Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Iíve never one said that Druitt was definitely the ripper. (Calm down and check your spelling. It's a cheap shot but worth making)

    Maybe not - but you have continually argued that he was.

    If you tried reading instead of bleating you would see posts by many people that donít feel that Druitt is a strong suspect - Abby, Sam, Jeff, John G to name but four. Have I tried bullying anyone? No.

    I'm not bleating. There have indeed been posts from people both pro and against Druitt as a suspect. There has also been a stupendous amount of you arguing about stuff that has nothing whatsoever to do with Druitt. Your bullying is simply there for everyone to see.

    If if I have the choice of who I listen to when deciding whether Druitt is worthy of consideration or not who should I listen to - You or Paul Begg? Difficult one that.

    I really don't care who your heroes are or who you listen to - largely because you don't listen but continue to merely express your fairly worthless opinions .

    Why the hell are you bothered whether a thread that you have taken no part in goes off thread or not? Your post was ego driven bluster.

    Oh I'm sorry. Where is the law that someone can read a thread and has to post in it? That you have the writers equivalent of verbal diarrhoea rather points to your own ego and not mine. You have devoted literally pages of this thread to arguments with people that consist of nothing other than you making childish comments/arguments that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. No other reason for that than a display of your own egocentricity. I'm interested in seeing anything that points to Druitt as a genuine suspect because I can't see a single factual thing. I note that you can't provide anything other than MacNaghten's memo, so why are you still here?
    I've been on this forum for some 8 years. I see you've been here for 2 years. I feel no need to justify myself to you. You don't seem to have any expertise in the subject or you would exhibit it rather than carry on your pointless and worthless bluster. So, there's a challenge. Tell us why Druitt should be a realistic suspect. I doubt that you have the ability.

    They sought it with thimbles, they sought it with care; They pursued it with forks and hope;
    They threatened its life with a railway-share; They charmed it with smiles and soap.

    Comment


    • Thus were the canonical five originally cast in stone, with Annie Chapman now officially designated as the murdererís second victim. But it appears Dr. Bond had not been given access to the full inquest transcripts, for he wroteó

      ďIn the four murders of which I have seen the notes only I cannot form a very definite opinion as to the time that had elapsed between the murder and the discovering of the body.
      Hi Simon,

      You asked me for evidence that the murders were the work of one man. I mentioned Bond. He had access to the post Mortem notes from which to form his opinion. The time between when the murders took place and the discovery of the bodies donít really come into it.
      Regards

      Herlock






      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        id ask anyone and everyone this question. Why does Druitt get some people frothing at the mouth? Can anyone really understand posters that feel compelled to such impassioned nonsense that weíve all been treated to over the last 24 hours. Surely the simple thing for those that donít feel that Druitt is a worthy candidate would be to not bother discussing him. Itís actually why you donít see me over on the Lewis Carroll thread. But not at all, they feel the need to keep stamping their feet and making baseless rants about why we should all stop talking about them. Itís bizarre and frankly dishonest.
        I can take being labelled a Druittist (whatever that is? Should I get a t-shirt printed?) but all Iíve actually ever said is that imo (and the last time that I looked it appears that Iím allowed an opinion) heís the likeliest of the named candidates. Abby, Sam and many others disagree. Do I ever have an issue with them or their opinions? Absolutely not. Where I do have an issue is when know-allís imply that Iím a gullible idiot for holding my opinions. Or that Iím a policeman or a police apologist (simply because I consider it a possibility that a policeman might have been honest - perish the thought!)

        If my opinions offend your poor little conspiracy theorist fantasies then I donít apologise. This is a thread for discussing Druitt as a candidate. If you feel that thereís nothing to discuss then thereís little point in you being here.

        Period.

        Herlock

        Enough is enough. You are clearly only on here to provoke. You've done it to at least 5 posters now.
        You are now on ignore.

        Phil
        Last edited by Phil Carter; 06-15-2019, 03:16 PM.
        Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


        Justice for the 96 = achieved
        Accountability? ....

        Comment


        • Originally posted by PhiltheBear View Post
          ..... So, there's a challenge. Tell us why Druitt should be a realistic suspect. I doubt that you have the ability.[/B]
          It isn't our place to do that. He was already identified as a realistic suspect.
          Warren also listed three realistic suspects on 19th Sept. 1888, Isenschmid, Puckeridge & an unnamed Lodger. Is it our place to justify his conclusion too?

          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post

            Herlock

            Enough is enough. You are clearly only on here to provoke. You've done it to at least 5 posters now.
            You are now on ignore.

            Phil
            Utterly pathetic!

            I responded to a rather insulting post by PhiltheBear. If you canít take being disagreed with then thatís your problem and not mine. Itís typical of your kind of bluster that after being responded to you slip into victim mode.

