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 harry View Post
    I'll repeat,I do not have proof ,so do not expect it.You know what information I do have,i do not need to repeat it.
    My point is that what information I provided,equals or exceeds the information against most named suspects,yet I do not consider him a suspect.
    Hi Harry,

    I see now that we may be talking at cross purposes. I don't actually know what information you have, or your suspect or the proof you may have against him. I somehow seem to have missed the posts where you stated this information.

    Cheers, George
    “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”
    If money can't buy happiness, explain motorcycles, malt whisky and pipe tobacco.
    Everybody lies - Greg House MD

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      That’s a ludicrous suggestion of course but it was one that I suspected that you were intending to make all along. Why the hell would his daughter have added those comments ‘off her own bat!’ It’s not even worth considering for a second. This is a woman who was absolutely adamant that the names should not be released in case there were surviving cousins who might have been upset by any relegation. So obviously she was very sensitive on the subject and had scruples. So why the hell should she be so dishonest as you suggest. To suggest that this woman would have fraudulently added stuff to her fathers words is nothing short of contemptible. If this is the kind of desperation that you’re capable of then keep it to yourself Fishy, or confine yourself to responding to Trevor as you and he obviously have the same terminally biased agenda.
      I see you have returned to your old ways of insults and personal attacks. What a shame, just when it seemed we had made much progress in discussing certain elements of the Druitt case in a civil manner .

      Why on earth you cant accept the right of one persons point of view especially when that point of view is based on research and FACT and presented in such a way that encourages at least in my eyes [maybe not yours ] further investigation, Totally Utterly Astonishingly Frickin Amazes me !!!!.

      So lets begin shall we, Firstly as i pointed out to you the MM in its original form ''did not'' contain the paragraph you and others have used as your suggestion that Mac personally suspected Druitt as his main suspect , thats just a fact . When i suggested that ''IF'' indeed such an admission from Mac exist in his ''Own'' handwriting just as his original memo, you and others used the Aberconway version to quote from . Fair enough, but theres a problem with that isnt there ? , as i told you there would be .

      So when i ask if proof exist you referenced the Ripperoligist article, and im so glad you did because it was your mistake, if you go back and read it properly youll find exactly what is there in plain black and white for all to see . Which is that the paragraph you refer too was indeed written by Lady Aberconway. ''FACT'' .

      .'' It is also worth noting that Mr McLaren is certain the handwritten pages were produced by his mother.''[Ripperoligist #124, page 54]

      Even Lady Aberconways own son believed and was certain ,''Certain'' i might add , that his own mother produced the hand written notes . So lets not heap all the insults at poor fishy for the mere suggestion the added pages were not MM,s . Feel free to take your case to Mr Mclaren if you so wish .

      The question that needed to be asked which wasnt covererd at all , not one mention of it as to why and if L.A in fact copied that paragraph from Macs others notes not included in his MM ? Where are those exact notes of that paragraph in macs ''Own'' handwriting? What does that then tell us ? 1 , They forgot to ask ? 2.They didnt care ? 3.They knew there wasnt any such notes in MM handwriting ? and why didnt Mcclaren produce the notes L.A copied from? Based on the extensive article and the desire to learn the truth about the entire Aberconway version, id say the latter was the case .



      Who the F knows why his daughter added those comments off her own back, why do i care what her motive was ? The fact is she did didnt she?. For all we know she might have wanted to convince others her father really supported Druitt as a suspect, and his original memo didnt go far enough to give people the belief Druitt was in fact JtR ,which is exactly what you Trevor ,Harry and myself have been discussing that very point .


      The suggestion she claimed that she somehow protecting the cousins by exposing Driutt as the choice of Mac is pure nonsense on her behalf , Mac had already named him in his original MM, !!!!! if she thought that one extra paragraph would make any difference just because Mac makes Druitt it his own personal choice and indeed was JTR shes very naive and not too bright if you ask me .

      How very noble of Lady Aberconway is for protecting the cousins just from the thought that a top policeman back in 1888 actually believed and wrote down on paper Druitt was the ripper , Horseshit to that i say , theres no proof that any one suspect ,poi, was indeed jack the ripper ,so tell me why on earth would any living decendent of Druitt or anyone else for that matter give a toss if someone they new 40 years was jtr?

