What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Wickerman]

You don't have any proof whatsoever that Druitt ever had made a confession, nevertheless you use this to support Druitt.


The Baron

We only read talk of 'proof' when someone is attacking a theory.
There's no proof against any suspect; Kozminski, Tumblety, Feigenbaum, Druitt or whomever.
The details of the 'confession' of an unnamed suspect fits Druitt more than any other.

[The Baron]

We only read talk of 'proof' when someone is attacking a theory.
There's no proof against any suspect; Kozminski, Tumblety, Feigenbaum, Druitt or whomever.
The details of the 'confession' of an unnamed suspect fits Druitt more than any other.

Does it fit ?! No.

Was Druitt a surgeon ?! No

Did the Vicar mention anything about suicide in the Thames ?! No

Did anyone corroborate this Newspaper Story ?! No, even worse:

Sims, undoubtedly a friend of Macnaghten, rubbished the vicar's story. In his Referee column of 22 January 1899 he said in response to the Daily Mail's report from four days earlier:

"There are bound to be various revelations concerning Jack the Ripper as the years go on. This time it is a vicar who heard his dying confession. I have no doubt a great many lunatics have said they were Jack the Ripper on their death beds...I don't want to interfere with this mild little Jack the Ripper boom which the newspapers are playing up..but I don't quite see how the real Jack could have confessed, seeing that he committed suicide after the horrible mutilation of the woman in the house in Dorset-street, Spitalfields"


Of course if one want it to fit just to support a theory, he will make it fit even if it was talking about an elephant dying in a zoo.


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Does it fit ?! No.

Was Druitt a surgeon ?! No

Did the Vicar mention anything about suicide in the Thames ?! No

Did anyone corroborate this Newspaper Story ?! No, even worse:

Sims, undoubtedly a friend of Macnaghten, rubbished the vicar's story. In his Referee column of 22 January 1899 he said in response to the Daily Mail's report from four days earlier:

"There are bound to be various revelations concerning Jack the Ripper as the years go on. This time it is a vicar who heard his dying confession. I have no doubt a great many lunatics have said they were Jack the Ripper on their death beds...I don't want to interfere with this mild little Jack the Ripper boom which the newspapers are playing up..but I don't quite see how the real Jack could have confessed, seeing that he committed suicide after the horrible mutilation of the woman in the house in Dorset-street, Spitalfields"


Of course if one want it to fit just to support a theory, he will make it fit even if it was talking about an elephant dying in a zoo.


The Baron

I see that you’re dishonest cowardice has surfaced yet again

You accused me of saying that Druitt had made a confession - I asked you to show me where I said that or to admit that you were wrong - zero, nothing.

You try and divert in the hope that I’ll forget. This is 2 provable lies that I’ve caught you out on and you haven’t had the decency to even admit them.

This, and the vacuous kind of post that you’ve made above, shows why no one can take you seriously.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Does it fit ?! No.

Was Druitt a surgeon ?! No

Did the Vicar mention anything about suicide in the Thames ?! No

Did anyone corroborate this Newspaper Story ?! No, even worse:

Sims, undoubtedly a friend of Macnaghten, rubbished the vicar's story. In his Referee column of 22 January 1899 he said in response to the Daily Mail's report from four days earlier:

"There are bound to be various revelations concerning Jack the Ripper as the years go on. This time it is a vicar who heard his dying confession. I have no doubt a great many lunatics have said they were Jack the Ripper on their death beds...I don't want to interfere with this mild little Jack the Ripper boom which the newspapers are playing up..but I don't quite see how the real Jack could have confessed, seeing that he committed suicide after the horrible mutilation of the woman in the house in Dorset-street, Spitalfields"


Of course if one want it to fit just to support a theory, he will make it fit even if it was talking about an elephant dying in a zoo.


The Baron

Macnaghten was talking about Druitt. Absolute fact. Unless there was another Druitt that you know of.

[The Baron]

I’ll keep this simple. If, for example, William had found proof that Monty was the ripper amongst his possessions (a bloodied knife, a written confession, who knows?) then he would indeed have known that Monty had killed some women. The fact that another murder occurred would have been irrelevant. It wouldn’t have changed the value of the evidence that William possessed. Your point is without value.

Do you always forget what you write?!

Or you are taking back your words?!

You need some rest, cup of milk, and some sleep.

When you wake up, I advice you to start reading Trevor again, his knowledge of the case and experience will help you see things better.

I will leave you now enjoying this defeat!


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

“

Do you always forget what you write?!

Or you are taking back your words?!

You need some rest, cup of milk, and some sleep.

When you wake up, I advice you to start reading Trevor again, his knowledge of the case and experience will help you see things better.

I will leave you now enjoying this defeat!


The Baron

Final proof that you simply cannot read English. It would prevent these embarrassing moments if you did learn.

My challenge to you was to show me where I’d said that Druitt had definitely made a confession. (I was very specific about that Baron.)

In the quote above I begin the sentence with

.If, for example.....

Which, to anyone that can read and understand the English language, means that I was only saying “what if” I was not saying that Druitt definitely made a confession. You can ask Trevor to explain it to you.

Any chance of an admission and an apology ........

. start reading Trevor again, his knowledge of the case and experience will help you see things better.

A strange statement coming from someone that hasn’t even read any books on the subject that we’re discussing and yet you feel that your some kind of expert.

By the way, ask around the different members of this Forum a simple question “””whose opinion do you respect Trevor or Paul Begg?” “”But we already know the answer don’t we?