            Boo-hoo

            Bye bye
            Regards

            Herlock






            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

            Comment


            • Maybe not - but you have continually argued that he was
              This is a lie. Pure and simple. Point out the post where Iíve said that Druitt was the ripper. Off you go.

              Iím not bleating. There have indeed been posts from people both pro and against Druitt as a suspect. There has also been a stupendous amount of stuff that has nothing whatsoever to do with Druitt. Your bullying is simply there for everyone too see.
              Firstly if you mean the stuff about Hanbury Street then Iíll accept that yes itís irrelevant but of course you wonít mention that the subject was raised by someone else. If youíre talking about the use of the word suspect again yes I agree. But again you wonít be interested in the fact that this issue was raised and perpetuated by someone else which led me to begin a new thread on the topic.

              Bullying! This is unbelievable hypocrisy. You appeared on the thread to tell me and others that weíre basically idiots for even giving Druittís candidature the time of day. You were the one who swooped down with your proclamations and then you proceed to bleat about bullying when I simply respond to your post.

              Perhaps you need a safe space?

              I really donít care who your heroes are or who you listen to - largely because you donít listen but continue to merely express your worthless opinion.
              The word hero doesnít come into it. I apportion respect where I think itís deserved. If you believe that no one that has written and researched the subject deserves respect then thatís up to you.

              My worthless opinion. - Ok, so by that you mean my very mild opinion that Macnaghten might not have been a liar? Or that he might not have been an idiot? Or that he might indeed have received persuasive evidence? Or that thereís a chance that Druitt might have been the ripper?

              I apologise for such extremism. What I should have done of course was to have just read your initial proclamation, I mean post, and realised that it was all crap. Anyone with any interest in Druitt as a candidate should just pack their bags and go home.

              Your first post was arrogant and insulting. I responded. I didnít bleat about bullying.

              Oh Iím sorry. Where is the law that someone can read a post and has to post in it? That you have the writers equivalent of verbal diarrhoea points to your own ego not mine. You have devoted literally pages to arguments with people that consist of nothing other than you making childish comments/arguments that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. No other reason for that than a display of your own egocentricity. Iím interested in seeing anything that points to Druitt as a genuine suspect because I canít see a single factual thing. I note that you canít provide anything other than Macnaghtenís memo, so why are you still here?
              You really should try reading and understanding before posting. I never said that you should or shouldnít have posted. What I said in effect was, I couldnít understand why you didnít just join the debate or make your points (you appeared to have had no previous interest in doing so) What you decided though was to jump onto the thread and basically accuse me of being stupid for even considering Druitt a suspect. You were the one that piled in with the initial insult. I didnít cry about that I simply responded then you flew into a fit.

              Its also worth pointing out about the discussions that were off topic. I agree with you. But why do you begin by having ago at me? I didnít introduce those other topics and I certainly didnít discuss them on my own. Yet you single me out for criticism. Why not have a dig at others?

              The fact that we canít produce a piece of factual evidence against Druitt apart from the Memorandum is because there is no factual evidence against Druitt apart from the Memorandum. If you had read the thread you would have been aware of this. Iíll say again - no one has said that Druitt was definitely guilty. We have all admitted and accepted that the only evidence is Macnaghten. Youíve made no revelation there. So basically you are foaming at the mouth simply because I, and a few others, entertain the possibility that Macnaghten might not have been an idiot or a liar. This is hardly dogmatism or extremism is it and yet you find it offensive enough to merit implying that weíre all stupid. You really should take a deep breath.

              How angry do you get when when someone says something really controversial for Christís sake.

              Iíve been on this forum for some 8 years. I see that youíve been here for 2 years. I feel no need to justify myself to you. You donít seem to have any expertise in the subject or you would exhibit it rather than carry on your worthless bluster. So hereís a challenge. Tell us why Druitt should be a realistic suspect. I doubt you have the ability.
              Again i I havenít asked you to justify yourself. You have as much right to post on any topic that you choose to as anyone. What I simply donít understand was your hostile first post on the thread. How did you expect me to respond? With a round of applause or a - thank you for insulting me Phil, I really appreciate it?

              Ive never claimed any expertise and have stated on here many times. Iíve yet to see any on your part either though. At least I try remain unbiased. To dismiss Macnaghten out of hand just isnít honest.

              As for for why Druitt should be a realistic suspect Iíve already explained. I, and others, donít simply take the default position that Macnaghten can be dismissed as a liar or an idiot on zero evidence. Yet you appear to believe that a few inconsequential errors and one white lie dooms Macnaghten to be labelled a hopelessly incompetent liar? This is nonsense. If we imposed that criteria we would have to dismiss everyone. If you think that too extreme then thereís nothing I can do. There is no evidence against any suspect. Do you get as angry when people even mildly discus them or do just reserve your ire for Macnaghten and Druitt?

