Druitt.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I’m no longer going to respond to personal stuff.

if I had adopted that attitude, you would have stopped receiving replies from me long ago.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I could not care less whether you think what I wrote is 'good enough'.

I made two points.

They stand on their merits.

You can quibble about alibis if you wish, but I did not make any statement about an alibi.

I would just add that I do not know how you yourself could claim to be impartial when you are prepared to accept hearsay against a so-called suspect.

Please prove that it was hearsay to Macnaghten? To do that you would have to prove that what he’d been told wasn’t substantiated. Druitt didn’t have to have been proven guilty even if the evidence had been substantiated. If Macnaghten had been told certain facts that led someone to suspect Druitt, those particular facts might have been substantiated by any number of people. Which would have meant that those facts weren’t hearsay to Macnaghten.

[Herlock Sholmes]

if I had adopted that attitude, you would have stopped receiving replies from me long ago.

If only.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please prove that it was hearsay to Macnaghten? To do that you would have to prove that what he’d been told wasn’t substantiated.

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.

(MACNAGHTEN)



Druitt was not a doctor.

Druitt did not disappear at the time of the Miller's Court murder.

The statement that he was sexually insane is obviously without justification.

What his relatives believed about him would not be considered to be evidence, even if the information came directly from them.

If the information did not come directly from them then it was merely hearsay.

It is not necessary to prove that what Macnaghten was told was unsubstantiated.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

(MACNAGHTEN)



Druitt was not a doctor.

Druitt did not disappear at the time of the Miller's Court murder.

The statement that he was sexually insane is obviously without justification.

What his relatives believed about him would not be considered to be evidence, even if the information came directly from them.

If the information did not come directly from them then it was merely hearsay.

It is not necessary to prove that what Macnaghten was told was unsubstantiated.

Druitt’s age and profession aren’t relevant to the contents of his information. We have no way of knowing the gap of time between him hearing his information and then writing it up. It could have been weeks or months. How many of us have assumed that we have recalled a detail or two correctly and so didn’t feel it necessary to check? He got one digit wrong and he called someone a doctor who was the son of a doctor.

If you told me that you’d seen ‘Fred’ a few weeks ago and when describing him you said that he was wearing dark brown trousers and gold-rimmed glasses and I could prove that he was actually wearing black trousers and silver rimmed glasses would you be happy for your claim to have seen ‘Fred’ dismissed? Or would you expect an allowance for the fallibility of human memory?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

(MACNAGHTEN)



Druitt was not a doctor.

Druitt did not disappear at the time of the Miller's Court murder.

The statement that he was sexually insane is obviously without justification.

What his relatives believed about him would not be considered to be evidence, even if the information came directly from them.

If the information did not come directly from them then it was merely hearsay.

It is not necessary to prove that what Macnaghten was told was unsubstantiated.

HS responds to the first two lines of my post above but not to the next four.

How very convenient.

He expects 'an allowance' to be made 'for the fallibility of human memory'.

When it suits him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS responds to the first two lines of my post above but not to the next four.

How very convenient.

He expects 'an allowance' to be made 'for the fallibility of human memory'.

When it suits him.

The statement that he was sexually insane is obviously without justification.

Macnaghten was a Victorian police officer not an FBI profiler.

What his relatives believed about him would not be considered to be evidence, even if the information came directly from them.

And that’s why Macnaghten never claimed that Druitt was provably guilty. Keep up PI I can’t keep spoon feeding you. It’s tiring.

If the information did not come directly from them then it was merely hearsay.

And you don’t know that it didn’t. Or that if it came from an intermediary he didn’t speak to the family and confirmed it. I can’t believe that I’m having to explain this stuff.

It is not necessary to prove that what Macnaghten was told was unsubstantiated.

Not when you can just invent the claim without proof of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A Few Obvious Facts.

And I’m not willing to waste time debating them….they are facts.



No one can claim that Druitt was provably the ripper.

No one can claim that he provably wasn’t.

No one can claim that the info that Macnaghten received was accurate.

No one can claim that the info that Macnaghten received was inaccurate or false.

No one can claim that Druitt couldn’t have been elsewhere at the time of any of the murders.

No one can claim that Druitt was provable elsewhere at the time of any of the murders.

No one can claim to prove that Macnaghten invented his information.

No one can categorically prove that he didn’t.

No one can claim to know for a fact what the ripper looked like.

No one can claim to know for a fact how he would have acted.

No one can claim to provably know his identity.

No one can claim to know what ‘type’ of person (in terms of character) the ripper was or wasn’t.

No one can claim that he was provably a local man.

No one can claim that he provable wasn’t a local man.

No one can provably eliminate a suspect on the grounds of his occupation.

No one can provably eliminate a suspect on his pastimes.

No one can claim to know the killers nationality.

No one can claim to know his occupation.

No one can claim that something couldn’t have occurred because there is no surviving record.

No one can claim that something definitely did happen if there’s no surviving record.

No one can claim to know that the graffito was written by the killer.

