Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    But if the evidence that had come into his possession was such that was convincing to him and the family it might not have been strong enough for a prosecution. Then why couldn’t we combine that with the fact the Druitt was related, not closely but by marriage, to one of Mac’s best friends?

    You make the point that Druitt would have been fairly easy to investigate so I’d ask again, why would he have plucked Druitt’s name out of thin are knowing that he might have been easily exonerated with a bit of research?
    You have this fixation for plucking things out of mid air he came across the name of Druitt from an unknown source as we dont know for sure who that source was we cant comment on its accuracy or truthfulness but the point is that he should have, and he did have, the option to either himself prove or disprove its accuracy or appoint another to do that. He clearly didnt do either and if that memorandum had been submitted to senior officers above him I would have imagined he would have had to answer as to why those simple enquiries to prove or disprove the accuracy of that information had not been done.

    he had every opportunity to prove or dispove the information he was provided with and cleary by what he wrote in the MM and the way he wrote it he failed to do that.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      And if you could prove that Mackenzie and Coles were ripper victims you’d have a point Trevor. But you can’t. So you don’t.

      Theres not one single thing that eliminates Druitt. This should be accepted because it’s a fact.
      Well you pays you money and you takes your choice as to who you believe from those directly involved in their investigations. If you are going to accept Stride as a Ripper victim when all the facts and evidence points to her not being a Ripper victim and the evidence from the McKenzie and Coles murders point to them being ripper victims then the balance of probability is that they were ripper victims and therfore Druitt is ruled out its as simple as that

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        Well you pays you money and you takes your choice as to who you believe from those directly involved in their investigations. If you are going to accept Stride as a Ripper victim when all the facts and evidence points to her not being a Ripper victim and the evidence from the McKenzie and Coles murders point to them being ripper victims then the balance of probability is that they were ripper victims and therfore Druitt is ruled out its as simple as that

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        What facts and what evidence would that be in regards to the stride murder? Thats just a ridiculous statement Trevor.
        'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          You have this fixation for plucking things out of mid air he came across the name of Druitt from an unknown source as we dont know for sure who that source was we cant comment on its accuracy or truthfulness but the point is that he should have, and he did have, the option to either himself prove or disprove its accuracy or appoint another to do that. He clearly didnt do either and if that memorandum had been submitted to senior officers above him I would have imagined he would have had to answer as to why those simple enquiries to prove or disprove the accuracy of that information had not been done.

          he had every opportunity to prove or dispove the information he was provided with and cleary by what he wrote in the MM and the way he wrote it he failed to do that.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          Nothing that he did or didn’t do gives us any pointers to the information or it’s accuracy or validity. Even when he retired Macnaughten was still going for Druitt as the ripper. You can dismiss if you want to. I need facts not opinions or interpretations before I dismiss something.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            Well you pays you money and you takes your choice as to who you believe from those directly involved in their investigations. If you are going to accept Stride as a Ripper victim when all the facts and evidence points to her not being a Ripper victim and the evidence from the McKenzie and Coles murders point to them being ripper victims then the balance of probability is that they were ripper victims and therfore Druitt is ruled out its as simple as that

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Again Trevor you simply make things up and ignore things that I’ve stated numerous times. How many hundreds of times do I have to tell you that I’m undecided on Stride (and to say that all the evidence points away from her being a victim is just too nonsensical to comment on)

            There is no balance of probability on Mackenzie or Coles. We have absolutely no way of knowing for certain so you can’t dismiss someone on a ‘what if.’ You are indulging in wish-thinking. You are allowing your overwhelming and illogical eagerness to dismiss Druitt, based on no evidence, to lead you to silliness.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              Again Trevor you simply make things up and ignore things that I’ve stated numerous times. How many hundreds of times do I have to tell you that I’m undecided on Stride (and to say that all the evidence points away from her being a victim is just too nonsensical to comment on)

              There is no balance of probability on Mackenzie or Coles. We have absolutely no way of knowing for certain so you can’t dismiss someone on a ‘what if.’ You are indulging in wish-thinking. You are allowing your overwhelming and illogical eagerness to dismiss Druitt, based on no evidence, to lead you to silliness.
              I am not making things up everything about Strides murder is different from all the rest of the murders Mckenzie and Coles included, and with those two it doesnt matter what you or I think it is what the police believed back when they were committed, if at the time they were of the opinon that one or both were the work of JTR then that rules out Druitt, you have no argument to offer to keep Druitts suspect viablity alive because the MM you seek to rely on is unsafe and there is not one scrap of evidence to link Druitt to the murders especially the ones in 1889/91 where he has a cast iron unbreakable alibi

              www.trevormarriott

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                I am not making things up everything about Strides murder is different from all the rest of the murders Mckenzie and Coles included, and with those two it doesnt matter what you or I think it is what the police believed back when they were committed, if at the time they were of the opinon that one or both were the work of JTR then that rules out Druitt, you have no argument to offer to keep Druitts suspect viablity alive because the MM you seek to rely on is unsafe and there is not one scrap of evidence to link Druitt to the murders especially the ones in 1889/91 where he has a cast iron unbreakable alibi

                www.trevormarriott
                I’m past the stage of wondering if you’re being serious or not. You really do post some twaddle Trevor.

