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 Joshua Rogan View Post

    I believe there were a number of links between the cricket club and the school, not least that George Valentine was apparently a member. His brother William Stather Valentine was on the committee, and another member Fred Lacey was said to be an assistant master there (can anyone confirm this?). So I suspect that the club would have been aware of the state of play with Monty, whether his suicide note had been found by that time, his sacking had already occurred, or that he was simply AWOL.
    That seems a likely explanation of course Joshua.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes

    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

      Do we actually know how how formally Druitt's brother had been informed of his absence from chambers? Is it known that he received word by letter, as Wickerman mentioned earlier? I'd always had the impression from the sparse inquest reports that it was simply from a casual mention, and so wouldn't have been a cause of instant worry for William.
      That's probably just me though.
      Wouldn’t it have had to have been by letter (or telegram?) with William being in Bournmouth?

      I still find it strange though that William said that he found out about Monty’s sacking when he visited the school. Surely his friends would have contacted the school to check on him before contacting William? So why didn’t they tell him?

      Unless of course they had told William that they had been informed by the school that Monty ‘no longer worked there,’ but it wasn’t until William visited that he discovered the truth about his sacking?
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        I don’t have any books with me at the moment Joshua so I’m only going from a few notes that I made from reading Jon Hainsworth’s book but I have Druitt as Honorary Secretary as opposed to just Secretary. So it could well have been that Ireland was the Secretary but Druitt was given an honorary role.
        No worries.
        I'm no expert expert on club committees, so stand to be corrected, but I understood that the "honorary" merely meant that the position was unpaid.
        Perhaps there was more than one secretary, and Ireland was the membership secretary or something - I vaguely recall prospective members being invited to write to him.

        Comment


        • [QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n788510]
          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          Just because something isn’t seen it writing isn’t proof that it didn’t happen. The follow up point is a non-point. A follow up might have been pointless or he might have done a follow up but not recorded it. Change the record Trevor.
          But MM went to great lengths to show that two of the suspects he named in the original version were exonerated, which shows he did investigate their suspect viability, so why did he clearly not investigate the info he was given on Druitt and include an update in the Aberconway Version?

          Was he forgetfull? after all despite his senior rank and being superior to Swanson he fails to make mention of the mythical Kosminski ID parade was that because it never took place and the entry in the marginalia was not penned by Donald Swanson?

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
            I believe there were a number of links between the cricket club and the school, not least that George Valentine was apparently a member. His brother William Stather Valentine was on the committee, and another member Fred Lacey was said to be an assistant master there (can anyone confirm this?).
            I looked into this once and could never confirm it and suspect it was just a mistake that has crept into the literature.

            Frederick Lacey did belong to the local cricket club, but he can be seen as a schoolmaster at the Clydesdale School, Lee Road, Blackheath in the 1880s, and was still there as late as March 30, 1888. (See below)

            He died in April 1890, so he's not in the 1891 Census. He's not listed at Valentine's school in 1881, but at a different address.

            Maybe it was just an assumption that he worked for Valentine since he lived in Blackheath and played with the club, but there were several schools in the area.

            Click image for larger version  Name:	F. H. Lacey 1888.JPG Views:	0 Size:	39.1 KB ID:	788544

            Comment


            • [QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n788538]
              Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              But MM went to great lengths to show that two of the suspects he named in the original version were exonerated, which shows he did investigate their suspect viability, so why did he clearly not investigate the info he was given on Druitt and include an update in the Aberconway Version?

              But he didn’t say on what grounds he exonerated them so I don’t see how you can call that ‘at great lengths?’ It doesn’t mean that he went out and undertook an investigation into them though. He read what was known about Kosminski and Ostrog and then considered the information that he’d received about Druitt and came to the conclusions that he did.

              It’s also worth mentioning that in the Aberconway version he says that the police had shown interest in all three men.


              Was he forgetfull? after all despite his senior rank and being superior to Swanson he fails to make mention of the mythical Kosminski ID parade was that because it never took place and the entry in the marginalia was not penned by Donald Swanson?

