Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Now doesn't all of that mirror MM making his sweeping statement about his MM suspects without bothering to check the accuracy of what he was provided with? and then having to beat a hasty retreat and make good his errors by exonerating two of them

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Hang on, Trevor. Explain how and why Macnaghten 'beat a hasty retreat' and had to 'make good his errors'. What errors? Macnaghten wrote, 'I enumerate the cases of 3 men against whom Police held very reasonable suspicion...'

    'The Police held very reasonable suspicion'. The Police, not Macnaghten, Macnaghten may not have had anything to do with the investigations into or suspicions about Kosminski and Ostrog.

    All Macnaghten apparently did was take three men against who 'the police held very reasonable suspicion' and after a 'careful and deliberate' review he - that's Macnaghten personally - felt inclined to exonerate two in favour of Druitt. He was 'inclined to', not did. It wasn't an official exoneration, Kosminski and Ostrog weren't cleared by anybody. In essence all Macnaghten was look at three - presumably leading - suspects and after personally reviewing the evidence, plumping for one. What is there about this situation that makes you say Macnaghten had 'to beat a hasty retreat and make good his errors by exonerating two of them'?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

      Not necessarily, Trevor. You are well aware that confidential investigations took and take place for all sorts of reasons, especially in the class-riddled 19th century.
      We are talking about a high profile series of murders, which the police were under pressure to solve, any information confidential or not would have been investigated and acted upon, and any information obtained by those in high places would have found its way down to the likes of Abberline and Reid to investigate. Again you seem to be speculating that there was such information, but if there was you dont seem to realize how it would have been dealt with.

      With such an important case there would be no need for senior officers to keep it to themselves ,or why would they. Any information any of them got which led to the detection of these crimes, they would have reveled in the acclaim of being the one who solved the case. Proof of that is with Anderson in his book where he says in as many words, we solved the case.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk





      Comment


      • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

        Hang on, Trevor. Explain how and why Macnaghten 'beat a hasty retreat' and had to 'make good his errors'. What errors? Macnaghten wrote, 'I enumerate the cases of 3 men against whom Police held very reasonable suspicion...'

        'The Police held very reasonable suspicion'. The Police, not Macnaghten, Macnaghten may not have had anything to do with the investigations into or suspicions about Kosminski and Ostrog.

        All Macnaghten apparently did was take three men against who 'the police held very reasonable suspicion' and after a 'careful and deliberate' review he - that's Macnaghten personally - felt inclined to exonerate two in favour of Druitt. He was 'inclined to', not did. It wasn't an official exoneration, Kosminski and Ostrog weren't cleared by anybody. In essence all Macnaghten was look at three - presumably leading - suspects and after personally reviewing the evidence, plumping for one. What is there about this situation that makes you say Macnaghten had 'to beat a hasty retreat and make good his errors by exonerating two of them'?
        Well again we disagree on interpretation in my book the term exonerate means to absolve someone from suspicion, which is clearly what he is saying in the AV, now if that isnt beating a hasty retreat I dont know what is !

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          We are talking about a high profile series of murders, which the police were under pressure to solve, any information confidential or not would have been investigated and acted upon, and any information obtained by those in high places would have found its way down to the likes of Abberline and Reid to investigate. Again you seem to be speculating that there was such information, but if there was you dont seem to realize how it would have been dealt with.

          With such an important case there would be no need for senior officers to keep it to themselves ,or why would they. Any information any of them got which led to the detection of these crimes, they would have reveled in the acclaim of being the one who solved the case. Proof of that is with Anderson in his book where he says in as many words, we solved the case.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk




          Trevor,
          I understand how the police operated in the 19th century, which is why I know that confidential investigations took place.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            Well again we disagree on interpretation in my book the term exonerate means to absolve someone from suspicion, which is clearly what he is saying in the AV, now if that isnt beating a hasty retreat I dont know what is !

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Trevor,
            Yes, of course 'exonerate' means to absolve someone of suspicion. But Macnaghten didn't exonerate anyone. He said he was 'inclined' to. And he didn't produce any evidence that exonerated anyone, it was simply his personal assessment of the evidence and preference for Druitt. That much is 100% clear from the source.