      So now climb down off your high horse old boy, simmer down, and for once refain from advising me what i can and cant post, in case you havent noticed its a public forum , i dont have to keep anything to my self should i wish to comment on anything JTR related .

      You seem to have this notion that just because you disagree with something someone said that somehow gives you the right to call for there silence on the matter!!! again Horseshit to that .Im more that happy from now till the end of time to discuss anything with you or other posters on anything jtr related,you can disagree with me all you want, i dont care. But dont ever, ever tell me to keep my opinions to myself again, you just make yourself look childish and invokes a bully type behaviour that which we can all do with out.

      The Macnaghten memoranda that is produced here for all to see in its original handwritng is the ''only evidence'' that exist that mentions Druitt as more likely than Cutbuss to have committed the crimes .There is no such evidence he wrote/ or added anything else on that matter . Fact .
      Last edited by FISHY1118; 06-30-2022, 07:53 AM.
      '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 harry View Post
        The myth that murderers and suicides have to have mental problems,Herlock,was rejected long ago.Murder/suicide while the balance of the mind was disturbed.is/was a legal definition.
        Why do I constantly refer to the supposed mental problems of Druitt,is because there is nothing else that is a cause for him to murder.
        What you mean Harry is that there’s nothing that has survived in written form. If you researched every suicide in the last 100 years I’d suggest that you wouldn’t be able to discover a motive for the majority of them.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

          Hi Herlock,

          If MJD was JtR, in your opinion did he commit suicide because of the murders or because he was sacked from his position at the school?

          Cheers, George
          Hi George,

          Maybe a combination of the two? Perhaps whatever occurred at the school was the first time that he’d lost control of himself after being able to keep the two parts of his life separate up until that point?
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          Comment


          • I do not have a suspect George,and the only proof i have submitted is information not evidence.how many times do I have to write that,before it sinks in.
            If you missed the posts,you missed them.I cannot help you with that problem, but I suggest you look back through my postings.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

              I see you have returned to your old ways of insults and personal attacks. What a shame, just when it seemed we had made much progress in discussing certain elements of the Druitt case in a civil manner .

              Why on earth you cant accept the right of one persons point of view especially when that point of view is based on research and FACT and presented in such a way that encourages at least in my eyes [maybe not yours ] further investigation, Totally Utterly Astonishingly Frickin Amazes me !!!!.

              So lets begin shall we, Firstly as i pointed out to you the MM in its original form ''did not'' contain the paragraph you and others have used as your suggestion that Mac personally suspected Druitt as his main suspect , thats just a fact . When i suggested that ''IF'' indeed such an admission from Mac exist in his ''Own'' handwriting just as his original memo, you and others used the Aberconway version to quote from . Fair enough, but theres a problem with that isnt there ? , as i told you there would be .

              So when i ask if proof exist you referenced the Ripperoligist article, and im so glad you did because it was your mistake, if you go back and read it properly youll find exactly what is there in plain black and white for all to see . Which is that the paragraph you refer too was indeed written by Lady Aberconway. ''FACT'' .

              .'' It is also worth noting that Mr McLaren is certain the handwritten pages were produced by his mother.''[Ripperoligist #124, page 54]

              Even Lady Aberconways own son believed and was certain ,''Certain'' i might add , that his own mother produced the hand written notes . So lets not heap all the insults at poor fishy for the mere suggestion the added pages were not MM,s . Feel free to take your case to Mr Mclaren if you so wish .

              The question that needed to be asked which wasnt covererd at all , not one mention of it as to why and if L.A in fact copied that paragraph from Macs others notes not included in his MM ? Where are those exact notes of that paragraph in macs ''Own'' handwriting? What does that then tell us ? 1 , They forgot to ask ? 2.They didnt care ? 3.They knew there wasnt any such notes in MM handwriting ? and why didnt Mcclaren produce the notes L.A copied from? Based on the extensive article and the desire to learn the truth about the entire Aberconway version, id say the latter was the case .



              Who the F knows why his daughter added those comments off her own back, why do i care what her motive was ? The fact is she did didnt she?. For all we know she might have wanted to convince others her father really supported Druitt as a suspect, and his original memo didnt go far enough to give people the belief Druitt was in fact JtR ,which is exactly what you Trevor ,Harry and myself have been discussing that very point .


