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

[Trevor Marriott]

No, I won’t just answer it with one word because that gives you even more opportunity to twist and distort what i say. So I’ll answer and then I’ll explain. So try reading what I say this time…

If it was proven that Mackenzie was definitely a victim would that eliminate Druitt? - I can’t believe that you could even ask this - YES, OF COURSE IT WOULD ELIMINATE DRUITT. HOW COULD YOU IMAGINE THAT ANYONE WITH EVEN A FRACTION OF A BRAIN WOULD CONSIDER DRUITT THE RIPPER IF HE WAS DEAD AT THE TIME OF ONE OF THE MURDERS!!

Have you understood that Trevor? Can I now hope that you won’t ask me this again?

Now here’s the BUT that you (and possibly Harry) can’t appear to grasp.

It has NOT been proven that Mackenzie was a victim. In fact it’s safe to say that more people don’t regard her as a victim than do. It’s also safe to say that even at the time opinion was divided on whether she was a victim or not. Unlike Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly who were generally then and generally now considered victims. Even Stride at the time was considered a victim by most.

And so…….Alice Mackenzie is irrelevant unless it can be proven categorically that she was a victim. And I don’t mean ‘proven to Trevor Marriott’s opinion that she was a victim,’ I mean to everyone’s. There are untold number of people who don’t rate Druitt as a suspect but who still don’t consider Mackenzie a victim, so you can’t simply say that the only people who don’t think that she was a victim are so-called Druittist.

To say that Druitt should be dismissed because of Mackenzie is obvious nonsense.

Will this sink in at last?

take the blinkers of and read the posts before you start ranting and raving

i asked a simple question of you which all that needed was a yes or no answer and you again create a drama, let me ask it again I am not interested in twisting or distorting the facts

"If Mackenzie is accepted as being a ripper victim, and it is also accepted that all the canonical five were also ripper victims do you agree that eliminates Druiitt from being JTR?!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have never suggested that, because whether or not the suspect is dead or not the investigation will continue and in the case of MM there is no further evidence from him in the later rewrite that shows Druitt was ever fully investigated, or that his private info he received was found to be credible and reliable. or that he acted upon that information.

Now for once answer a simple straight question and dont go off on a tangent

If Mackenzie is accepted as being a ripper victim, and it is accepted that all the canonical five were also ripper victims do you agree that eliminates Druiitt from being JTR ? yes or no will suffice !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, I won’t just answer it with one word because that gives you even more opportunity to twist and distort what i say. So I’ll answer and then I’ll explain. So try reading what I say this time…

If it was proven that Mackenzie was definitely a victim would that eliminate Druitt? - I can’t believe that you could even ask this - YES, OF COURSE IT WOULD ELIMINATE DRUITT. HOW COULD YOU IMAGINE THAT ANYONE WITH EVEN A FRACTION OF A BRAIN WOULD CONSIDER DRUITT THE RIPPER IF HE WAS DEAD AT THE TIME OF ONE OF THE MURDERS!!

Have you understood that Trevor? Can I now hope that you won’t ask me this again?

Now here’s the BUT that you (and possibly Harry) can’t appear to grasp.

It has NOT been proven that Mackenzie was a victim. In fact it’s safe to say that more people don’t regard her as a victim than do. It’s also safe to say that even at the time opinion was divided on whether she was a victim or not. Unlike Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly who were generally then and generally now considered victims. Even Stride at the time was considered a victim by most.

And so…….Alice Mackenzie is irrelevant unless it can be proven categorically that she was a victim. And I don’t mean ‘proven to Trevor Marriott’s opinion that she was a victim,’ I mean to everyone’s. There are untold number of people who don’t rate Druitt as a suspect but who still don’t consider Mackenzie a victim, so you can’t simply say that the only people who don’t think that she was a victim are so-called Druittist.

To say that Druitt should be dismissed because of Mackenzie is obvious nonsense.

Will this sink in at last?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do you have some sort difficulty reading Trevor? H has answered this question several times before, in bold.

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve answered this Wulf. Can you believe that this question can even be asked?

[Aethelwulf]

If Mackenzie is accepted as being a ripper victim, and it is accepted that all the canonical five were also ripper victims do you agree that eliminates Druiitt from being JTR ? yes or no will suffice !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Do you have some sort difficulty reading Trevor? H has answered this question several times before, in bold.

[Trevor Marriott]

One additional hypothetical question.

We have a modern day murder enquiry.

It goes on for a while with no progress.

A respected magistrate then contacts the police and says that he as convincing evidence that Mr X was guilty of the crime.

Before the Police can interview the magistrate he has a heart attack and died.

Do the Police continue to investigate Mr X.

Or do the Police simply disregard Mr X on the grounds that they haven’t heard the basis for the magistrates suspicion?

According to yourself, Trevor and Fishy, Mr X should be ignored.

Would that be a sensible, responsible approach?

I have never suggested that, because whether or not the suspect is dead or not the investigation will continue and in the case of MM there is no further evidence from him in the later rewrite that shows Druitt was ever fully investigated, or that his private info he received was found to be credible and reliable. or that he acted upon that information.

Now for once answer a simple straight question and dont go off on a tangent

If Mackenzie is accepted as being a ripper victim, and it is accepted that all the canonical five were also ripper victims do you agree that eliminates Druiitt from being JTR ? yes or no will suffice !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

One additional hypothetical question.

We have a modern day murder enquiry.