            The point though is that there is no evidence that Macnaghten played any part whatsoever in Kosminski and Ostrog being suspects. Why would he have given a monkeys about either. He wasn't involved, he made no mistakes that he had to 'make good' by beating a hasty retreat - a retreat from what? - and 'exonerating' someone. It's all nonsense, unless you can show why he had to beat a retreat, hasty or otherwise, what he was retreating from, and what mistakes he made.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              Yes but when was that taken. The door to Kelly`s room wasn't forced until 1.30pm several hours after the body was first discovered at 10.45am, and after Barnett had identified the body whatever time that was
              I don't think the Irish Police visited Miller's Court until the Monday or Tuesday after the murder. It certainly wasn't before Barnett had informed the police of Mary's alleged Irish origins, and others (e.g. John McCarthy and Elizabeth Phoenix) had too.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • One mistake,is that he(MM) didn't have to wait untill the 23rd February,1994,to make the comparison.I doubt we would be discussing Druitt if it hadn't been for the Sun articles,If the information on Druitt was so compelling that he was elevated to suspect,the least I would expect would be a file on him alone.The police could have done that.Should have if he Druitt,w as suspect.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                  Trevor,
                  Yes, of course 'exonerate' means to absolve someone of suspicion. But Macnaghten didn't exonerate anyone. He said he was 'inclined' to. And he didn't produce any evidence that exonerated anyone, it was simply his personal assessment of the evidence and preference for Druitt. That much is 100% clear from the source.

                  The point though is that there is no evidence that Macnaghten played any part whatsoever in Kosminski and Ostrog being suspects. Why would he have given a monkeys about either. He wasn't involved, he made no mistakes that he had to 'make good' by beating a hasty retreat - a retreat from what? - and 'exonerating' someone. It's all nonsense, unless you can show why he had to beat a retreat, hasty or otherwise, what he was retreating from, and what mistakes he made.
                  Paul
                  It doesnt matter whether or not he played a part. He is stating in an official document that Ostrog and Kosminski were looked upon as suspects, and he is endorsing that suspicion in the original memo.. He then later exonerates them in the AV. Reading between the lines he must have later realized that the information either he had been given, or he found for himself, which he penned in the first Memo was wrong. He then rectified that in the AV, hence the term beating a hasty retreat from what he has wrongly stated in the original.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                    "The grass is always greener on the otherside"

                    Thats why we always see meek researchers still want to believe Macnaghten must have known something, must have some sort of clue.. etc.


                    The Baron



                    Auto-translate isn’t working but I think I understand what you’re saying?

                    We believe that Macnaghten must have known something because he very obviously did know something. We just don’t know what it was but it led him to believe that Druitt was guilty. Unless you have proof that he was a liar (and trivial errors don’t do it) then he was telling the truth. And so, put very, very simply:

                    if Mac was being honest and we have no evidence that he wasn’t (not trivial errors either)
                    if he wasn’t such a gullible dimwit that he’d believe any old hogwash without evidence (no evidence for that either)
                    if the Druitt family didn’t lie about Monty being Jack (why would any family lie about such a thing?)
                    if the family or the intermediary didn’t in some way come to mistakenly believe that Monty was Jack (what innocent things could Monty have done which might have led someone to conclude that he was Jack?)

                    then Druitt was likely to have been Jack the Ripper.
                    Regards

                    Herlock




                    “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                    “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                    “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                    “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                    “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      Paul
                      It doesnt matter whether or not he played a part. He is stating in an official document that Ostrog and Kosminski were looked upon as suspects, and he is endorsing that suspicion in the original memo.. He then later exonerates them in the AV. Reading between the lines he must have later realized that the information either he had been given, or he found for himself, which he penned in the first Memo was wrong. He then rectified that in the AV, hence the term beating a hasty retreat from what he has wrongly stated in the original.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Trevor,
                      They were 'looked upon as suspects', but Macnaghten didn't say he looked upon them as suspects or even that he thought them particularly good suspects, and he didn't endorse any of them, he simply named three men who were more likely than Cutbush to have been the Ripper. That doesn't come near an endorsement. So, again, why would Macnaghten have cared a damn about what he'd written?