              The suggestion she claimed that she somehow protecting the cousins by exposing Driutt as the choice of Mac is pure nonsense on her behalf , Mac had already named him in his original MM, !!!!! if she thought that one extra paragraph would make any difference just because Mac makes Druitt it his own personal choice and indeed was JTR shes very naive and not too bright if you ask me .

              How very noble of Lady Aberconway is for protecting the cousins just from the thought that a top policeman back in 1888 actually believed and wrote down on paper Druitt was the ripper , Horseshit to that i say , theres no proof that any one suspect ,poi, was indeed jack the ripper ,so tell me why on earth would any living decendent of Druitt or anyone else for that matter give a toss if someone they new 40 years was jtr?

              So now climb down off your high horse old boy, simmer down, and for once refain from advising me what i can and cant post, in case you havent noticed its a public forum , i dont have to keep anything to my self should i wish to comment on anything JTR related .

              You seem to have this notion that just because you disagree with something someone said that somehow gives you the right to call for there silence on the matter!!! again Horseshit to that .Im more that happy from now till the end of time to discuss anything with you or other posters on anything jtr related,you can disagree with me all you want, i dont care. But dont ever, ever tell me to keep my opinions to myself again, you just make yourself look childish and invokes a bully type behaviour that which we can all do with out.

              The Macnaghten memoranda that is produced here for all to see in its original handwritng is the ''only evidence'' that exist that mentions Druitt as more likely than Cutbuss to have committed the crimes .There is no such evidence he wrote/ or added anything else on that matter . Fact .
              And you have as usual resorted to your usual victim mentality. I see no ‘progress’ in discussing Druitt unless it’s from anyone apart from yourself, Trevor and Harry. Everyone else can discuss the subject fairly and without bias, something hardly likely to happen with someone who has previously called Druitt a ridiculous suspect is it?

              No one has ever doubted that the Aberconway version was written by his mother (copied from her fathers notes) The official version of the MM cannot be described as notes though. This is obvious; or should be. They were the finished article. Unlike the notes that have become known as the Donner version, seen by Philip Loftus in the late fifties when he was staying with Gerald Melville Donner. These were ‘rather untidy and in the nature of rough jottings.’ So….notes.

              So clearly some rough notes existed and it was these that Lady Aberconway copied from.

              Your mocking and cynical opinion on Lady Aberconway is indicative of two things: 1) that you don’t think that people are capable of sensitive or can have regard for the feelings of others (as she correctly stated there might easily have been relatives living who might have been upset by such a revelation - to us in 2022 it would appear to be a trivial issue but she was brought up in the Victorian era where people were far more sensitive to things like ‘shame’ and ‘family honour’ so we have no reason whatsoever to believe that her feelings weren’t entirely genuine - ‘horseshit’ you say? A baseless character assassination. And 2) You strangely forget that her meeting with Farson was entirely unplanned. Her version was simply gathering dust in a drawer somewhere and she had no intention of them ever seeing the light of day (at least in her own lifetime while she had control of them) What would have been gained by the ‘extra’ passage? Nothing art all. Why would she be concerned over the level of confidence displayed by her father? Why would a woman with no intention of showing this version to anyone else; who was clearly and obviously very genuinely concerned for the feelings of relatives, have altered these notes? Why didn’t she simply allow Farson to mention the names then? The argument that you make for this is clearly wide of the mark. It’s also clearly made in your desperate attempt to discredit.

              Two final points Fishy. I didn’t suggest that you should stop posting only that you shouldn’t waste time with biased stuff like the above; that you’d be better off keeping it to yourself. And secondly I suggested that you should direct them at Trevor, and for good reason as suspects that the Swanson Marginalia has been doctored so he might be receptive to your conspiracist thinking.

              ​​​​​​…..

