telling the truth. Fact. So if you want to prove that you had answered and that I’m lying then post the link to those answers. You won’t though will you Fishy…. because they never existed. You just made it up.

And secondly, now that your sulking, it was you who were being hypocritical by claiming that a journey back from France by boat and train is entirely acceptable to include in an alibi, but you consider Druitt’s use of the train service alone impossible. Which is like saying that it’s difficult to jump over a 5’ hurdle but easier to jump over a 7’ one.

And finally Fishy it was you who originally asked for the letter to be posted along with the information by Keith about the date. Now it’s been posted and you suddenly lose interested. Yeah right.

Why whole Gull/Knight theory was a joke from start to finish. A silly fairy story that you believed whilst having the nerve to criticise other suspects.

[GUT]

Why does the very mention of Druitt get some people into absolute fits?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why does the very mention of Druitt get some people into absolute fits?

It never ceases to amaze me GUT.

[Ms Diddles]

Why does the very mention of Druitt get some people into absolute fits?

Yeah, I have never understood this myself, GUT!

Ripper or not, I find him one of the more interesting suspects to ponder.

So many questions!

[GUT]

Yeah, I have never understood this myself, GUT!

Ripper or not, I find him one of the more interesting suspects to ponder.

So many questions!

Yep, interesting character, complex life, so many avenues to explore

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s speculation of course but I think that the Crawford Letter is interesting.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/letters-and-communications/651-crawford-letter

We now have a ‘link’ in that Monty’s aunt Isabella wrote a letter to her daughter Emily in November of 1888 in which she talks of an ‘encumbrance’ that she might never be rid of and in connection she visited Cavendish Square, which is where the Earl of Crawford lived.

Could Monty’s suicide have been the ‘encumbrance?’ I don’t really see how. It was already out there as news and there was nothing that anyone (including the Earl of Crawford) could have done to help. Also I think that Crawford’s cousin married into the Majendie family (I’m working from memory here)

[GUT]

It’s speculation of course but I think that the Crawford Letter is interesting.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/letters-and-communications/651-crawford-letter

We now have a ‘link’ in that Monty’s aunt Isabella wrote a letter to her daughter Emily in November of 1888 in which she talks of an ‘encumbrance’ that she might never be rid of and in connection she visited Cavendish Square, which is where the Earl of Crawford lived.

Could Monty’s suicide have been the ‘encumbrance?’ I don’t really see how. It was already out there as news and there was nothing that anyone (including the Earl of Crawford) could have done to help. Also I think that Crawford’s cousin married into the Majendie family (I’m working from memory here)

One thing that amazes me is that there are so many things that can point to Druitt….

The Crawford Letter
Macnaghtan
The MP
The Vicar
The story about the vigilante committee being told it was all over

All could be about him.

His cricket doesn’t rule him out, for one thing we have MJ Druitt showing up on score cards long after he is dead and buried, clearly there was more than one MJ Druitt playing cricket.

Do I think he was the Ripper, I would put him way behind Mr U.N. KNOWN, but an interesting character with much to be looked into before we can say No Way.

[FISHY1118]

I’ve looked through every single post on this thread and so I can say with absolute confidence that when you said that you had answered my questions you were not telling the truth. Fact. So if you want to prove that you had answered and that I’m lying then post the link to those answers. You won’t though will you Fishy…. because they never existed. You just made it up.

And secondly, now that your sulking, it was you who were being hypocritical by claiming that a journey back from France by boat and train is entirely acceptable to include in an alibi, but you consider Druitt’s use of the train service alone impossible. Which is like saying that it’s difficult to jump over a 5’ hurdle but easier to jump over a 7’ one.

And finally Fishy it was you who originally asked for the letter to be posted along with the information by Keith about the date. Now it’s been posted and you suddenly lose interested. Yeah right.

Why whole Gull/Knight theory was a joke from start to finish. A silly fairy story that you believed whilst having the nerve to criticise other suspects.

You really need to get out more herlock ,

You haven't understood my post again have you, , but then you good at that.

Richardson and Druitt threads 1000s of post between them and you still don't get it .

Here's a clue ..... Opinions based on evidence are never wrong unless they can be proved otherwise .
And you Mr argument for argument sake have failed miserably in trying to do so .

Let me know when you have some new jtr evidence you'd like to discuss ,otherwise stop wasting space .

[Herlock Sholmes]

You really need to get out more herlock ,

You haven't understood my post again have you, , but then you good at that.

Richardson and Druitt threads 1000s of post between them and you still don't get it .

Here's a clue ..... Opinions based on evidence are never wrong unless they can be proved otherwise .
And you Mr argument for argument sake have failed miserably in trying to do so .

Let me know when you have some new jtr evidence you'd like to discuss ,otherwise stop wasting space .

Stop waffling Fishy. Everyone can see it.

You said that you had answered my questions which is provably untrue.

You dismissed Druitt and said that his being in Dorset and the travelling required made him impossible as a suspect. This is inconsistent with your defence of Sickert who was in France because you are employing a double-standard.

And finally, you asked for confirmation of the date of the letter. It’s been provided. No comment from you…..you’ve very conveniently become uninterested all of a sudden.

Absolutely exposed.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Anderson and Swanson were making comments that the suspect was known, locked away and had died as early as 1895.
Years before either retired.

It was only the details of the identification and the name that came after both men retired.

Steve

Where did Swanson claim in 1895 that his dead suspect had been locked away?

Where did Anderson claim in 1895 that his locked-up suspect was dead?

[Wickerman]

Where did Swanson claim in 1895 that his dead suspect had been locked away?

Where did Anderson claim in 1895 that his locked-up suspect was dead?

I gave plenty of time for someone to reply, perhaps it was seen as a trick question?
The first claim belongs to Anderson, the second belongs to Swanson.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I gave plenty of time for someone to reply, perhaps it was seen as a trick question?
The first claim belongs to Anderson, the second belongs to Swanson.

The two questions I posed were certainly not intended to be trick questions.


They were made in answer to Elamana's statement in # 74:


Anderson and Swanson were making comments that the suspect was known, locked away and had died as early as 1895.


I am disputing that statement on the ground that neither of them claimed all of those things to be true in 1895.

You seem to be saying that Anderson claimed in 1895 that his dead suspect had been locked away.

But he did not claim that he was dead!

Indeed, when I pointed out that Anderson's son wrote after his father's death that he had believed that the suspect died, Elamarna pointed out that that was not proof that his father had actually believed that.

As late as 1910, Anderson was indicating that his suspect was still alive.

You also seem to be saying that Swanson claimed in 1895 that his locked-up suspect was dead.

But he did not claim that he had been locked up!