                      You also appear to be arguing that the Aberconway version was written after the Scotland Yard version, which isn't the generally held view and isn't something for which you have presented anything approaching a persuasive argument. You need to do that.

                      What information do you think he realised 'was wrong'? For whom do you think the Aberconway version was intended that made Macnaghten rectify the things he got wrong in the earlier version? Why do you think he held himself responsible for anything he had written about Kosminski and Ostrog that made him 'exonerate' them?

                      I would like you to tell me in clear and concise terms:
                      1. what errors Macnaghten made
                      2. precisely how those errors were made good by 'exonerating' Kosminski and Ostrog
                      3. why making good those errors constitutes a hasty retreat, and
                      4. from who or what was Macnaghten retreating.



                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by harry View Post
                        One mistake,is that he(MM) didn't have to wait untill the 23rd February,1994,to make the comparison.I doubt we would be discussing Druitt if it hadn't been for the Sun articles,If the information on Druitt was so compelling that he was elevated to suspect,the least I would expect would be a file on him alone.The police could have done that.Should have if he Druitt,w as suspect.
                        And who is saying there wasn't one?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          He is stating in an official document that Ostrog and Kosminski were looked upon as suspects, and he is endorsing that suspicion in the original memo.. He then later exonerates them in the AV.
                          He says he was "inclined to exonerate" them, as has been pointed out to you. That's not the same as exonerating them outright.
                          Reading between the lines he must have later realized that the information either he had been given, or he found for himself, which he penned in the first Memo was wrong.
                          The level of verbiage/verbosity is different between the two versions, but that doesn't mean that he found that his information was wrong or that he was beating a retreat, only providing more or less detail on one occasion compared to the other.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                            Trevor,
                            They were 'looked upon as suspects', but Macnaghten didn't say he looked upon them as suspects or even that he thought them particularly good suspects, and he didn't endorse any of them, he simply named three men who were more likely than Cutbush to have been the Ripper. That doesn't come near an endorsement. So, again, why would Macnaghten have cared a damn about what he'd written?

                            You also appear to be arguing that the Aberconway version was written after the Scotland Yard version, which isn't the generally held view and isn't something for which you have presented anything approaching a persuasive argument. You need to do that.

                            What information do you think he realised 'was wrong'? For whom do you think the Aberconway version was intended that made Macnaghten rectify the things he got wrong in the earlier version? Why do you think he held himself responsible for anything he had written about Kosminski and Ostrog that made him 'exonerate' them?

                            I would like you to tell me in clear and concise terms:
                            1. what errors Macnaghten made
                            2. precisely how those errors were made good by 'exonerating' Kosminski and Ostrog
                            3. why making good those errors constitutes a hasty retreat, and
                            4. from who or what was Macnaghten retreating.


                            My last post and the contents was self explanatory, why do you insist on keep asking questions that the answers to are clear for all to see, except you.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                              He says he was "inclined to exonerate" them, as has been pointed out to you. That's not the same as exonerating them outright.
                              The level of verbiage/verbosity is different between the two versions, but that doesn't mean that he found that his information was wrong or that he was beating a retreat, only providing more or less detail on one occasion compared to the other.
                              My final say on this thread, and on this topic is that i reiterate that the MM is unsafe and unreliable. I have wasted hours of my life which I will never get back on trying to explain simple logic to those who dont seem to understand the concept of simple logic.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                My last post and the contents was self explanatory, why do you insist on keep asking questions that the answers to are clear for all to see, except you.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                Your last post was not self-explanatory. It didn't explain anything. If it had done, I wouldn't be wasting my time asking for an explanation. I am asking questions because the answers are not clear for all to see and, even if they were, they are not clear to me, and I am trying to understand you. You stated something which, frankly, is complete nonsense. But on the offchance that you are actually making a good an sensible point which I am missing, I am asking for clarification, hence my four very specific questions which you should be able to answer.

                                Alas, rather predictable, you are beating a hasty retreat, which is something you also did goodness knows how many pages back when the questions got a little difficult.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X