              Theres no bullying on my part here Phil. No one takes kindly to it being implied that that are stupid for even entertaining the possibility of Druitt as a suspect. This would never have happened if youíd have simply joined the thread and put your points.
              Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 06-15-2019, 05:53 PM.
              Regards

              Herlock






              "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                No one takes kindly to it being implied that that are stupid for even entertaining the possibility of Druitt as a suspect.
                I'll ask you again -as you suddenly want to be evasive - where, precisely do I say or imply anyone is stupid? What I did say, and I'm happy to repeat, is that largely because of your continued arguments on stuff that has nothing at all to do with Druitt that this thread was completely off track and needed to get back on. That says nothing about stupidity but says a lot about the people who want to air themselves in the thread. You cited Paul Begg above. Do tell, where does Paul Begg throw his weight behind Druitt as a suspect? I have his books and I've re-read them on the subject of Druitt. It appears to me that he states most of what I said in my original post.

                Try and answer the question - after all you wasted pages of this thread by demanding that other people answered you questions - even though they had nothing to do with the subject matter.
                They sought it with thimbles, they sought it with care; They pursued it with forks and hope;
                They threatened its life with a railway-share; They charmed it with smiles and soap.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                  It isn't our place to do that. He was already identified as a realistic suspect.
                  Warren also listed three realistic suspects on 19th Sept. 1888, Isenschmid, Puckeridge & an unnamed Lodger. Is it our place to justify his conclusion too?
                  No he isn't. His 'identification' is completely flawed except for his name. I'm not interested in the suspects named elsewhere - I'm interested in the title of this thread, which is Druitt. For which there is absolutely no evidence.
                  They sought it with thimbles, they sought it with care; They pursued it with forks and hope;
                  They threatened its life with a railway-share; They charmed it with smiles and soap.

                  Comment


                  • Hi PhiltheBear,

                    For the purposes of Macnaghten's BS memorandum, Druitt was a perfectly-timed suicide.

                    The rest is easy.

                    Macnaghten ran with his suspect No. 1.

                    Anderson ran with Mac's suspect No. 2.

                    Macnaghten and Anderson both ignored suspect No. 3.

                    Not surprising, given suspect No. 3's circumstances.

                    Regards,

                    Simon
                    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by PhiltheBear View Post
                      .
                      I'll ask you again -as you suddenly want to be evasive - where, precisely do I say or imply anyone is stupid?

                      ďLook at it on its own and it's patently a work of fiction written with the sol purpose of MacNaghten trying to glorify himself (again)Ē

                      ďI find it more than a little strange that anyone who looks at this objectively can consider Druitt as a genuine suspect when there is nothing at all to make him an object of suspicion other than the ramblings of a self glorifying ex-police official. No - not strange - sad.Ē

                      The implication of just those two quotes is hardly a difficult one to decipher Phil. If, according to you something is obviously a work of fiction, what does that imply about someone that believes that it isnít?

                      The second quote adds that anyone believing the Macnaghten might have had good reason to believe Druitt a likely suspect cannot have looked at it objectively. And that their opinions are in some way sad.


                      What I did say, and I'm happy to repeat, is that largely because of your continued arguments on stuff that has nothing at all to do with Druitt that this thread was completely off track and needed to get back on
                      And Iíve agreed with you that the thread got sidetracked and that Iím partially to blame for that. But you fail to acknowledge that the initial points which lead to it being sidetracked were introduced by others. And they and I discussed them when those issues should have been taken to another thread. Yet you choose only castigate me. Threads do occasionally get sidetracked. This one is not the first and wonít be the last.

                      . You cited Paul Begg above. Do tell, where does Paul Begg throw his weight behind Druitt as a suspect? I have his books and I've re-read them on the subject of Druitt. It appears to me that he states most of what I said in my original post.
                      Phil you seem to have this fixed ideas of people promoting Druitt. Iíd understand your point if I or anyone else had said that itís game over and that Druitt was the ripper. No one has said that and you did accuse me of that in your last post and I asked you to point out where Iíd done it. I simply havenít. Of the named suspects itís simply my own opinion that Druitt is the likeliest. Iíve never insulted or called anyone an idiot for disagreeing with me. Whether explicitly or by implication. I have however been critical of people who dismiss Druitt out of hand because they dismiss the MM out of hand simply because of a very few insignificant and inconsequential errors. The fact remains that the MM cannot be shown to be a fantasy. Iím also wary of conspiracy theorist thinking. Iím not saying that the more conspiracy minded posters on here are idiots by the way but Iím very cautious of the habit of seeing the sinister in every error or discrepancy. And also of assuming the default position that all senior police officers were incompetent liars.

