Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    ....Ill mention one thing that I think unlikely and unlikely to the point that personally I just can’t accept it…..that MacNaghten just chose Druitt at random because he committed suicide after Kelly was murdered. I don’t accept that for a second. I believe that MacNaghten genuinely felt that there was good reason for suspecting Druitt. He absolutely could have been mistaken though of course.
    Especially as how he had a good number of suicides for the months of Nov. & Dec. to choose from. We have been over that aspect some months ago (I'm sure you remember), so why pick such an unlikely(?) candidate with so many more likely candidates to choose from?
    It's a serious question that needs to be addressed, not brushed off.

    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
      It was the combination of his suicide after the Kelly murder and the personal information Macnaghten received from Druitt's family or friends that made him a suspect.
      Absolutely, it's just that we do not know the full nature of that 'personal information' which was passed along to Mac. We cannot expect to find tangible evidence when there isn't a whisper of proper evidence against anyone.
      So we shouldn't expect a higher standard for Druitt than we are willing to accept for any other candidate.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

        Especially as how he had a good number of suicides for the months of Nov. & Dec. to choose from. We have been over that aspect some months ago (I'm sure you remember), so why pick such an unlikely(?) candidate with so many more likely candidates to choose from?
        It's a serious question that needs to be addressed, not brushed off.
        Yes I remember you mentioning it Wick. I’m sure it was Farson who mentioned the fact that Druitt’s ‘unlikeliness’ makes him so interesting? It’s a point that I’ve raised a few times but it kind of gets ignored. Kosminski and Ostrog are, in their ways, understandable. A low class lunatic (and Anderson’s suspect), and a petty criminal foreigner. Easy to throw under the wheels of the bus on any list if it was just cobbled together to show some ‘better than Cutbush’ suspects. By why choose the non-criminal, upper-middle class Barrister and teacher at a posh school, from a highly respected family and who just happened to be related by marriage to one of his best mates? It makes no sense at all unless MacNaghten genuinely felt that there was evidence against him. We might also ask why he didn’t ‘pick’ a suspect who died after Mackenzie as many (including Monro) believed that she was a victim too? Why though was Mac adamant that there were only 5 victims? Because he thought that Druitt was the killer perhaps?
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          Absolutely, it's just that we do not know the full nature of that 'personal information' which was passed along to Mac. We cannot expect to find tangible evidence when there isn't a whisper of proper evidence against anyone.
          So we shouldn't expect a higher standard for Druitt than we are willing to accept for any other candidate.
          Sadly that’s how it often appears to me Wick

          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Ill mention one thing that I think unlikely and unlikely to the point that personally I just can’t accept it…..that MacNaghten just chose Druitt at random because he committed suicide after Kelly was murdered. I don’t accept that for a second. I believe that MacNaghten genuinely felt that there was good reason for suspecting Druitt. He absolutely could have been mistaken though of course.
            Macnaghten was not a proper police man in the true sense he had no policing experience before being give his high ranking post by Monro, so his abilty to assess the accuracy or truthfulness of what he was told is questionable at best, and as such would likely as not believe what he was told.

            His story is no different from all the other un-named persons who gave similar information to the police during the autum of terror, but just because he was a senior scotlan yard officer this is supposed to make his information more credible than all the other un-named persons who went to the police to give similar suspect information


            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 06-14-2022, 09:46 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              [QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n787554]

              So why do you want to eliminate Druitt when there’s no evidence for doing so and yet you want to retain the Knight theory which there is certainly evidence for dismissing it. That’s the point. And it’s a valid one.[/QUOT
              Were talking about Druitt tho not knight, and as I said in the case of Montague Druitt i support Allys point. Like others I've eliminated him .

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                Macnaghten was not a proper police man in the true sense he had no policing experience before being give his high ranking post by Monro, so his abilty to assess the accuracy or truthfulness of what he was told is questionable at best, and as such would likely as not believe what he was told.

                No it’s not. You don’t need to be a Police Officer to understand English or interpret facts.

                His story is no different from all the other un-named persons who gave similar information to the police during the autum of terror, but just because he was a senior scotlan yard officer this is supposed to make his information more credible than all the other un-named persons who went to the police to give similar suspect information


                Yes it does. Unless your hopelessly biased of course.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Any attempt to discredit MacNaghten is sheer desperation with no basis in evidence or truth.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                Comment


                • #23
                  [QUOTE=FISHY1118;n787588]
                  Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  So why do you want to eliminate Druitt when there’s no evidence for doing so and yet you want to retain the Knight theory which there is certainly evidence for dismissing it. That’s the point. And it’s a valid one.[/QUOT
                  Were talking about Druitt tho not knight, and as I said in the case of Montague Druitt i support Allys point. Like others I've eliminated him .
                  Ok, so you clearly want to sidestep the obvious. For you it’s a case of - I really want to dismiss Druitt from any list of suspects based on zero facts but I think we should keep the Knight theory (the most infantile, thoroughly discredited, pretty much universally dismissed theory) in the list.

