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 Abby Normal View Post

    hi herlock
    agree. its really just gets sillier snd sillier. the extent some will go to do anything , i mean anything to discredit mac/ druitt is truly amazing. reminds me of tje swanson marginalia deniers lol
    Just stating a fact abby thats alll .

    Its just so simple its childs play really, that paragraph thats refered to in the Aberconway version about Druitt has not to the best of my knowledge been seen in Macs handwriting as the same as the in the MM , jesus how hard is it for people to get that .

    Its not about trying to discredit anyone, it the same every time when facts and evidence is discussed , if someone want to claim something go right ahead, i dont give a toss. But dont feed me or others horseshit and ask that we just take someones word for it because they ask us to, which is exactly what herlock did before i pointed out to him that it was in fact lady aberconways own hand the paragraph he so desparaley likes to use as proof mac wrote. . Get Real . In this case if you been following the discussion at all, the paragraph is question like i said does not appear in Macs handwriting. Its a copy of it. Where would that evidence get you in a court of law? . Here your honour heres a copy of the note... judge ''wheres the original'' , ''we dont know your honour but take our word for it this copy says the same thing'' judge '' go find the original a copy . Thats the point im making all along but simple as that is, someone couldnt work it out .
    '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

      What about the paragraph in MM own hand writing ? .We already know Lady Aberconways versions i pointed that out to already, thats done with .


      Day 2 Still no proof or mention of it . I wonder what day 3 will bring .

      Just remember thats the only thing that matters ,all your waffleing on is pointless .
      And every point you make is pointless but I won’t go on about it.

      How many times do I need to repeat that we don’t know the whereabouts of the Donner version but that doesn’t mean that they don’t or never have existed. You’re like Trevor - you ask something - I answer - then you ask again claiming that I haven’t answered! This is te second time I’ve answered this.

      …..

      No, you don’t wriggle out of it that way Fishy. Lady Aberconway isn’t done by any means I’m afraid.

      You accused her of falsifying her version of the memorandum. You can’t wriggle away from that however hard you try.
      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 FISHY1118 View Post

        Just stating a fact abby thats alll .

        Its just so simple its childs play really, that paragraph thats refered to in the Aberconway version about Druitt has not to the best of my knowledge been seen in Macs handwriting as the same as the in the MM , jesus how hard is it for people to get that .

        Its not about trying to discredit anyone, it the same every time when facts and evidence is discussed , if someone want to claim something go right ahead, i dont give a toss. But dont feed me or others horseshit and ask that we just take someones word for it because they ask us to, which is exactly what herlock did before i pointed out to him that it was in fact lady aberconways own hand the paragraph he so desparaley likes to use as proof mac wrote. . Get Real . In this case if you been following the discussion at all, the paragraph is question like i said does not appear in Macs handwriting. Its a copy of it. Where would that evidence get you in a court of law? . Here your honour heres a copy of the note... judge ''wheres the original'' , ''we dont know your honour but take our word for it this copy says the same thing'' judge '' go find the original a copy . Thats the point im making all along but simple as that is, someone couldnt work it out .
        Obvious nonsense.
        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 harry View Post
          Why Herlock,do you find it strange,that upper class twits,old school mob cover up?I believe it is a well known fact.I do not find it strange.
          Isn't it clear that what most of what is written by Mac and the lady,is from memory,and that both are treating it as theoretical,and not factual.
          Doesn't the ladies version start off by stating it was a theoretical situation?
          Yet again Harry you appear to have misunderstood. What I was pointing out was that some posters are only to willing to point out these upper class liars and cover up merchants and yet when someone suggests that Macnaghten ‘might’ have wanted to protect the reputation of the Druitt family they suddenly act as if it’s an outrageous suggestion. It’s called bias Harry. These upper class guys are only liars and cover up merchants when it suits.

          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 Abby Normal View Post

            hi herlock
            agree. its really just gets sillier snd sillier. the extent some will go to do anything , i mean anything to discredit mac/ druitt is truly amazing. reminds me of tje swanson marginalia deniers lol
            Hi Abby,

            Here we are again!

            How many times have I said that some people take leave of their senses and foam at the mouth at the mere suggestion that Druitt might have been guilty? Or that Macnaghten wasn’t an idiot or a liar? Just the possibility reduces some to scraping the bottom of every barrel. Fishy clearly accuses Lady A of fraudulently adding a passage and then tries to move on and brush it under the carpet. It’s just desperation. Thankfully Abby there are posters like yourself and many others who, while not seeing Druitt as a particularly strong suspect, at least accept the possibility and at least accept that there are unanswered question. Who don’t try any disreputable tactic to try and redact all mention of Macnaghten or Druitt.

            Sadly, fair-minded discussion is simply impossible for some.
            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

              And every point you make is pointless but I won’t go on about it.

              How many times do I need to repeat that we don’t know the whereabouts of the Donner version but that doesn’t mean that they don’t or never have existed. You’re like Trevor - you ask something - I answer - then you ask again claiming that I haven’t answered! This is te second time I’ve answered this.

              …..

              No, you don’t wriggle out of it that way Fishy. Lady Aberconway isn’t done by any means I’m afraid.

              You accused her of falsifying her version of the memorandum. You can’t wriggle away from that however hard you try.
              See how you deflect back to aberconway as i said you would, thats irrevelent pal, but you use it to keep deflecting away from the real issue .... Laughable really. Wriggle away indeed
              '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

                See how you deflect back to aberconway as i said you would, thats irrevelent pal, but you use it to keep deflecting away from the real issue .... Laughable really. Wriggle away indeed
                You accused her of fraudulently adding a passage to her version of the MM. A baseless, desperate accusation in black and white. That’s the real issue.
                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

                  Obvious nonsense.
                  ''How many times do I need to repeat that we don’t know the whereabouts of the Donner version but that doesn’t mean that they don’t or never have existed''.


