What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[PhiltheBear]

I’ve 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 don’t 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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

“In 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 don’t really come into it.

[Phil Carter]

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 we’ve all been treated to over the last 24 hours. Surely the simple thing for those that don’t feel that Druitt is a worthy candidate would be to not bother discussing him. It’s actually why you don’t 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. It’s bizarre and frankly dishonest.
I can take being labelled a Druittist (whatever that is? Should I get a t-shirt printed?) but all I’ve actually ever said is that imo (and the last time that I looked it appears that I’m allowed an opinion) he’s 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-all’s imply that I’m a gullible idiot for holding my opinions. Or that I’m 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 don’t apologise. This is a thread for discussing Druitt as a candidate. If you feel that there’s nothing to discuss then there’s 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

[Wickerman]

..... 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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 can’t take being disagreed with then that’s your problem and not mine. It’s typical of your kind of bluster that after being responded to you slip into victim mode.

Boo-hoo

Bye bye

[Herlock Sholmes]

Maybe not - but you have continually argued that he was

This is a lie. Pure and simple. Point out the post where I’ve said that Druitt was the ripper. Off you go.

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 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 I’ll accept that yes it’s irrelevant but of course you won’t mention that the subject was raised by someone else. If you’re talking about the use of the word suspect again yes I agree. But again you won’t 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 we’re basically idiots for even giving Druitt’s 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 don’t care who your heroes are or who you listen to - largely because you don’t listen but continue to merely express your worthless opinion.

The word hero doesn’t come into it. I apportion respect where I think it’s deserved. If you believe that no one that has written and researched the subject deserves respect then that’s 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 there’s 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 didn’t bleat about bullying.

Oh I’m 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. 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?

You really should try reading and understanding before posting. I never said that you should or shouldn’t have posted. What I said in effect was, I couldn’t understand why you didn’t 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 didn’t 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 didn’t introduce those other topics and I certainly didn’t discuss them on my own. Yet you single me out for criticism. Why not have a dig at others?

The fact that we can’t 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. I’ll say again - no one has said that Druitt was definitely guilty. We have all admitted and accepted that the only evidence is Macnaghten. You’ve 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 we’re all stupid. You really should take a deep breath.

How angry do you get when when someone says something really controversial for Christ’s sake.

I’ve been on this forum for some 8 years. I see that 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 worthless bluster. So here’s a challenge. Tell us why Druitt should be a realistic suspect. I doubt you have the ability.

Again i I haven’t asked you to justify yourself. You have as much right to post on any topic that you choose to as anyone. What I simply don’t 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. I’ve yet to see any on your part either though. At least I try remain unbiased. To dismiss Macnaghten out of hand just isn’t honest.

As for for why Druitt should be a realistic suspect I’ve already explained. I, and others, don’t 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 there’s 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 you’d have simply joined the thread and put your points.

[PhiltheBear]

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.

[PhiltheBear]

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.

[Simon Wood]

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
I'll ask you again -as you suddenly want to be evasive - where, precisely do I say or imply anyone is stupid?

“Look 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)”

“I 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.”

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 isn’t?

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 I’ve agreed with you that the thread got sidetracked and that I’m 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 won’t 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. I’d understand your point if I or anyone else had said that it’s 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 I’d done it. I simply haven’t. Of the named suspects it’s simply my own opinion that Druitt is the likeliest. I’ve 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. I’m also wary of conspiracy theorist thinking. I’m not saying that the more conspiracy minded posters on here are idiots by the way but I’m 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 it’s not a case of throwing anyone’s weight behind Druitt. If you’ve read Paul’s 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. I’m 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 don’t think the MM was an obvious fantasy. Sam Flynn, another experienced and knowledgeable researcher, doesn’t feel that Druitt is a likely suspect but he doesn’t dismiss the MM as a fantasy. I’m 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 doesn’t 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 don’t avoid questions Phil. If I can’t answer them I’ll tell you that I can’t answer them. I’ve answered them.

I don’t 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. I’ve simply responded to your posts. Frankly I can’t understand the attitude.

[packers stem]

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

[Abby Normal]

Utterly pathetic!

I responded to a rather insulting post by PhiltheBear. If you can’t take being disagreed with then that’s your problem and not mine. It’s 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. It’s pointless. It’s like trying to debate a fart.

[Wickerman]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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. It’s pointless. It’s like trying to debate a fart.

Hi Abby,

This is a new experience for me. I’ve never been complimented on my patience before.

Youre right though. I just don’t get why my very mild opinion that Macnaghten wasn’t 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? It’s bizarre.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 someone’s great grandfather must have been done a bad turn by Macnaghten?