                  If that’s your version of ‘reason’ Fishy then fine. But don’t claim to be unbiased or reasoned in your approach.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                  “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    Macnaghten was not a proper police man in the true sense he had no policing experience before being give his high ranking post by Monro, so his abilty to assess the accuracy or truthfulness of what he was told is questionable at best, and as such would likely as not believe what he was told.
                    There's one assumption there Trevor that I would take issue with.
                    Today, if I enrolled to become a Detective Constable with the Met., I understand it is a two year course?

                    Mac. was appointed Assistant Chief Constable in 1889, and penned the Memorandum in 1894, so in your opinion he learned nothing in the five years as Ass. Chief Constable, yet a Detective Constable only requires two years of training to become capable. Is that your argument?


                    His story is no different from all the other un-named persons who gave similar information to the police during the autum of terror, but just because he was a senior scotlan yard officer this is supposed to make his information more credible than all the other un-named persons who went to the police to give similar suspect information...
                    The difference between Mac. and other high officials is, they only shared their memoirs long after they had retired from the force. This memorandum was written by an active police official, with all the necessary investigative powers at his fingertips.

                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      [QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n787590]
                      Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                      Ok, so you clearly want to sidestep the obvious. For you it’s a case of - I really want to dismiss Druitt from any list of suspects based on zero facts but I think we should keep the Knight theory (the most infantile, thoroughly discredited, pretty much universally dismissed theory) in the list.

                      If that’s your version of ‘reason’ Fishy then fine. But don’t claim to be unbiased or reasoned in your approach.
                      I'm not sidestepping anything. Its a druitt topic not anything to do with knight ,and as I've already stated i agree with Allys view 100%. You want to see it differently thats your problem. Nothing to do with me.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Any attempt to discredit MacNaghten is sheer desperation with no basis in evidence or truth.
                        I'm inclined to agree with Trevor on this one. Anderson and MacNaghten's positions were more to do with status than ability to do the job. You can see similar evidence in the almost automatic installation of the upper class into the officer ranks in WW1, leading to the description "Lions led by donkeys".

                        Cheers, George
                        It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

                        All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                        ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Is there anything known (cricketing or otherwise) about Druitt's whereabouts relating to the double event or the MJK murder?

                          Cheers, George
                          It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

                          All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                          ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            There's one assumption there Trevor that I would take issue with.
                            Today, if I enrolled to become a Detective Constable with the Met., I understand it is a two year course?

                            Mac. was appointed Assistant Chief Constable in 1889, and penned the Memorandum in 1894, so in your opinion he learned nothing in the five years as Ass. Chief Constable, yet a Detective Constable only requires two years of training to become capable. Is that your argument?

                            The difference between Mac. and other high officials is, they only shared their memoirs long after they had retired from the force. This memorandum was written by an active police official, with all the necessary investigative powers at his fingertips.
                            Yes he was active, but bearing in mind his lack of police training and his lack of investigative experience must have had an impcat on him because the MM`s are littered with errors, so they are unsafe, there is no evidence that the infomation contained in them was ever investigated. Ostrog proves my point, he mentions him as a likely suspect but we know he was in jail in France at the time of the murders so that alone proves my point had the proper investigations been carried out into those named in thr MM that would have come to light, so the MM`s are unsafe to rely on in any event

                            In todays policing, officers are selected from the ranks to train as detectives after completing 2 years initial basic police training, and the majority of officers above the rank of Inspector take on clerical and supervisory roles.






                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                              I'm inclined to agree with Trevor on this one. Anderson and MacNaghten's positions were more to do with status than ability to do the job. You can see similar evidence in the almost automatic installation of the upper class into the officer ranks in WW1, leading to the description "Lions led by donkeys".

                              Cheers, George
                              Well put George

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Any attempt to discredit MacNaghten is sheer desperation with no basis in evidence or truth.
                                You have this thing about MM where you want to believe in all that is written in the MM the term discredit is an overkill, all that is being said is that that the MM is unsafe to rely on, my previous post has highlighted the reasons yet you wont even consider those reasons, you need to take the blinkers off.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X