                You really don’t have a clue. Whether Stride was a ripper murder or not is an unknown. So according to your joke logic because some police believed that Mackenzie and Coles were victims of the ripper we should accept them as victims so that we can eliminate Druitt. But….as all of the police at the time believed that Stride WAS a victim we should ignore them because they were wrong.

                So mistrust the police on Stride (because it suits you to do so)
                But we should take the percentage that believed Mackenzie and Coles were guilty and use them as 100% proof that they were victims (because it suits you to do so)

                You’re tying yourself up in knots.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  I’m past the stage of wondering if you’re being serious or not. You really do post some twaddle Trevor.

                  You really don’t have a clue. Whether Stride was a ripper murder or not is an unknown. So according to your joke logic because some police believed that Mackenzie and Coles were victims of the ripper we should accept them as victims so that we can eliminate Druitt. But….as all of the police at the time believed that Stride WAS a victim we should ignore them because they were wrong.

                  So mistrust the police on Stride (because it suits you to do so)
                  But we should take the percentage that believed Mackenzie and Coles were guilty and use them as 100% proof that they were victims (because it suits you to do so)

                  You’re tying yourself up in knots.
                  It doesnt suit me as to whether or not McKenzie or Coles were Ripper victims but can you not understand that if the police in 1889/91 believed they were victims of the ripper then that must rule out Druitt, because he was propping up daisies by that time.

                  Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that? and it corroborates what i have said all along that The MM is "unsafe"

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    It doesnt suit me as to whether or not McKenzie or Coles were Ripper victims but can you not understand that if the police in 1889/91 believed they were victims of the ripper then that must rule out Druitt, because he was propping up daisies by that time.

                    Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that? and it corroborates what i have said all along that The MM is "unsafe"

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    Jesus f****ng Christ Trevor do you honestly believe that I don’t understand that if they were victims that Druitt would be eliminated because he was dead? How can you possibly have deduced that from anything that I posted? It’s simple…

                    WHAT IM SAYING IS THAT WE DON’T KNOW IF THEY WERE VICTIMS OR NOT. OPINION IS DIVIDED. SOME SAY THEY WERE AND SOME (ID SUGGEST THE MAJORITY) SAY THAT THEY WEREN’T. SO WE CANNOT USE THEM TO DISMISS DRUITT UNLESS YOU ARE BARKING MAD. YOU CANT PROVE A POSITIVE WITH AN UNKNOWN. PLEASE TRY TO UNDERSTAND THIS.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    Comment


                    • Can you produce a single post on any aspect of this case without using the word ‘unsafe?’

                      EVERY SINGLE ISSUE IN THIS CASE THAT ISNT 100% PROVEN CAN BE LABELLED ‘UNSAFE’ BECAUSE THEY ARE SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION AND EVALUATION. BUT ISN'T IT STRANGE THAT YOU ONLY EVER REEL OUT THE WORD WHEN YOUR TRYING TO BOLSTER ONE OF YOUR OWN BASELESS THEORIES OR TRYING TO DISMISS SOMEONE ELSE’S OPINION. STRANGE ISN'T IT HOW REID’S RELYING ON MEMORY FOR EVENTS THAT OCCURRED YEARS EARLIER ISN’T ‘UNSAFE’ IN YOUR EYES? OR THE STATEMENT TAKEN BY LAWTON THAT NO ONE ELSE HEARD WASN'T ‘UNSAFE’ IN YOUR EYES.

                      HIGHLY SELECTIVE UNSAFENESS.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                        Can you produce a single post on any aspect of this case without using the word ‘unsafe?’