                      On Paul Begg. Again itís not a case of throwing anyoneís weight behind Druitt. If youíve read Paulís posts on here recently he's argued very convincingly that we have no good reason to dismiss the MM but in fact we have every reason to believe that Macnaghten felt that he had good reason to consider a likely suspect. Iím not an expert but I think that most would agree that Paul might be considered one. Added to this we have experienced and knowledgeable researchers like Wickerman and Roger Palmer who concur. None of whom are Druittists. These people donít think the MM was an obvious fantasy. Sam Flynn, another experienced and knowledgeable researcher, doesnít feel that Druitt is a likely suspect but he doesnít dismiss the MM as a fantasy. Iím only quoting these people to make the point that if this is the obvious fantasy that you claim it to have been then some very knowledgeable people have all been hoodwinked by it. This doesnít really hold water Phil.

                      . Try and answer the question - after all you wasted pages of this thread by demanding that other people answered you questions - even though they had nothing to do with the subject matter.
                      I donít avoid questions Phil. If I canít answer them Iíll tell you that I canít answer them. Iíve answered them.

                      I donít see why my very mild opinion that Macnaghten genuinely felt that he had reason to suspect Druitt should make you so angry. Your tone from the start has been angry. Iíve simply responded to your posts. Frankly I canít understand the attitude.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






                      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                        But once again you are putting the cart before the horse. You are accusing him of not reading the postmortem notes, but you do not know what those notes contained.
                        We do not have those postmortem notes, but we do have one example of what they would look like by Dr. Phillips. His record of the McKenzie autopsy is published in Evans & Skinner's The Ultimate....pp455-459 HDBK.

                        If you read through that example you should see Dr Phillips does not attempt to speculate how long the body had been dead, neither should he. A postmortem typically contains the results of direct observation. The record describes the way the body & wounds look at the time of the autopsy.
                        The only way to try determine how much time had passed from the murder to the arrival of the doctor is to assess the amount of clotting and extent of loss of blood, and perhaps body temperature. This will be why Dr Bond's conclusion seemed so flexible.

                        By the way, I don't recall anyone using that line from Bond's report to justify an argument. I thought you picked it out as a means of ridiculing him?
                        I think you're getting a little mixed up somehow .

                        He was asked to look at the inquest reports not the postmortem reports and give his opinion .
                        Sourcebook 399-400 pb

                        Had he only looked at the postmortem reports then coming up with such miraculous presumptions as ....

                        "In all the cases there appears to be no evidence of struggling and the attacks were probably so sudden and made in such a position that the women could neither resist nor cry out "

                        Or

                        "in the first four cases the murderer must have attacked from the right side of the victim"

                        Would be ludicrous
                        You can lead a horse to water.....

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Utterly pathetic!

                          I responded to a rather insulting post by PhiltheBear. If you canít take being disagreed with then thatís your problem and not mine. Itís typical of your kind of bluster that after being responded to you slip into victim mode.

                          Boo-hoo

                          Bye bye
                          Hi hs
                          i admire your patience but do yourself a favor and just ignore the no theory theorists, phantom conspiracists, trump obsessors , grand marm anecodotalists and anti establishment indignatories. Itís pointless. Itís like trying to debate a fart.
                          Last edited by Abby Normal; 06-15-2019, 10:27 PM.
                          "Is all that we see or seem
                          but a dream within a dream?"

                          -Edgar Allan Poe


                          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                          -Frederick G. Abberline

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by PhiltheBear View Post

                            No he isn't. His 'identification' is completely flawed except for his name. I'm not interested in the suspects named elsewhere - I'm interested in the title of this thread, which is Druitt. For which there is absolutely no evidence.
                            There's no evidence against any suspect.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                              Hi hs
                              i admire your patience but do yourself a favor and just ignore the no theory theorists, phantom conspiracists, trump obsessors , grand marm anecodotalists and anti establishment indignatories. Itís pointless. Itís like trying to debate a fart.
                              Hi Abby,

                              This is a new experience for me. Iíve never been complimented on my patience before.

                              Youre right though. I just donít get why my very mild opinion that Macnaghten wasnít an idiot or a liar or that he might have had good reason (in his own opinion) to suspect Druitt appears to be such an extremist one? Itís bizarre.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






                              "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                                There's no evidence against any suspect.
                                Which appears to be irrelevant Wick as only Druitt arouses such anger. Well, apart from Maybrick I guess.

                                I think that someoneís great grandfather must have been done a bad turn by Macnaghten?
                                Regards

                                Herlock






                                "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X