Oh, Dear Boss: Druitt's on a Sticky Wicket

[Trevor Marriott]

I do despair Trevor. I constantly despair at having to deal with posters who are just determined at all costs to try and eliminate Druitt. Posters like you who won’t discuss is openly and fairly. Your every post is an attempt to dismiss. Why are you so against considereing possibilities?

No one is attempting to dismiss him, what is being stated is that there is no direct or tangible evidence to warrant him being regarded as a "supect", based on the different definitions between a person of interest and a suspect, but for some reason you seem to not want to accept those facts, and secondly for some reason you wont accept that the MM is unsafe to totally rely on for the reasons which have been stated over and over again.

I dont know what else anyone can do to try to convince you if you are not convinced is there any point in you continuing to argue with posters on here because of late that is how it has been Herlock v The rest and to be fair its getting boring and repetitive and perhaps Admin should suspend this thread to give you and everyone else time to calm down and take stock of the situation

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Now now Herlock, you are showing signs of despair, if that the best reply you can offer

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

His way past despair

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now now Herlock, you are showing signs of despair, if that the best reply you can offer

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I do despair Trevor. I constantly despair at having to deal with posters who are just determined at all costs to try and eliminate Druitt. Posters like you who won’t discuss is openly and fairly. Your every post is an attempt to dismiss. Why are you so against considereing possibilities?

[Trevor Marriott]

I’ve read it and understood. I knew the facts years ago and understood them. My position is 100% correct against a baseless accusation of fraud. Your opinion doesn’t interest me Trevor. You haven’t a clue what you’re talking about and all that you do is parrot the same old boring script. And this from a man that supports a suspect that wasn’t even in the country at the time of the murders. Says it all. If Druitt is a ‘person of interest’ then Feigenbaum is a ‘person of no interest’ a ‘non-suspect.’ A person not worthy of discussion or consideration.

Now now Herlock, you are showing signs of despair, if that the best reply you can offer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

No problem Fishy, we all know you by know. Logical and reason that would disgrace a nursery and a despicable and baseless accusation against a woman with no direct connection to the case who was simply writing from her fathers rough notes invented by you to try and substantiate your terminally biased opinions. A woman that we know was so concerned about the families of the three men that she refused to allow their names to be mentioned. You call her a liar and a fraud.

We can leave it at that. No problem.

You should take Trevors advice and read Ripperolgist, as for all your other ramblings well thats all been covered and you have got it all wrong no suprize there. keep up the smoke and mirrors act old boy, as you deflect from the real issuse which of course you were wrong but wont admit it.

So keep going i got all night


Remember dont use that paragraph will you .

[Herlock Sholmes]

To me all of this who wrote what and when, is nothing more than a smokescreen to cover the fact that Druitt was mentioned as a person of interest by MM, and there is no supportive evidence to corroborate this, and despite modern day reserchers trying to find that evidence there is still nothing to suggest that at best Druitt is nothing more than a person of interest, and that the MM is totally unsafe to rely on and is littered with errors, and the Aberconway Version does not in any way help because that as i see it is also littered with errors.

Fishy has referred to Ripperolgist 124 I f you havent read it then I would suggest you do before you continue to argue your untennable position.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’ve read it and understood. I knew the facts years ago and understood them. My position is 100% correct against a baseless accusation of fraud. Your opinion doesn’t interest me Trevor. You haven’t a clue what you’re talking about and all that you do is parrot the same old boring script. And this from a man that supports a suspect that wasn’t even in the country at the time of the murders. Says it all. If Druitt is a ‘person of interest’ then Feigenbaum is a ‘person of no interest’ a ‘non-suspect.’ A person not worthy of discussion or consideration.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your just going over ground were already covered . Ive made my point and proven it as a fact, Aberconways version is different as to the paragraph in question ,'' Fact''. unless it produced the same way the MM IS IN HIS OWN HAND it should not be used as proof that mac wrote it . Move on



Where your going with alll this other stuff god only knows.