              Your opinion Trevor. Not fact.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              I think your just trying too hard not to consider possibilities Trevor. I can’t recall you ever conceding the possibility that Macnaghten’s information might have been good and that Druitt might have been our man. You focus on Macnaghten being either a liar or an idiot with no evidence of either.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                I looked into this once and could never confirm it and suspect it was just a mistake that has crept into the literature.

                Frederick Lacey did belong to the local cricket club, but he can be seen as a schoolmaster at the Clydesdale School, Lee Road, Blackheath in the 1880s, and was still there as late as March 30, 1888. (See below)

                He died in April 1890, so he's not in the 1891 Census. He's not listed at Valentine's school in 1881, but at a different address.

                Maybe it was just an assumption that he worked for Valentine since he lived in Blackheath and played with the club, but there were several schools in the area.

                Click image for larger version Name:	F. H. Lacey 1888.JPG Views:	0 Size:	39.1 KB ID:	788544
                Thanks RJ, good work.
                Seems like a bit of a myth, then.
                Although he must have known Monty somehow to have seconded his membership.

                You'll be telling me that George Valentine didn't play for Blackheath next. I can't actually find that he played in any matches for them, but he did play the odd game for Eliot Place now and then. As did Monty. School team perhaps? No Lacey, mind.

                Comment


                • Since George,you are the only one I have been notified has directed a question to me,I'll answer.As we both are resident in Australia,perhaps you would like to comment on Druitt's candidacy as 'Suspect' under Australian law.It's relevant.
                  I was not quoting official records,and I made it plain it was information only that I had.I did not claim I had proof of that person's involvement in the murders,you are incorrect.I made known that information.It's there for anyone to see.
                  Who are these 'Peers',I should provide for? Arn't you a little hypocritical in not revealing their names?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    It was a version that was in her fathers possession. I can’t recall where the document is these days but we surely can’t imagine that this was an kind of orderly? The two versions only differ slightly. Actually there was apparently a third version but no one knows anything about that one except for who apparently owned it.
                    Well im not so sure it was , im of the belief she copied the the MM from the original and somehow we have that paragraph you provided thats been included in her version .

                    1 , How can we be sure that there is indeed a separate page amongst her fathers possessions of said paragraph if no one has seen it ?

                    2. If im right then the first mention of said paragraph was made in Tom Cullens book ''Autumn of Terror'' publishised in 1965

                    I havent read or seen the book but surely there would be some reference as to where and how the author came upon the Aberconway version as to clarify its actual existance and how it came to be. [worth checking out im sure].

                    Im not entirely convinced that Mac Memo with all its detail in regards to the 3 names would not have included that extra part in it , that he somehow never had that notion at the time and only as an after thought decided to pen that extra paragraph.

                    If he did , then like everything here to do with jtr , i want proof it exit, i want to see it with my own eyes, and not just told it does for arguement sake.

                    Let me explain why that is , because as you know to well Herlock, its just very difficult discussing certain areas of the case and perticular certain names . In this case im simply using a fact, documented proof by mac in his own hand signed and dated ,if you or anyone decides to argue a point in regards to MM Memo , that there exist another page somewhere or added note then there not much point in debating the topic because nobody will produce any evidence to say it does! .

                    I hope you get what im trying to say .
                    '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


                    • [QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n788546]
                      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      I think your just trying too hard not to consider possibilities Trevor. I can’t recall you ever conceding the possibility that Macnaghten’s information might have been good and that Druitt might have been our man. You focus on Macnaghten being either a liar or an idiot with no evidence of either.
                      If you think the information was that good prove it to be so, and in doing so please explain why we see no follow up to his written belief in the MM, when he cleary does just that in the Aberconway Version with regards to the other two he named?