No one can claim to know that the graffito wasn’t written by the ripper.

No one can claim to know that the killer never wrote any of the letters.

No one claim to know how exactly many victims there were.



In my opinion these things often get forgotten or ignored. There is so much that we can’t possibly know and possibly never will that we should all be super cautious before making claims.

Im bored with all this. Another Druitt thread dismantled by hysteria and poor reasoning. It’s a pity, when there are posters who might have been willing to contribute to a reasoned discussion rather than this biased hatched job perpetrated by people with an agenda.


Im off to assemble a garden shed to try and rid myself of the headache of constantly having to battle against bias.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The statement that he was sexually insane is obviously without justification.

Macnaghten was a Victorian police officer not an FBI profiler.

What his relatives believed about him would not be considered to be evidence, even if the information came directly from them.

And that’s why Macnaghten never claimed that Druitt was provably guilty. Keep up PI I can’t keep spoon feeding you. It’s tiring.

If the information did not come directly from them then it was merely hearsay.

And you don’t know that it didn’t. Or that if it came from an intermediary he didn’t speak to the family and confirmed it. I can’t believe that I’m having to explain this stuff.

It is not necessary to prove that what Macnaghten was told was unsubstantiated.

Not when you can just invent the claim without proof of course.

You have just accused me for about the twentieth time of inventing something.

Anyone looking at what I actually wrote can see that it is not invention.

I simply made a statement of fact.

I am not responding to any more of your insulting posts.

[jmenges]

I started this thread just so that I could respond to a post by PI when it was pointed out (correctly) that any discussion of Druitt was sidetracking the topic of the thread.

Im bored with all this. Another Druitt thread dismantled by hysteria and poor reasoning. It’s a pity, when there are posters who might have been willing to contribute to a reasoned discussion rather than this biased hatched job perpetrated by people with an agenda.

Perhaps you should stop creating threads intended to provoke a debate with PI?

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

I created a thread to discuss Druitt because it was being discussed on a non-Druitt thread. I think that Druitt is a valid subject for discussion.

[jmenges]

Druitt is a valid topic for discussion. There are nearly 200 existing threads devoted to him.
You created this specific thread to continue a debate with PI and then you complain (with a dose of personal attack for good measure) when you get what you asked for.
I’m asking you to stop doing that.

JM

[FISHY1118]

A Few Obvious Facts.

And I’m not willing to waste time debating them….they are facts.



No one can claim that Druitt was provably the ripper.

No one can claim that he provably wasn’t.

No one can claim that the info that Macnaghten received was accurate.

No one can claim that the info that Macnaghten received was inaccurate or false.

No one can claim that Druitt couldn’t have been elsewhere at the time of any of the murders.

No one can claim that Druitt was provable elsewhere at the time of any of the murders.

No one can claim to prove that Macnaghten invented his information.

No one can categorically prove that he didn’t.

No one can claim to know for a fact what the ripper looked like.

No one can claim to know for a fact how he would have acted.

No one can claim to provably know his identity.

No one can claim to know what ‘type’ of person (in terms of character) the ripper was or wasn’t.

No one can claim that he was provably a local man.

No one can claim that he provable wasn’t a local man.

No one can provably eliminate a suspect on the grounds of his occupation.

No one can provably eliminate a suspect on his pastimes.

No one can claim to know the killers nationality.

No one can claim to know his occupation.

No one can claim that something couldn’t have occurred because there is no surviving record.

No one can claim that something definitely did happen if there’s no surviving record.

No one can claim to know that the graffito was written by the killer.

No one can claim to know that the graffito wasn’t written by the ripper.

No one can claim to know that the killer never wrote any of the letters.

No one claim to know how exactly many victims there were.



In my opinion these things often get forgotten or ignored. There is so much that we can’t possibly know and possibly never will that we should all be super cautious before making claims.

Im bored with all this. Another Druitt thread dismantled by hysteria and poor reasoning. It’s a pity, when there are posters who might have been willing to contribute to a reasoned discussion rather than this biased hatched job perpetrated by people with an agenda.


Im off to assemble a garden shed to try and rid myself of the headache of constantly having to battle against bias.

As far as I can see no one has been hysterical , their reasoning has been sound based on the evidence , there is no bais that im aware of when it comes to discussing ones own opinion, and finally the agenda you speak of exist only on your mind .

I believe panadol might help with the headache, good luck with the shed.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

As far as I can see no one has been hysterical , their reasoning has been sound based on the evidence , there is no basis that im aware of when it comes to discussing ones own opinion, and finally the agenda you speak of exist only on your mind .

I believe panadol might help with the headache, good luck with the shed.

I think your predictive text facility may have resulted in 'basis' instead of 'bias' being typed.

But I agree with your first paragraph.

[FISHY1118]

I think your predictive text facility may have resulted in 'basis' instead of 'bias' being typed.

But I agree with your first paragraph.

Your right it did .

Fixed.

Dont you think panadol helps with a headache ?