No problem Fishy, we all know you by know. Logical and reason that would disgrace a nursery and a despicable and baseless accusation against a woman with no direct connection to the case who was simply writing from her fathers rough notes invented by you to try and substantiate your terminally biased opinions. A woman that we know was so concerned about the families of the three men that she refused to allow their names to be mentioned. You call her a liar and a fraud.

We can leave it at that. No problem.

[Trevor Marriott]

There’s nothing to ‘chew on’ Harry if you appear unwilling to check out some very well established facts. To be honest I’m surprised that you are so unaware of the origin of the Aberconway version.

The Aberconway version wasn’t just ‘found.’ It was in Lady Aberconway’s possession. Dan Farson was staying with a woman called Lady Rose Maclaren and he mentioned that he was making a tv series and that one of the episodes was on the ripper. Rose Maclaren told him that coincidentally she’d planned to visited Lady Aberconway with Farson that evening and that she was Macnaghten’s daughter. So during the visit Lady A showed Farson the version that she’d copied from her fathers notes. There’s no mystery.

We can be sure that she wrote it because the handwriting matches. Specifically a very distinctive ‘9’ that we know that Lady A used.

Mac said that he destroyed anything that he considered as ‘evidence.’ We don’t know what that was of course. His notes, that he wrote the MM from, weren’t evidence of anything as everyone has correctly pointed out numerous times despite my never claiming that they were. So he had no need to destroy all of his papers.

Its not a case of me just suggesting that Julia inherited his papers Harry. She was his eldest child and the man who had the ‘rough notes’ about the case was her son. So it was a natural passing on of family papers.

Did Mac need notes? People do make notes Harry. There’s nothing unusual or suspicious about it. Some don’t, some do.

Why should part of it have been typed? This makes perfect sense when we consider that Lady A was absolutely insistent that a condition of her allowing them to be used was that the names shouldn’t be mentioned. She said this to two different people. So it looks like she had the bulk of the notes typed by a Secretary but the more sensitive parts (the parts that included the three names) she wrote out by hand to prevent the possibility of a Secretary spilling the beans.

To me all of this who wrote what and when, is nothing more than a smokescreen to cover the fact that Druitt was mentioned as a person of interest by MM, and there is no supportive evidence to corroborate this, and despite modern day reserchers trying to find that evidence there is still nothing to suggest that at best Druitt is nothing more than a person of interest, and that the MM is totally unsafe to rely on and is littered with errors, and the Aberconway Version does not in any way help because that as i see it is also littered with errors.

Fishy has referred to Ripperolgist 124 I f you havent read it then I would suggest you do before you continue to argue your untennable position.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

So at least we have the truth. You are claiming that Lady Aberconway fraudulently altered her fathers words. We all understand this fact as clearly as we’ve understood for years the fact that the Aberconway version is in Lady A’s handwriting.

……

So how do we assess this fraud?

Well the main question would surely be to detect a motive for her to have done this? Financial gain? Clearly not. That she was convinced of Druitt’s guilt and wanted make it sound more likely that he was the killer? I think that we can safely dismiss that one. That she fraudulently changed the wording to make her father sound a bit more confident? Why? Her fathers official version was already on record. And as it was clear that the case against Druitt wasn’t proven would she really want to falsely make him seem more confident when at any time the rippers true identify might have been revealed? Also, if she was prepared to fraudulently change the document with her own words why didn’t she simply say that Druitt had confessed or that the family had found a bloodied knife and a uterus in a bag?!

So as we can see, Lady Aberconway clearly had no motive for fraudulently adding a passage that Simple served to make her father seem slightly more confident in Druitt’s guilt. And she very obviously didn’t.

And this is the point Fishy. Not the established fact that everyone is aware of - that Lady Aberconway version is in her own handwriting. The whole point of this disagreement items from your post #482 where you suggested that she’d added the passage. But you keep dragging it back to other by pointlessly repeating the same question whilst ignoring my answer.

So…….do you still accuse Lady Aberconway of fraudulently altering her fathers words?