                        EVERY SINGLE ISSUE IN THIS CASE THAT ISNT 100% PROVEN CAN BE LABELLED ‘UNSAFE’ BECAUSE THEY ARE SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION AND EVALUATION. BUT ISN'T IT STRANGE THAT YOU ONLY EVER REEL OUT THE WORD WHEN YOUR TRYING TO BOLSTER ONE OF YOUR OWN BASELESS THEORIES OR TRYING TO DISMISS SOMEONE ELSE’S OPINION. STRANGE ISN'T IT HOW REID’S RELYING ON MEMORY FOR EVENTS THAT OCCURRED YEARS EARLIER ISN’T ‘UNSAFE’ IN YOUR EYES? OR THE STATEMENT TAKEN BY LAWTON THAT NO ONE ELSE HEARD WASN'T ‘UNSAFE’ IN YOUR EYES.

                        HIGHLY SELECTIVE UNSAFENESS.
                        and what theory am I looking to bolster we are talking about Druitt as a suspect for the Ripper and it is a fact that if either of Coles or Mckenzie were a ripper victim then he is elimnated there is nothing you can say that will change that, but I am sure you will find something to try to keep Druitt alive and the misguided faith you have in MM.

                        You then go off on a tanget bringing Insp reids memory into question, let me say that when he gave the interview in 1896 all the facts he relayed to the reporter were all correct except one minor issue, if you compare the MM which you clearly are it is littered with errors from a senior officer who was not even involved in any of the murders becasue he was still picking tea leaves in some far off land when they occurred.

                        and would you be so kind as to not shout if you are intending to reply you need to calm down

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          and what theory am I looking to bolster we are talking about Druitt as a suspect for the Ripper and it is a fact that if either of Coles or Mckenzie were a ripper victim then he is elimnated there is nothing you can say that will change that, but I am sure you will find something to try to keep Druitt alive and the misguided faith you have in MM.

                          You then go off on a tanget bringing Insp reids memory into question, let me say that when he gave the interview in 1896 all the facts he relayed to the reporter were all correct except one minor issue, if you compare the MM which you clearly are it is littered with errors from a senior officer who was not even involved in any of the murders becasue he was still picking tea leaves in some far off land when they occurred.

                          and would you be so kind as to not shout if you are intending to reply you need to calm down

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          I shouted Trevor because simply typing normally has no effect on you as you simply ignore this or respond as if I’ve said something completely different. I really don’t see why I should keep putting up with this.

                          I have never claimed, suggested, hinted at, imagined or believed that if Mackenzie and Coles were Ripper victims then Druitt could still be called a suspect. Clearly he couldn’t. Transparently obviously he couldn’t. What I DID say, which you are deliberately ignoring, is the we have no way of knowing if they were victims. Some believed at the time that they were and some didn’t. Likewise today, some think that they were (well Mackenzie at least as I’d suggest that very few go for Coles) and some thing that they weren’t. And so, please, please, please, try to understand this Trevor and don’t respond as if I haven’t said it…..

                          We cannot say - we can eliminate Druitt because Mackenzie and Coles might have been ripper victims.

                          Do you understand? We CANT say that because it’s completely illogical. But you keep bloody saying it!!!
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            and what theory am I looking to bolster we are talking about Druitt as a suspect for the Ripper and it is a fact that if either of Coles or Mckenzie were a ripper victim then he is elimnated there is nothing you can say that will change that, but I am sure you will find something to try to keep Druitt alive and the misguided faith you have in MM.

                            You then go off on a tanget bringing Insp reids memory into question, let me say that when he gave the interview in 1896 all the facts he relayed to the reporter were all correct except one minor issue, if you compare the MM which you clearly are it is littered with errors from a senior officer who was not even involved in any of the murders becasue he was still picking tea leaves in some far off land when they occurred.

                            and would you be so kind as to not shout if you are intending to reply you need to calm down

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Reid made one minor error. Mac made 2 or 3 irrelevant ones. So what. I’m sick of hearing so much significance desperately being place in triviality’s.

                            Unless you can prove……and I mean PROVE that MacNaghten was lying or wrong then you should stop wasting your time and effort in a feeble and biased attempt to eliminate him. Druitt very likely wasn’t the killer but that goes for all suspects (including those that were 4000 miles away) but ripperologists should keep and open mind and not blindly persue their own biased agenda.

                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              It doesnt suit me as to whether or not McKenzie or Coles were Ripper victims but can you not understand that if the police in 1889/91 believed they were victims of the ripper then that must rule out Druitt, because he was propping up daisies by that time.

                              Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that? and it corroborates what i have said all along that The MM is "unsafe"

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              There was no collective police opinion.
                              We have various police officials expressing doubt as to which victims were part of the series, and which were not.
                              There was no 'Police Opinion'.
                              In Oct. 1888 Anderson claimed (paraphrase) "we didn't have a clue concerning anyone", do you take that as Police Opinion?
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Sanity at last!

                                Cheers Wick
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X