              Ill repeat……I just knew that you were building up to some kind of ‘gotcha’ moment when you were claiming genuine interest. It’s clear of course that your intention isn’t to investigate and discuss your simply looking for things to build baseless arguments around. Don’t you wonder why, as far as I’m aware, none of the researchers that have looked at the MM over the years have suggested that Lady Aberconway altered her fathers notes? Do you honestly think that they all missed the fact that Lady C wrote them? I’ll tell you why Fishy. Because the idea is utterly preposterous and shouldn’t be given a second thought. So perhaps you should spend less time manufacturing false outrage every time that I disagree with you simply to try and get sympathy or to get action taken against me and take a step back from your crusade to discredit anything to do with Macnaghten or Druitt.

              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              Comment


              • Originally posted by harry View Post
                Pleased you agree there are no suspects George,and I repeat , I do not indicate the person I refer to is a suspect.He is a person of interest.To me at least.
                We may be a discussion group,but the discussion is about murder,and a particular murderer.We do not know his name either,but it doesn't prevent discussion about him.Same thing about the person who accosted Stride.We do not know his name.
                I'll repeat,I do not have proof ,so do not expect it.You know what information I do have,i do not need to repeat it.
                My point is that what information I provided,equals or exceeds the information against most named suspects,yet I do not consider him a suspect.
                Then how do we know that this person actually exists Harry? If you can cast doubts on the evidence that Macnaghten received because we have no evidence of it why do you expect us to take the point that you’ve made concerning a man who’s existence you’ve provided us no evidence for. Before you respond Harry I’m certainly not calling you a liar. I’m perfectly willing to accept that this person existed of course but why do you use him to make a point whilst not applying the same criteria that you apply to Druitt?
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                Comment


                • When persons publish hearsay,which probably amounts to the majority of the information contained in the documentation under discussion,Fishy,Trevor and I are fully entitled to question both the information contained,and the person/s who supplied it.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    And you have as usual resorted to your usual victim mentality. I see no ‘progress’ in discussing Druitt unless it’s from anyone apart from yourself, Trevor and Harry. Everyone else can discuss the subject fairly and without bias, something hardly likely to happen with someone who has previously called Druitt a ridiculous suspect is it?

                    No one has ever doubted that the Aberconway version was written by his mother (copied from her fathers notes) The official version of the MM cannot be described as notes though. This is obvious; or should be. They were the finished article. Unlike the notes that have become known as the Donner version, seen by Philip Loftus in the late fifties when he was staying with Gerald Melville Donner. These were ‘rather untidy and in the nature of rough jottings.’ So….notes.

                    So clearly some rough notes existed and it was these that Lady Aberconway copied from.

                    Your mocking and cynical opinion on Lady Aberconway is indicative of two things: 1) that you don’t think that people are capable of sensitive or can have regard for the feelings of others (as she correctly stated there might easily have been relatives living who might have been upset by such a revelation - to us in 2022 it would appear to be a trivial issue but she was brought up in the Victorian era where people were far more sensitive to things like ‘shame’ and ‘family honour’ so we have no reason whatsoever to believe that her feelings weren’t entirely genuine - ‘horseshit’ you say? A baseless character assassination. And 2) You strangely forget that her meeting with Farson was entirely unplanned. Her version was simply gathering dust in a drawer somewhere and she had no intention of them ever seeing the light of day (at least in her own lifetime while she had control of them) What would have been gained by the ‘extra’ passage? Nothing art all. Why would she be concerned over the level of confidence displayed by her father? Why would a woman with no intention of showing this version to anyone else; who was clearly and obviously very genuinely concerned for the feelings of relatives, have altered these notes? Why didn’t she simply allow Farson to mention the names then? The argument that you make for this is clearly wide of the mark. It’s also clearly made in your desperate attempt to discredit.

                    Two final points Fishy. I didn’t suggest that you should stop posting only that you shouldn’t waste time with biased stuff like the above; that you’d be better off keeping it to yourself. And secondly I suggested that you should direct them at Trevor, and for good reason as suspects that the Swanson Marginalia has been doctored so he might be receptive to your conspiracist thinking.

                    ​​​​​​…..