Your just going over ground were already covered . Ive made my point and proven it as a fact, Aberconways version is different as to the paragraph in question ,'' Fact''. unless it produced the same way the MM IS IN HIS OWN HAND it should not be used as proof that mac wrote it . Move on

Where your going with alll this other stuff god only knows.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So could we compile a list of points for and against murder?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, George, all valid points, and all deserving to be debated.

Monty has to be at least a person of interest, I think, because Mac has drawn attention to him, but as you point out, almost everything he says about Monty was incorrect, so no investigation whatsoever seems to have happened.

I have always thought that as Last Wills and Testaments etc are very much the responsibility of the legal profession, that it is distinctly odd that a barrister would be organized enough to leave a suicide note, but be so disorganized as to commit suicide with his financial accounts in a mess - by which I mean carrying unbanked cheques on his person when he committed suicide. That, plus the fact that he bought a return ticket, makes his alleged suicide seem rather dubious to me.

He was dismissed from the school for being in "serious trouble", but he might have been given time to explain his behaviour, hence the letter to Mr Valentine found at his home address, and the possibility of his being sacked "in absentia", perhaps because he hadn't responded to the request for an explanation.

Other issues are now argument and not debate.

Would the fact that Monty had those two very sizeable cheques on him just point to the fact that he knew that he’d never be using the cash? Or perhaps that he’d become so distracted that he’d just put them in his pockets and forgotten about them? All unknowns though of course DrW. I certainly agree that the possibility that he might have been murdered is an intriguing area for speculation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You Herlock,appear to believe that nothing you write should be questioned,nor should information given by other named persons.Let me ask a few questions.
Who typed the words in the Lady A version?
Can we be sure the hand written part was by Lady A? Why shouldn't that have been typed?
Her version was 'Found' .Found where,and under what circumstances? Maybe in an attic,but I'm joking.
Mac's version is often termed 'Official'. Is it ?
You say lady Julia inherited her fathers papers.I thought that Mac had destroyed all rellevant material.Where did the notes come from?
Did Mac need notes to compile his version.Could he not have been writing from memory alone?
So there is a little bit for you to chew on.

There’s nothing to ‘chew on’ Harry if you appear unwilling to check out some very well established facts. To be honest I’m surprised that you are so unaware of the origin of the Aberconway version.

The Aberconway version wasn’t just ‘found.’ It was in Lady Aberconway’s possession. Dan Farson was staying with a woman called Lady Rose Maclaren and he mentioned that he was making a tv series and that one of the episodes was on the ripper. Rose Maclaren told him that coincidentally she’d planned to visited Lady Aberconway with Farson that evening and that she was Macnaghten’s daughter. So during the visit Lady A showed Farson the version that she’d copied from her fathers notes. There’s no mystery.

We can be sure that she wrote it because the handwriting matches. Specifically a very distinctive ‘9’ that we know that Lady A used.

Mac said that he destroyed anything that he considered as ‘evidence.’ We don’t know what that was of course. His notes, that he wrote the MM from, weren’t evidence of anything as everyone has correctly pointed out numerous times despite my never claiming that they were. So he had no need to destroy all of his papers.

Its not a case of me just suggesting that Julia inherited his papers Harry. She was his eldest child and the man who had the ‘rough notes’ about the case was her son. So it was a natural passing on of family papers.

Did Mac need notes? People do make notes Harry. There’s nothing unusual or suspicious about it. Some don’t, some do.

Why should part of it have been typed? This makes perfect sense when we consider that Lady A was absolutely insistent that a condition of her allowing them to be used was that the names shouldn’t be mentioned. She said this to two different people. So it looks like she had the bulk of the notes typed by a Secretary but the more sensitive parts (the parts that included the three names) she wrote out by hand to prevent the possibility of a Secretary spilling the beans.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer,"

Hi Herlock,

I hope that you will consider my following comments the be objective.

Much of MJD's candidacy can be attributed to MM, but the boldened words used in the above statements imply speculation rather than evidence. Apart from his getting Monty's age and profession wrong, he also stated that in his notes that Monty lived with his family and that his suicide was on 10 Nov - "after his awful glut on this occasion (Kelly's murder), gave way altogether and he committed suicide; otherwise the murders would not have ceased.". He also got most of the facts about his two other POI's wrong. Additionally, he wasn't actually in the police force at the time of the murders. I think that the weight given to his opinions have to be tempered in these regards.

