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

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

You are correct there was no collective opinion, but in relation to the MCkenzie murder there is evidence that the police suspected her murder to be the work of the Ripper and thats all that matters sufficient to form a suspicion

Dr Bond who also exmained the body was also of the opinion she had been murdered by the Ripper so in my opinion thats enough to cause suspicion for a ripper murder

Anderson was correct in his statement the police did not have a clue but it was not an opinion.

I agree that there is no definitive proof as to how many victims and over what period of time the Ripper was active in Whitechapel, but do you accept that if either Mckenzie were ripper victims then Druitt is eliminated and this is the main bone of contention which forms part of this thread

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

If you are that sick perhaps you should take a rest from here

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.

I am all for keeping an open mind but you wont accpet the fact that if either McKenzie of Coles were ripper victims Druitt is eliminated,do you agree or disagree on that point? and as there is evidence from some of the police, and Dr Bond to show they believed she was a ripper victim, are we to disregard their evidence.

If you are going to argue against that we might as well tear up and dismiss outright all the facts and evidence which it is suggested points to one killer that killer being JTR

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are correct there was no collective opinion, but in relation to the MCkenzie murder there is evidence that the police suspected her murder to be the work of the Ripper and thats all that matters sufficient to form a suspicion

Dr Bond who also exmained the body was also of the opinion she had been murdered by the Ripper so in my opinion thats enough to cause suspicion for a ripper murder

Anderson was correct in his statement the police did not have a clue but it was not an opinion.

I agree that there is no definitive proof as to how many victims and over what period of time the Ripper was active in Whitechapel, but do you accept that if either Mckenzie were ripper victims then Druitt is eliminated and this is the main bone of contention which forms part of this thread

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

For f***s sake Trevor!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How many times are you going to keep making up this crap!!!!!!

Why can’t you get this through your skull just for once!!!!!!

I HAVE NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER DISPUTED THE BLOODY CHILDISHLY OBVIOUS FACT THAT IF MACKENZIE WAS A RIPPER VICTIM THEN DRUITT DEFINITELY WASN'T THE RIPPER.

NOW YOU’RE ASKING WICKERMAN IF HE ACCEPTS IT. OF COURSE HE ACCEPTS IT. HE ACCEPTS IT BECAUSE HE’S NOT AN IDIOT. EVERYONE ACCEPTS IT. I ACCEPT IT. ROGER PALMER ACCEPTS IT. GARY BARNETT ACCEPTS IT. PAUL BEGG ACCEPTS IT. DON RUMBELOW ACCEPTS IT. DAVID ORSAM ACCEPTS IT. FISHY ACCEPTS IT. FISHY’S DOG PROBABLY ACCEPTS IT. HAS IT SUNK IN? WE ALL ACCEPT IT. ITS IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO ACCEPT IT.

THE POINT, HOWEVER, WHICH EVERYONE HAS TO ACCEPT IS THAT OPINION IS DIVIDED ON WHETHER SHE WAS A VICTIM OR NOT. SHE MIGHT HAVE BEEN, SHE MIGHT NOT HAVE BERN. THERES NO CONSENSUS AND THERE’S CERTAINLY NO DEFINITIVE ANSWER.

SO WE CANNOT ELIMINATE DRUITT ON THE BASIS THAT MACKENZIE JUST MIGHT HAVE BEEN A VICTIM BECAUSE ITS BLOODY POINTLESS. NO RIPPER SUSPECT CAN BE DISMISSED ON THE BASIS THAT THEY WERE NOT AVAILABLE TO KILL MACKENZIE.


PLEEEEEEEESE LET THIS POINT DROP TREVOR. YOU REALLY ARE DOING YOURSELF NO FAVOURS.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am all for keeping an open mind but you wont accpet the fact that if either McKenzie of Coles were ripper victims Druitt is eliminated,do you agree or disagree on that point? and as there is evidence from some of the police, and Dr Bond to show they believed she was a ripper victim, are we to disregard their evidence.

If you are going to argue against that we might as well tear up and dismiss outright all the facts and evidence which it is suggested points to one killer that killer being JTR

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

See post 198

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

On that basis are we to dismiss all the other victims as "might have been a ripper victim" because we dont know for sure.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

On that basis are we to dismiss all the other victims as "might have been a ripper victim" because we dont know for sure.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You are free to dismiss whatever victims that you want to. But if you ask ripperologists in general Mackenzie and Coles are considered less likely that the 5 (Stride being debatable for obvious reasons.)

[Abby Normal]

Yes the crew list for the vessel in question

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

could you please produce this list? im assuming its got the name of the ship, tje date it was docked, tje location it was docked and fegeinbaums name??