It goes on for a while with no progress.

A respected magistrate then contacts the police and says that he as convincing evidence that Mr X was guilty of the crime.

Before the Police can interview the magistrate he has a heart attack and died.

Do the Police continue to investigate Mr X.

Or do the Police simply disregard Mr X on the grounds that they haven’t heard the basis for the magistrates suspicion?

According to yourself, Trevor and Fishy, Mr X should be ignored.

Would that be a sensible, responsible approach?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am in support of every suspect remaining a suspect for the Whitechapel murders,but like the police of 1888 who investigated those murders,I acept there aren't any suspects.How can something that didn't exist be capable of being eliminated Herlock?
Did Macnaghten use the term 'Suspect'? Not that I am aware of.He compared a number of persons and remarked that one of them,Druitt,was more likely to be the killer. His evidence,Druitts family considered he ,Druitt,to be of unsound mind,or words to that effect. Was it proven that Druitt was so affected?Not to my knowledge.Nothing you have said Herlock,and nothing MacNaghten wrote,proves he was.It is the one and only thread of suspicion against Druitt,and it was never proven.NEVER PROVEN.

We are all simply armchair detectives for whom the Whitechapel murders are of a particular interest Harry. The way we do things and the terminology that we employ don’t matter a jot in the grand scheme of things except to us. So I’d like to put three specific questions to you if I could…

1. If we stopped using the word ‘suspect’ and started using the phrase ‘person of interest’ what difference would it make to discussions on here or to the study of the case in general?

2. If we decided to assign to each person the title ‘suspect’ or ‘person of interest’ who would decide on which would apply to each individual? For example, if Fisherman wanted to call Lechmere a ‘suspect’ but Wickerman wanted him called ‘a person of interest,’ or if Trevor wanted Feigenbaum called a ‘suspect’ but I wanted him labelled a ‘person of interest.’ Substitute any ‘suspect’ and any two posters. Who makes the decision if there’s no consensus to be had?

3. And even if there was a consensus how could it be enforced to anything like meaningful extent. So for example, if there was a huge consensus that Druitt should be labelled ‘a person of interest’ how would you prevent anyone, me for example, labelling him a ‘suspect.’ The same would apply to anyone. How could we hope to prevent Fisherman referring to Lechmere as a ‘suspect?’

……..

And who has claimed that anything has been proven Harry? And stating the obvious about Macnaghten is pointless unless you are going to eliminate every single suspect that has been suggested over the last 134 years? The Macnaghten Memoranda is that annoying document that sticks in the throat of many. When faced with the suggested that an open-minded on the suspect they simply foam at the mouth. Those that are rigidly opposed to even considering Druitt speak more nonsense that on any other suspect. Reason flies out of the window.

[Abby Normal]

something just hit me this morning as I thought of something I have to do today. ive got to drive to the beach to meet a worker at our beach house today to have some work done. its three hours away and i have to leave to come back home as soon as the work is done. im not partying, meeting with friends, sitting on the beach or anything i enjoy when i typically go down. yet im still looking forward to the trip!
weird isnt it?

maybe druitt actually enjoyed his "inconvenient " trips.

full disclosure. i still think the logistics of the back and forth trips IS a check mark against his validity as a suspect, and I think that the ripper was more than likely a local man, but the latest is no where near enough to exonerate him.

[harry]

I am in support of every suspect remaining a suspect for the Whitechapel murders,but like the police of 1888 who investigated those murders,I acept there aren't any suspects.How can something that didn't exist be capable of being eliminated Herlock?
Did Macnaghten use the term 'Suspect'? Not that I am aware of.He compared a number of persons and remarked that one of them,Druitt,was more likely to be the killer. His evidence,Druitts family considered he ,Druitt,to be of unsound mind,or words to that effect. Was it proven that Druitt was so affected?Not to my knowledge.Nothing you have said Herlock,and nothing MacNaghten wrote,proves he was.It is the one and only thread of suspicion against Druitt,and it was never proven.NEVER PROVEN.

[FISHY1118]

I missed nothing. I read a post, I shouldn’t be expected to decode hidden meanings.

Hidden meaning!! cmon it was a simple post ,even trevor got it, hence his post back to you . Gee it wasnt like it was the Da Vinci Code .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks you just proved my point .

And you long ago proved mine.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Omg its right there in black and white and you still dont get it .

Pleassssssssssseeeee someone point it out for him for christ sake, enough already.

I missed nothing. I read a post, I shouldn’t be expected to decode hidden meanings.

[FISHY1118]

I’m in support of every single suspect remaining a suspect until they can categorically be eliminated with indisputable evidence. Not just Druitt.

Thanks you just proved my point .

[FISHY1118]

Omg its right there in black and white and you still dont get it .

Pleassssssssssseeeee someone point it out for him for christ sake, enough already.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why wait for a response ill just point it out , you are by your own admission are you not in support of druitt remaining a suspect, as there is no proof that exonerates him from being jtr ? .[im pretty sure thats where you stand on him correct ?]

So in my post if you read it properly and carefulfully you shouldnt have jumped the gun ''Ive noticed that the most ardent supporters of Druitt ''remaining a viable suspect'' for the ripper murders'' etc etc.

''Remaining'' , is a bit like ''out of hand'' .Its all in the way its worded.

I’m in support of every single suspect remaining a suspect until they can categorically be eliminated with indisputable evidence. Not just Druitt.