The other source of information on MJD is the remnant of the press report of the inquest, which is usually modified by Sugden's suggestion regarding the validity of the date. The fact is that we don't know when Monty was sacked from the school, or when he wrote his descent into madness note, or to which Friday he was referring in that note. These are all assumptions built on another assumption (Sugden). We don't even know the date of his death, having only the medical estimate of how long his body had been in the water.

Some of the points that I find curious are:

Why did he need to go to Hammersmith (or Chiswick) to commit suicide, and was it a suicide?

If his intention was suicide, why did he have so much cash, and cheques, in his pockets? It is speculated that the cheques were severance payments from the school, but why could they not have been clients payments from his legal practice? We cannot eliminate the possibility that he was sacked from the school in absentia later in December for prolonged absence, in which case his actions from 1 Dec had nothing to do with the school.

I agree with Doc on returning to the "genuine constructive debate" in this thread. While I am still not persuaded that Monty was JtR, my "possibility meter" has moved a couple of clicks closer to centre.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

Ive never suggested that these errors should be brushed under any carpet. All things have to be considered and I agree about the MM being the crux of any potential case against Druitt but I’d also point out something that does tend to get brushed under a carpet by some (I’m certainly not suggesting you of course) And that point is that despite the importance of the MM (written in 1894 of course) we still have the M.P. Henry Farquaharsen (who was from the same area of the country as the Druitt’s) telling his friends in London that the ripper was known to have been the son of a surgeon who committed suicide in the Thames after the last murder. So this is Druitt being mentioned as the killer (not by name of course) by a politician from the West Country a full 3 years before the MM.

The ticket is intriguing. A suggestion is that he might have been visiting the Manor House asylum. Perhaps he’d ‘booked himself in’ or his family had placed him there but he got out and committed suicide? Sims did say that the ripper had been confined in an asylum at some point and one of the Tukes is in the records as giving advice on how to catch the ripper. Pure speculation of course George.

The suggestion that he might have been murdered is another interesting suggestion that has Ben discussed before. We can’t discount one obvious suggestion as to the half used ticked of course - that he’d intended to use the return half.

[Herlock Sholmes]

More nonsence from you of course to hide the fact you were wrong ,pure misdirection ,smoke and mirror ploy at its best .

Feel free to keep going , i can play your childish game all day long .




Just stating a fact abby thats alll .

Its just so simple its childs play really, that paragraph thats refered to in the Aberconway version about Druitt has not to the best of my knowledge been seen in Macs handwriting as the same as the in the MM , jesus how hard is it for people to get that .

And no one has questioned or denied this. You asked me the question and I answered it twice and yet you still felt the need to ask me a third time. There’s nothing hard about it. You made it hard by pretending that I hadn’t answered the question when I had.

Its not about trying to discredit anyone, it the same every time when facts and evidence is discussed , if someone want to claim something go right ahead, i dont give a toss. But dont feed me or others horseshit and ask that we just take someones word for it because they ask us to, which is exactly what herlock did before i pointed out to him that it was in fact lady aberconways own hand the paragraph he so desparaley likes to use as proof mac wrote.

In the history of ripperology, as far as I’m aware, there isn’t a single person who isn’t aware that the Aberconway version isn’t written in her own hand. So why are you claiming this as some kind of revelation? You call this horseshit?!

. Get Real . In this case if you been following the discussion at all, the paragraph is question like i said does not appear in Macs handwriting. Its a copy of it. Where would that evidence get you in a court of law? . Here your honour heres a copy of the note... judge ''wheres the original'' , ''we dont know your honour but take our word for it this copy says the same thing'' judge '' go find the original a copy . Thats the point im making all along but simple as that is, someone couldnt work it out .

How the hell could I ‘not have worked this out’ Fishy. It’s too obvious a fact not to know and the fact that I answered twice (and now three times) saying exactly this proves this fact.

