Druitt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The nonsense written by Anderson and Swanson about Polish Jews and Kosminski is not worthless, even though it was written after both men retired and even though there is no evidence to substantiate any of their allegations, and even though there is evidence that some of Anderson's allegations are untrue?

They were writing about things that occurred whilst they were still in the job. Abberline retired from the force 2 years before the memorandum and we have no reason to believe that while enjoying his garden in Bournemouth Melville Macnaghten felt the need to keep him appraised of any private information that he’d received. Information that wasn’t made public. Abberline’s ignorance is understandable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Macnaghten did not know that Druitt was the Whitechapel Murderer any more than you know that Druitt did not have an alibi.

He called him a likely suspect. In black and white. Again you appear to know something that the rest of us don’t. Do you have Macnaghten’s secret diary?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course.

You're not interested when someone else makes a completely unfounded accusation against a supposed suspect, but you quibble over what I say about whether Druitt can be proven not to have had an alibi.

He has no alibi. That’s all that matters. It’s a fact.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

They were writing about things that occurred whilst they were still in the job.

That is not correct.

Abberline was writing about a case which he personally investigated.

Anderson made unfounded claims about Polish Jews which relate to a case which occurred following his retirement.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

He has no alibi. That’s all that matters. It’s a fact.

It does not matter to you when someone else makes a completely unfounded accusation against a supposed suspect?

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is not correct.

Abberline was writing about a case which he personally investigated.

Anderson made unfounded claims about Polish Jews which relate to a case which occurred following his retirement.

Im talking about Macnaghten. When Macnaghten wrote his memorandum Abberline had been retired for 2 years.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

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


Where is the evidence that Anderson even considered Kosminski to be a suspect when he started talking about his 'perfectly plausible theory'?

Where is the evidence that Swanson meant Kosminski when he was first reported to have said that the suspect was dead?



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


That is precisely why those details are suspect.

But the Whitechapel murders case was not the only case in which Anderson made unfounded accusations against Polish Jews.

He made demonstrably false allegations relating to another case, after he had retired.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It does not matter to you when someone else makes a completely unfounded accusation against a supposed suspect?

What does that mean PI. Ripperology, in part at least, involves discussing suspects. Not all suspects can be guilty. It might be the case that none of the named suspects was guilty. Should we not discuss any suspect just to avoid the possibility of suggesting the possible guilt of an innocent man?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please see my replies below.

Why have you pulled up a post from Steve? He’s not involved in this thread.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What does that mean PI. Ripperology, in part at least, involves discussing suspects. Not all suspects can be guilty. It might be the case that none of the named suspects was guilty. Should we not discuss any suspect just to avoid the possibility of suggesting the possible guilt of an innocent man?

It does not matter to you that someone else makes an unfounded accusation, but you quibble over alibis.

You are being evasive, just as he has been evasive since being confronted with the fact that his accusation is unfounded.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

He called him a likely suspect. In black and white. Again you appear to know something that the rest of us don’t. Do you have Macnaghten’s secret diary?

He claimed he was 41 years old, a doctor, and that he was sexually insane.

In black and white.

I suppose he recorded those details in his secret diary.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It does not matter to you that someone else makes an unfounded accusation, but you quibble over alibis.

You are being evasive, just as he has been evasive since being confronted with the fact that his accusation is unfounded.

Im not quibbling. I’m stating a fact. There is no evidence for Druitt having an alibi. It can’t be simpler.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He claimed he was 41 years old, a doctor, and that he was sexually insane.

In black and white.

I suppose he recorded those details in his secret diary.

You claimed that Druitt had an alibi which is untrue. Does that mean that we should dismiss everything that you say?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What does that mean PI. Ripperology, in part at least, involves discussing suspects. Not all suspects can be guilty. It might be the case that none of the named suspects was guilty. Should we not discuss any suspect just to avoid the possibility of suggesting the possible guilt of an innocent man?

I never said Kosminski should not be discussed.

I was referring to an unfounded allegation about him.

You are still being evasive.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I never said Kosminski should not be discussed.

I was referring to an unfounded allegation about him.

You are still being evasive.

Anderson and Swanson clearly didn’t think it was unfounded. They were there. We weren’t.