[The Baron]

And I challenge you to show me where I stated that you said Druitt definitely made a confession!

I don't like your games and playing words.


Meanwhile enjoy your defeat


The Baron

[Wickerman]

Does it fit ?! No.

Was Druitt a surgeon ?! No

Did the Vicar mention anything about suicide in the Thames ?! No

Did anyone corroborate this Newspaper Story ?! No, even worse:

Sims, undoubtedly a friend of Macnaghten, rubbished the vicar's story. In his Referee column of 22 January 1899 he said in response to the Daily Mail's report from four days earlier:

"There are bound to be various revelations concerning Jack the Ripper as the years go on. This time it is a vicar who heard his dying confession. I have no doubt a great many lunatics have said they were Jack the Ripper on their death beds...I don't want to interfere with this mild little Jack the Ripper boom which the newspapers are playing up..but I don't quite see how the real Jack could have confessed, seeing that he committed suicide after the horrible mutilation of the woman in the house in Dorset-street, Spitalfields"


Of course if one want it to fit just to support a theory, he will make it fit even if it was talking about an elephant dying in a zoo.


The Baron

Baron.

You know very well that I said the story fit Druitt better than any other.

Stories are rarely 100% true, researchers deal with this every day. Stories like this are not written down, they exist in a verbal medium where they are passed on from person to person, in some cases generation to generation and as a result bits get added or distorted, and some details get left out.
You seem to think because it isn't a perfect fit it can't be true, but genuine researchers do not think that way. They already expect inaccuracies, and in many cases these errors can be explained if we look deep enough, but sometimes not.

Like I posted earlier the story by Det. Stephen White and the PC in Mitre Square, the other story by PC Robert Spicer and his capture of 'Jack' in Henage Court, are very unlikely to be total inventions. There'll be a bit of exaggeration here and there, details left out, bits distorted, but basically they are based on a factual incident involving real people.
That is the world of the researcher, but not the world of the modern theorist who's only intent is to prove or disprove a theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And I challenge you to show me where I stated that you said Druitt definitely made a confession!

I don't like your games and playing words.


Meanwhile enjoy your defeat


The Baron

No problem at all Baron

. You don't have any proof whatsoever that Druitt ever had made a confession, nevertheless you use this to support Druitt.

You can’t keep wriggling Baron.

You're “this” in the emboldened sentence means “confession.” The first part of the sentence confirms this.

And so you are blatantly saying “nevertheless you use this confession to support Druitt.”

Im not going to keep playing illiterate word games with you Baron. Your are dishonest. I’ve proven it twice. I’m now going to make every effort not to get drawn into your I’ll-informed fantasies world by ignoring your laughable posts.

[The Baron]

No problem at all Baron



You can’t keep wriggling Baron.

You're “this” in the emboldened sentence means “confession.” The first part of the sentence confirms this.

And so you are blatantly saying “nevertheless you use this confession to support Druitt.”

Im not going to keep playing illiterate word games with you Baron. Your are dishonest. I’ve proven it twice. I’m now going to make every effort not to get drawn into your I’ll-informed fantasies world by ignoring your laughable posts.

The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

And finally, just to support Wickerman’s last post. You and Trevor leap on the errors to disprove the whole case. This is a fallacy. A hypothetical example:

Say I went to a JTR conference where I met Donald Rumbelow for the first time and we had a conversation. Then weeks later I spoke to you and said ““” I went to a JTR conference in London and someone told me that Donald Rumbelow was going to be there so I went over and had a conversation with him about the case. He signed my copy of his book. He seemed very knowledgeable. He’s around 55 years old and an ex-fireman.”””

Would you

a) dismiss the details of the conversation that I had with him because we know that he’s older than 55 and an ex-police officer.

or

b) think, well it was a JTR conference. Donald Rumbelow is a noted authority on the case. It had previously been stated that he would be attending. He was very knowledgeable about the case. He signed my book. So this is likely to be true?

By your ‘Macnaghten’ thinking you should dismiss my conversation and assume that I’m either lying or that I was mistaken. Are either of these two explanations reasonable? No.

Also, by your own thinking (and Trevor’s), any book on any subject that has a couple of errors in it should be thrown in the bin and ignored. Point me to the error-free book Baron.

Whatever else was said, in the press or elsewhere by whoever, we know that Macnaghten wrote the Memorandum and when he wrote it. We know that he was talking about Montague John Druitt and no-one else. And we know that he said that he had evidence at the time which led him to consider Druitt a very likely suspect.

This subject can be debated of course. We don’t just accept that everything is true anymore than we should accept that everything is false. This problem is unfounded over-confidence. Neither I, nor Wickerman or Paul can be accused of that because none of us are categorically stating that Druitt was the ripper only that he might have been. You are the one stating categorically that he couldn’t have been. No intelligent, reasonable person can be that confident. There are posters on here like Abby and Sam who don’t particularly think that Druitt was a good suspect but they don’t say that he couldn’t have been guilty like you do. So unless you have some knowledge that no one else possesses or you have psychic powers or the ability to travel back in time saying that you know that Druitt wasn’t the ripper is patently absurd.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Baron

No answer I see. Embarrassed laughter.

Caught out again Baron.

You are dishonest. Proven

[The Baron]

I don't want to make it harder for you.





The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't want to make it harder for you.





The Baron

I’ve proven that you’re dishonest. Everyone can read Baron. They can all see. Bad luck.

[The Baron]

The Baron