All your misdirection cant disprove this fact ,

Tactics by you in the hope that I’ll slip up and say something that you can report.

Ill just keep posting it in regard to that druitt paragraph.

So at least we have the truth. You are claiming that Lady Aberconway fraudulently altered her fathers words. We all understand this fact as clearly as we’ve understood for years the fact that the Aberconway version is in Lady A’s handwriting.

……

So how do we assess this fraud?

Well the main question would surely be to detect a motive for her to have done this? Financial gain? Clearly not. That she was convinced of Druitt’s guilt and wanted make it sound more likely that he was the killer? I think that we can safely dismiss that one. That she fraudulently changed the wording to make her father sound a bit more confident? Why? Her fathers official version was already on record. And as it was clear that the case against Druitt wasn’t proven would she really want to falsely make him seem more confident when at any time the rippers true identify might have been revealed? Also, if she was prepared to fraudulently change the document with her own words why didn’t she simply say that Druitt had confessed or that the family had found a bloodied knife and a uterus in a bag?!

So as we can see, Lady Aberconway clearly had no motive for fraudulently adding a passage that Simple served to make her father seem slightly more confident in Druitt’s guilt. And she very obviously didn’t.

And this is the point Fishy. Not the established fact that everyone is aware of - that Lady Aberconway version is in her own handwriting. The whole point of this disagreement items from your post #482 where you suggested that she’d added the passage. But you keep dragging it back to other by pointlessly repeating the same question whilst ignoring my answer.

So…….do you still accuse Lady Aberconway of fraudulently altering her fathers words?

[Doctored Whatsit]

"from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer,"

Hi Herlock,

I hope that you will consider my following comments the be objective.

Much of MJD's candidacy can be attributed to MM, but the boldened words used in the above statements imply speculation rather than evidence. Apart from his getting Monty's age and profession wrong, he also stated that in his notes that Monty lived with his family and that his suicide was on 10 Nov - "after his awful glut on this occasion (Kelly's murder), gave way altogether and he committed suicide; otherwise the murders would not have ceased.". He also got most of the facts about his two other POI's wrong. Additionally, he wasn't actually in the police force at the time of the murders. I think that the weight given to his opinions have to be tempered in these regards.

The other source of information on MJD is the remnant of the press report of the inquest, which is usually modified by Sugden's suggestion regarding the validity of the date. The fact is that we don't know when Monty was sacked from the school, or when he wrote his descent into madness note, or to which Friday he was referring in that note. These are all assumptions built on another assumption (Sugden). We don't even know the date of his death, having only the medical estimate of how long his body had been in the water.

Some of the points that I find curious are:

Why did he need to go to Hammersmith (or Chiswick) to commit suicide, and was it a suicide?

If his intention was suicide, why did he have so much cash, and cheques, in his pockets? It is speculated that the cheques were severance payments from the school, but why could they not have been clients payments from his legal practice? We cannot eliminate the possibility that he was sacked from the school in absentia later in December for prolonged absence, in which case his actions from 1 Dec had nothing to do with the school.

I agree with Doc on returning to the "genuine constructive debate" in this thread. While I am still not persuaded that Monty was JtR, my "possibility meter" has moved a couple of clicks closer to centre.

Cheers, George

Yes, George, all valid points, and all deserving to be debated.

Monty has to be at least a person of interest, I think, because Mac has drawn attention to him, but as you point out, almost everything he says about Monty was incorrect, so no investigation whatsoever seems to have happened.

I have always thought that as Last Wills and Testaments etc are very much the responsibility of the legal profession, that it is distinctly odd that a barrister would be organized enough to leave a suicide note, but be so disorganized as to commit suicide with his financial accounts in a mess - by which I mean carrying unbanked cheques on his person when he committed suicide. That, plus the fact that he bought a return ticket, makes his alleged suicide seem rather dubious to me.

He was dismissed from the school for being in "serious trouble", but he might have been given time to explain his behaviour, hence the letter to Mr Valentine found at his home address, and the possibility of his being sacked "in absentia", perhaps because he hadn't responded to the request for an explanation.

Other issues are now argument and not debate.