[Trevor Marriott]

You are free to dismiss whatever victims that you want to. But if you ask ripperologists in general Mackenzie and Coles are considered less likely that the 5 (Stride being debatable for obvious reasons.)

Nobody is dismissing any of the victims outright there were a series of murders which I would say with the exception of Stride all bore some similarity but the problem is that can we safely say that they were all committed by one killer or different killers. The police and Dr Bond clearly belived McKenzie was a victim of the same hand who killed the other victims, now I am not saying they were right, but if they were then Druitt is eliminated.

You cant pick and choose the evidence to suit, weighing up that evidence you seek to rely on MM and his memo but as we know it is littered with errors, weight that up against the police and medical evidence in the Mckenzie murder and the scales are tipped in favour of Mckenzie being a ripper victim and therefore if that was the case Druitt cannot have been the Ripper

McKenzie and Coles murders are somewhat different because of the time gap between Mary Kellys murder and their murders but of course we know that serial killers do lay dormant for long periods of time before killing again. Or in the case of Feigenbaum being a foreign sailor the time gap could be explained by reason of the fact that his travels took him away creating that long gap, or perhaps he spent time in a prison somewhere

There are more questions than answers and each researcher is capable of forming their own opinions on how they assess and evaluate the facts and the evidence put before them in an unbiased approach, sadly that doesnt always happen becasue we see researchers moving heaven and earth to try to prop up the old accepted theories and are not preapred to consider or accept anything new which detracts away from those old accepted theories.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nobody is dismissing any of the victims outright there were a series of murders which I would say with the exception of Stride all bore some similarity but the problem is that can we safely say that they were all committed by one killer or different killers. The police and Dr Bond clearly belived McKenzie was a victim of the same hand who killed the other victims, now I am not saying they were right, but if they were then Druitt is eliminated.

You cant pick and choose the evidence to suit, weighing up that evidence you seek to rely on MM and his memo but as we know it is littered with errors, weight that up against the police and medical evidence in the Mckenzie murder and the scales are tipped in favour of Mckenzie being a ripper victim and therefore if that was the case Druitt cannot have been the Ripper

McKenzie and Coles murders are somewhat different because of the time gap between Mary Kellys murder and their murders but of course we know that serial killers do lay dormant for long periods of time before killing again. Or in the case of Feigenbaum being a foreign sailor the time gap could be explained by reason of the fact that his travels took him away creating that long gap, or perhaps he spent time in a prison somewhere

There are more questions than answers and each researcher is capable of forming their own opinions on how they assess and evaluate the facts and the evidence put before them in an unbiased approach, sadly that doesnt always happen becasue we see researchers moving heaven and earth to try to prop up the old accepted theories and are not preapred to consider or accept anything new which detracts away from those old accepted theories.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There isn’t a more biased poster than you Trevor. To draw a conclusion then you go to absolutely ridiculous lengths to defend that position. A brief diversion, but the apron was a case in point, you finally admitted that you were wrong about which part of the apron had string attached (God knows why it took me so long to get you there but it did) This mistake completely wiped away your idea that the 2 pieces couldn’t have made up a full apron. But despite the prop of your theory been wiped away you still couldn’t concede. That’s the kind of thing that I’m up against when debating the case with you. And now this insanity.

In a sweeping statement, and purely to support your obsessive desire to eliminate Druitt, you now claim that the ‘balance’ is in favour of Mackenzie being a ripper victim and so we should dismiss Druitt. Where do I start with this tripe. Firstly, the various topics for debate in this field aren’t simply decided on ‘your opinion Trevor.’ Nor mine, nor any individual or even group of individuals. I’m certainly not saying that you can’t be right on any topic but on the vast majority of subjects we have absolutely no way of confirming or refuting them. For every person that believes that Mackenzie was a victim (and I’ve no issue with anyone holding that opinion) we can find one that doesn’t. In fact I’d say that we could probably find 3 or 4. If we held a poll I suspect that Mackenzie would get a minority of votes. So we cannot dismiss Druitt, or any other suspect, on the basis of Mackenzie. It’s a sad state of affairs that I find myself explaining this to an ex-Police Officer. I fail to see how anyone couldn’t understand this. Unless we can prove, and I mean prove Trevor, that Mackenzie was a ripper victim then she cannot be used.

What you are basically saying is this: “By my own assessment based on research my opinion is that Mackenzie was a ripper victim. Therefore everyone should accept that I’m correct and that this is now a fact and everyone should now consider her a proven victim. And because that is now proven, because I’ve decided that it’s proven, we should now dismiss Druitt as a suspect.”