                  Is it ?, Oh how id love to see the look on the judges face when you feed him that baloni. Laughing stock
                  '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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    You accused her of fraudulently adding a passage to her version of the MM. A baseless, desperate accusation in black and white. That’s the real issue.
                    Desperate arent you , thats all you got, hold on to it for grimm death , as you still avoid the topic .

                    The paragraph in macs writing ???????????
                    '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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Hi Abby,

                      Here we are again!

                      How many times have I said that some people take leave of their senses and foam at the mouth at the mere suggestion that Druitt might have been guilty? Or that Macnaghten wasn’t an idiot or a liar? Just the possibility reduces some to scraping the bottom of every barrel. Fishy clearly accuses Lady A of fraudulently adding a passage and then tries to move on and brush it under the carpet. It’s just desperation. Thankfully Abby there are posters like yourself and many others who, while not seeing Druitt as a particularly strong suspect, at least accept the possibility and at least accept that there are unanswered question. Who don’t try any disreputable tactic to try and redact all mention of Macnaghten or Druitt.

                      Sadly, fair-minded discussion is simply impossible for some.
                      Yer such as yourself
                      '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

                        Desperate arent you , thats all you got, hold on to it for grimm death , as you still avoid the topic .

                        The paragraph in macs writing ???????????
                        The Aberconway version is largely typed but has 2 pages in Lady Christobel’s handwriting which was copied from her fathers rough notes which were last known to have been in the possession of Gerald Melville Donner which were seen by Philip Loftus.

                        You are claiming that if we can’t see the original (which we very obviously can’t because we no longer know where it is) then the paragraph in question might not have been originally written by Sir Melville. Therefore if it wasn’t written in Sir Melville’s original notes and yet it appears in the Aberconway version then it must have been added (for whatever unfathomable reason) by Lady Aberconway.

                        Therefore you are accusing Lady Aberconway of fraudulently adding a paragraph that wasn’t originally written by her father. You cannot squirm your way out of this one Fishy.
                        Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 07-01-2022, 01:54 PM.
                        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 FISHY1118 View Post

                          ''How many times do I need to repeat that we don’t know the whereabouts of the Donner version but that doesn’t mean that they don’t or never have existed''.


                          Is it ?, Oh how id love to see the look on the judges face when you feed him that baloni. Laughing stock
                          So not only are you suggesting that Lady Aberconway fraudulently added a passage you are now suggesting that she might have fraudulently created the whole thing.

                          And so she made the Aberconway version up completely out of thin air but it just happened to match in most respects the official version which she would never have seen. Great theory Fishy. Got any more?

                          Keep going Fishy. Perhaps you might brilliantly deduce that Sir Melville Macnaghten never existed?
                          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 07-01-2022, 01:56 PM.
                          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

                            Yet again Harry you appear to have misunderstood. What I was pointing out was that some posters are only to willing to point out these upper class liars and cover up merchants and yet when someone suggests that Macnaghten ‘might’ have wanted to protect the reputation of the Druitt family they suddenly act as if it’s an outrageous suggestion. It’s called bias Harry. These upper class guys are only liars and cover up merchants when it suits.
                            Reputations count for nothing in a major criminal investigation.

                            If the family suspected him surely they would have wanted to know the truth whatever the truth would have been, after all it was they that seemingly put him in the frame. So if they were that concerned about their reputation why didnt they just say nothing to anyone and keep it a family secret.

                            The more this is discussed the more Druitts suspect status comes into question

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              The Aberconway version is largely typed but has 2 pages in Lady Christobel’s handwriting which was copied from her fathers rough notes which were last known to have been in the possession of Gerald Melville Donner which were seen by Philip Loftus.

                              You are claiming that if we can’t see the original (which we very obviously can’t because we no longer know where it is) then the paragraph in question might not have been originally written by Sir Melville. Therefore if it wasn’t written in Sir Melville’s original notes and yet it appears in the Aberconway version then it must have been added (for whatever unfathomable reason) by Lady Aberconway.

                              Therefore you are accusing Lady Aberconway of fraudulently adding a paragraph that wasn’t originally written by her father. You cannot squirm your way out of this one Fishy.
                              Idont think even you know what your your trying to say here , your all over the shot .

                              Wheres the paragraph about druitt in macs writing? Ripperoligist #124
                              '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 Trevor Marriott View Post

                                Reputations count for nothing in a major criminal investigation.

                                If the family suspected him surely they would have wanted to know the truth whatever the truth would have been, after all it was they that seemingly put him in the frame. So if they were that concerned about their reputation why didnt they just say nothing to anyone and keep it a family secret.

                                The more this is discussed the more Druitts suspect status comes into question

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                The more rubbish you come up with you mean. You keep projecting onto events that occurred 130+ years ago. How do you know that it wasn’t just one family member? Remember, William lied under oath at the inquest about Monty having no other relatives. Was he trying to insure that they weren’t questioned? What if William told Majendie hoping that he’d agree to remain silent but he couldn’t do that, so instead of gong public he agreed to have a quiet word with his friend Mac?

                                We don’t know what occurred so just saying “ if this happened then it’s nonsense.”

                                The more Druitt is discussed, as long as by those without an agenda, the more interesting a suspect he becomes.
                                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