                    Ill repeat……I just knew that you were building up to some kind of ‘gotcha’ moment when you were claiming genuine interest. It’s clear of course that your intention isn’t to investigate and discuss your simply looking for things to build baseless arguments around. Don’t you wonder why, as far as I’m aware, none of the researchers that have looked at the MM over the years have suggested that Lady Aberconway altered her fathers notes? Do you honestly think that they all missed the fact that Lady C wrote them? I’ll tell you why Fishy. Because the idea is utterly preposterous and shouldn’t be given a second thought. So perhaps you should spend less time manufacturing false outrage every time that I disagree with you simply to try and get sympathy or to get action taken against me and take a step back from your crusade to discredit anything to do with Macnaghten or Druitt.
                    As usual a Longggggg winded drawn out post about nothing, didnt event consider the remote possibility what is a proven fact, that no such notes by MM about that paragraph exist and have ever been seen . FACT

                    YOUR JUST JOKE . You makes statements and then manipulate them 10 different ways to suit when you have to backpeddle your way out . Stop wasting my time . You were proven wrong, deal with it .

                    '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


                    • Because,Herlock,I am not accusing my 'person of interest',as being more likely to have killed anyone.I am not inferring my person suffered mental poblems,or that he committed suicide,or was in any way involved in the Whitechapel murders.
                      I have provided information only,and I have used that information to compare,not to involve.There is quite a difference.if you can't see it do not criticise.
                      My 'person of interest' could be English,German,French,Italian.Would knowing that help?If you can convince me it would,I will tell.
                      You already have more information than I started with.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                        Both our stories might sound improbable to some. But compared to the idea that someone might have got his kicks out of killing and mutilating Lodging House unfortunates …?

                        And if that was someone’s bag, at 2/3 in the morning where was he going to go looking for them? The West End? The City? Marylebone? Bloomsbury?
                        Hi Gary,

                        I'm still catching up, but what if part of the appeal to the man known as Jack the Ripper was the greater notoriety to be gained from terrorising a single neighbourhood?

                        Not an entire county, like the Yorkshire Ripper or the Suffolk Strangler, but the back streets of Spitalfields?

                        Colin Ireland went one better, with his chosen London pub, but the notoriety eluded him because his murders were committed where his victims lived and were not being connected. He had to take steps to secure that notoriety, and earn himself his Gay Slayer trade name, so it must have been important to him.

                        The infamous association between Whitechapel and its series of gruesome murders was quickly forged and would linger long after 1888 - not unlike the hold the Krays had nearly a century later, or Brady and Hindley, known as the Moors Murderers.

                        Bad characters will often pick the place where they can do most harm and get away with it, and then stick like limpets until they are finally prised off for the common good.

                        Who mentioned the House of Commons?

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Hi George,

                          Maybe a combination of the two? Perhaps whatever occurred at the school was the first time that he’d lost control of himself after being able to keep the two parts of his life separate up until that point?
                          Peter Sutcliffe was more depressed by being caught drink driving and the imminent loss of his job than he was over the many women he'd murdered and attacked so who knows?

                          Assuming he was Jackof course, which I don't believe he was!

                          kind regards
                          If I have seen further it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                            I too was eagerly awaiting this useful piece of info. You would have thought this kind of thing would have been central to F being a suspect and something Trevor would have close by, at hand, ready to ram down our throats at any given opportunity, like his makeshift sanitary towel theory, but: 'If and when I find it I will post it' = it doesn't exist
                            Now that's an image I could have done without.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tecs View Post

                              Peter Sutcliffe was more depressed by being caught drink driving and the imminent loss of his job than he was over the many women he'd murdered and attacked so who knows?

                              Assuming Druitt was Jack of course, which I don't believe he was!

                              kind regards
                              Apologies, edited for clarity.
                              If I have seen further it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ohrocky View Post
                                I struggle to place any value in MM whatsoever. Here you have the most senior police officer in London himself admitting that he had destroyed evidence in order to keep secret the identity of the killer.

                                Take a moment and think about that. The most senior police officer covering up the identity of someone he believed was a killer.

                                Today he would be labelled as bent and banged up. So how can anybody trust a man who, by his own admission, was a bent copper?
                                But the thing is, Mac did the opposite in his memo of covering up Druitt's identity. He named him! Druitt was long dead, so destroying the private information, which Mac fully admitted did not amount to 'proof' of the man's guilt [there was no 'proof' against anyone], might have been unwise and unprofessional, if he was then going to name the poor sod anyway, when he was no longer able to defend himself against whatever the information consisted of, but it is what it is, and we are where we are.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X