And I’m not being sarcastic here Trevor. This is EXACTLY what you are suggesting (yes of course you haven’t used those exact words btw before you try to sidetrack us with that point.)

[Trevor Marriott]

What you are basically saying is this: “By my own assessment based on research my opinion is that Mackenzie was a ripper victim. Therefore everyone should accept that I’m correct and that this is now a fact and everyone should now consider her a proven victim. And because that is now proven, because I’ve decided that it’s proven, we should now dismiss Druitt as a suspect.”

And I’m not being sarcastic here Trevor. This is EXACTLY what you are suggesting (yes of course you haven’t used those exact words btw before you try to sidetrack us with that point.)

There is no sidetracking. What i am saying and you are missing the point is that becasue there is evidence that the police and Dr Bond beleived that McKenzie was a ripper victim that evidence should not be ignored, If you are going to accept that all the other murders were attributed to one killer because the police beleived that to be the case as did the doctors, why do you not accept the same principle for McKenzie. the answer is as I keep saying that to accept that Mckenzie was a ripper victim then that fact alone must eliminate Druitt and for some reason you do not want that to happen.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no sidetracking. What i am saying and you are missing the point is that becasue there is evidence that the police and Dr Bond beleived that McKenzie was a ripper victim that evidence should not be ignored, If you are going to accept that all the other murders were attributed to one killer because the police beleived that to be the case as did the doctors, why do you not accept the same principle for McKenzie. the answer is as I keep saying that to accept that Mckenzie was a ripper victim then that fact alone must eliminate Druitt and for some reason you do not want that to happen.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’m clearly wasting my time yet again trying to explain the obvious to you Trevor.

You say that I don’t want to accept that Mackenzie was a ripper victim but this is clearly and provably untrue.

THE POINT, HOWEVER, WHICH EVERYONE HAS TO ACCEPT IS THAT OPINION IS DIVIDED ON WHETHER SHE WAS A VICTIM OR NOT. SHE MIGHT HAVE BEEN, SHE MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN.

I assume that you can read that Trevor? It’s a post, by me, saying that Mackenzie might have been a ripper victim.

or,

. WHAT IM SAYING IS THAT WE DON’T KNOW IF THEY WERE VICTIMS OR NOT

A quote by me saying that we don’t know if she was a victim or not. So we can put to bed the silly suggestion that I’m claiming to know that Mackenzie wasn’t a victim just to keep Druitt in the game.

But what is bizarre though is that you appear to be suggesting that we should take it as a proven fact that she was a victim simply so that you can eliminate Druitt.

Ill leave it to reasonable posters to judge whose position is untenable.

[Abby Normal]

could you please produce this list? im assuming its got the name of the ship, tje date it was docked, tje location it was docked and fegeinbaums name??

bumped for trevor

[Trevor Marriott]

I’m clearly wasting my time yet again trying to explain the obvious to you Trevor.

You say that I don’t want to accept that Mackenzie was a ripper victim but this is clearly and provably untrue.



I assume that you can read that Trevor? It’s a post, by me, saying that Mackenzie might have been a ripper victim.

or,



A quote by me saying that we don’t know if she was a victim or not. So we can put to bed the silly suggestion that I’m claiming to know that Mackenzie wasn’t a victim just to keep Druitt in the game.

But what is bizarre though is that you appear to be suggesting that we should take it as a proven fact that she was a victim simply so that you can eliminate Druitt.

Ill leave it to reasonable posters to judge whose position is untenable.

and i am wasting my time trying to make you see sense? So once more for the sake of my sanity.

The police and doctors believed that the canonical five were the sole work of one killer JTR, we now question Stride as not being a ripper victim simply because of the MO of her murder not being consistent with the other murders, but we are prepared to accept without question that Nichols,Kelly.Chapman and Eddowes were killed by JTR clearly we are, and there are those who would add Stride to the number of Ripper victims.

So how do we conclude that the aformentiond 4/5 victims were the work of JTR? by accepting the facts and the evidence from 1888. Evidence from both police and doctors. It matters not what we think now its what they thought back then.

But when applying the same principle to McKenzie whose murder had all the hallmarks of the previous murders you are disregarding the police and doctors evidence and opinions by saying she might have been a ripper victim and i fully accept that but it doesnt detract away from the fact that the police and doctor sugested she was as they did with the other victims, and my point is that if she was then Druitt is eliminated completely.

I hope we can now draw a line under all of this now as all that needs to be said on this topic has been said, and I personally can add nothing further and I will withdraw from this thread now

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

bumped for trevor

If and when I find it I will post it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

If and when I find it I will post it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

ah OK - then feigenbaum remains a non suspect until then. thanks for clearing that up.