                      Your explantion of "well he might have done" doesnt cut any ice you are simply using that as an excuse to not accept that the info he received was uncorroborated hearsay and due to his inexperience and that fact that Druitt was dead he failed in his duty to due a thorough investigation into the information he had received not withstadning the fact that he destroyed vital facts and evidence.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk



                      Comment


                      • Trevor .......Ostrog please ?
                        '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 FISHY1118 View Post
                          Trevor .......Ostrog please ?
                          There is no specific documentation on him in the public domain. Phillip Sugden did some extensive work on him Sugden refers to Ostrog being in prison in France on page xix of his introduction to the 2002 revised edition of The Complete History..., and Ostrog's conviction record is apparently held at the Archives Departmentales de Paris [http://www.paris.fr/portail/politiqu...t?page_id=149].

                          I hope this helps.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            There is no specific documentation on him. Phillip Sugden did some extensive work on him Sugden refers to Ostrog being in prison in France on page xix of his introduction to the 2002 revised edition of The Complete History..., and Ostrog's conviction record is apparently held at the Archives Departmentales de Paris [http://www.paris.fr/portail/politiqu...t?page_id=149].

                            I hope this helps.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Thank you for that information.
                            '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 FISHY1118 View Post

                              Well im not so sure it was , im of the belief she copied the the MM from the original and somehow we have that paragraph you provided thats been included in her version .

                              1 , How can we be sure that there is indeed a separate page amongst her fathers possessions of said paragraph if no one has seen it ?

                              2. If im right then the first mention of said paragraph was made in Tom Cullens book ''Autumn of Terror'' publishised in 1965

                              I havent read or seen the book but surely there would be some reference as to where and how the author came upon the Aberconway version as to clarify its actual existance and how it came to be. [worth checking out im sure].

                              Im not entirely convinced that Mac Memo with all its detail in regards to the 3 names would not have included that extra part in it , that he somehow never had that notion at the time and only as an after thought decided to pen that extra paragraph.

                              If he did , then like everything here to do with jtr , i want proof it exit, i want to see it with my own eyes, and not just told it does for arguement sake.

                              Let me explain why that is , because as you know to well Herlock, its just very difficult discussing certain areas of the case and perticular certain names . In this case im simply using a fact, documented proof by mac in his own hand signed and dated ,if you or anyone decides to argue a point in regards to MM Memo , that there exist another page somewhere or added note then there not much point in debating the topic because nobody will produce any evidence to say it does! .

                              I hope you get what im trying to say .
                              That was a typo on my part. What I meant to say was that the Aberconway version was in his daughters possession.

                              A full photocopy of the Aberconway version can be found in a lengthy article by Adam Wood in Ripperologist #124. The article is very detailed and gives a full history of the Memorandum (3 versions)
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes

                              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                              Comment


                              • [QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n788556]
                                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                If you think the information was that good prove it to be so, and in doing so please explain why we see no follow up to his written belief in the MM, when he cleary does just that in the Aberconway Version with regards to the other two he named?

                                Your explantion of "well he might have done" doesnt cut any ice you are simply using that as an excuse to not accept that the info he received was uncorroborated hearsay and due to his inexperience and that fact that Druitt was dead he failed in his duty to due a thorough investigation into the information he had received not withstadning the fact that he destroyed vital facts and evidence.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                                As ever Trevor you are simply stating your biased opinion as if it’s a fact.

                                And proof of bias is just so glaring obvious that continue to stick your fingers in your ears. But I’ll say it again and again and again. The compulsive liar Feigenbaum’s alleged confession was given in a cell with no one else present so no one can confirm that this conversation ever took place - and please don’t waste everyone’s time on the silly argument about certain facts mentioned being confirmed because Lawton could easily have discovered certain facts then invented a conversation to fit. So Lawton’s statement from Feigenbaum is ENTIRELY uncorroborated but you don’t mind that do you? You keep trying to gloss over it with illogical points whilst harping on about the Memorandum. One rule for yourself, another for everyone else.

                                Just because something cannot be corroborated it’s not grounds for dismissing it as you are clearly so desperate to do. The proper, fair-minded approach would be to of course accept all possibilities. But you just can’t keep an open mind can you and you do exactly the same thing that you do on every aspect of this case that you don’t agree with. You don’t just point out the issues or debatable points you seek to instantly dismiss. And then you try and twist things around to claim that posters like myself are trying to claim that these things should be accepted without question which clearly isn’t the case.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X