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 GBinOz View Post
    "from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer,"

    Hi Herlock,

    I hope that you will consider my following comments the be objective.

    Much of MJD's candidacy can be attributed to MM, but the boldened words used in the above statements imply speculation rather than evidence. Apart from his getting Monty's age and profession wrong, he also stated that in his notes that Monty lived with his family and that his suicide was on 10 Nov - "after his awful glut on this occasion (Kelly's murder), gave way altogether and he committed suicide; otherwise the murders would not have ceased.". He also got most of the facts about his two other POI's wrong. Additionally, he wasn't actually in the police force at the time of the murders. I think that the weight given to his opinions have to be tempered in these regards.

    The other source of information on MJD is the remnant of the press report of the inquest, which is usually modified by Sugden's suggestion regarding the validity of the date. The fact is that we don't know when Monty was sacked from the school, or when he wrote his descent into madness note, or to which Friday he was referring in that note. These are all assumptions built on another assumption (Sugden). We don't even know the date of his death, having only the medical estimate of how long his body had been in the water.

    Some of the points that I find curious are:

    Why did he need to go to Hammersmith (or Chiswick) to commit suicide, and was it a suicide?

    If his intention was suicide, why did he have so much cash, and cheques, in his pockets? It is speculated that the cheques were severance payments from the school, but why could they not have been clients payments from his legal practice? We cannot eliminate the possibility that he was sacked from the school in absentia later in December for prolonged absence, in which case his actions from 1 Dec had nothing to do with the school.

    I agree with Doc on returning to the "genuine constructive debate" in this thread. While I am still not persuaded that Monty was JtR, my "possibility meter" has moved a couple of clicks closer to centre.

    Cheers, George
    Hello George,

    Ive never suggested that these errors should be brushed under any carpet. All things have to be considered and I agree about the MM being the crux of any potential case against Druitt but I’d also point out something that does tend to get brushed under a carpet by some (I’m certainly not suggesting you of course) And that point is that despite the importance of the MM (written in 1894 of course) we still have the M.P. Henry Farquaharsen (who was from the same area of the country as the Druitt’s) telling his friends in London that the ripper was known to have been the son of a surgeon who committed suicide in the Thames after the last murder. So this is Druitt being mentioned as the killer (not by name of course) by a politician from the West Country a full 3 years before the MM.

    The ticket is intriguing. A suggestion is that he might have been visiting the Manor House asylum. Perhaps he’d ‘booked himself in’ or his family had placed him there but he got out and committed suicide? Sims did say that the ripper had been confined in an asylum at some point and one of the Tukes is in the records as giving advice on how to catch the ripper. Pure speculation of course George.

    The suggestion that he might have been murdered is another interesting suggestion that has Ben discussed before. We can’t discount one obvious suggestion as to the half used ticked of course - that he’d intended to use the return half.
    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
      You Herlock,appear to believe that nothing you write should be questioned,nor should information given by other named persons.Let me ask a few questions.
      Who typed the words in the Lady A version?
      Can we be sure the hand written part was by Lady A? Why shouldn't that have been typed?
      Her version was 'Found' .Found where,and under what circumstances? Maybe in an attic,but I'm joking.
      Mac's version is often termed 'Official'. Is it ?
      You say lady Julia inherited her fathers papers.I thought that Mac had destroyed all rellevant material.Where did the notes come from?
      Did Mac need notes to compile his version.Could he not have been writing from memory alone?
      So there is a little bit for you to chew on.
      There’s nothing to ‘chew on’ Harry if you appear unwilling to check out some very well established facts. To be honest I’m surprised that you are so unaware of the origin of the Aberconway version.

      The Aberconway version wasn’t just ‘found.’ It was in Lady Aberconway’s possession. Dan Farson was staying with a woman called Lady Rose Maclaren and he mentioned that he was making a tv series and that one of the episodes was on the ripper. Rose Maclaren told him that coincidentally she’d planned to visited Lady Aberconway with Farson that evening and that she was Macnaghten’s daughter. So during the visit Lady A showed Farson the version that she’d copied from her fathers notes. There’s no mystery.

      We can be sure that she wrote it because the handwriting matches. Specifically a very distinctive ‘9’ that we know that Lady A used.

      Mac said that he destroyed anything that he considered as ‘evidence.’ We don’t know what that was of course. His notes, that he wrote the MM from, weren’t evidence of anything as everyone has correctly pointed out numerous times despite my never claiming that they were. So he had no need to destroy all of his papers.

      Its not a case of me just suggesting that Julia inherited his papers Harry. She was his eldest child and the man who had the ‘rough notes’ about the case was her son. So it was a natural passing on of family papers.

      Did Mac need notes? People do make notes Harry. There’s nothing unusual or suspicious about it. Some don’t, some do.

      Why should part of it have been typed? This makes perfect sense when we consider that Lady A was absolutely insistent that a condition of her allowing them to be used was that the names shouldn’t be mentioned. She said this to two different people. So it looks like she had the bulk of the notes typed by a Secretary but the more sensitive parts (the parts that included the three names) she wrote out by hand to prevent the possibility of a Secretary spilling the beans.
      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 Doctored Whatsit View Post

        Yes, George, all valid points, and all deserving to be debated.

        Monty has to be at least a person of interest, I think, because Mac has drawn attention to him, but as you point out, almost everything he says about Monty was incorrect, so no investigation whatsoever seems to have happened.

        I have always thought that as Last Wills and Testaments etc are very much the responsibility of the legal profession, that it is distinctly odd that a barrister would be organized enough to leave a suicide note, but be so disorganized as to commit suicide with his financial accounts in a mess - by which I mean carrying unbanked cheques on his person when he committed suicide. That, plus the fact that he bought a return ticket, makes his alleged suicide seem rather dubious to me.

        He was dismissed from the school for being in "serious trouble", but he might have been given time to explain his behaviour, hence the letter to Mr Valentine found at his home address, and the possibility of his being sacked "in absentia", perhaps because he hadn't responded to the request for an explanation.

        Other issues are now argument and not debate.
        Would the fact that Monty had those two very sizeable cheques on him just point to the fact that he knew that he’d never be using the cash? Or perhaps that he’d become so distracted that he’d just put them in his pockets and forgotten about them? All unknowns though of course DrW. I certainly agree that the possibility that he might have been murdered is an intriguing area for speculation.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

        Comment


        • So could we compile a list of points for and against murder?
          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

            So at least we have the truth. You are claiming that Lady Aberconway fraudulently altered her fathers words. We all understand this fact as clearly as we’ve understood for years the fact that the Aberconway version is in Lady A’s handwriting.

            ​​​​​​……

            So how do we assess this fraud?

            Well the main question would surely be to detect a motive for her to have done this? Financial gain? Clearly not. That she was convinced of Druitt’s guilt and wanted make it sound more likely that he was the killer? I think that we can safely dismiss that one. That she fraudulently changed the wording to make her father sound a bit more confident? Why? Her fathers official version was already on record. And as it was clear that the case against Druitt wasn’t proven would she really want to falsely make him seem more confident when at any time the rippers true identify might have been revealed? Also, if she was prepared to fraudulently change the document with her own words why didn’t she simply say that Druitt had confessed or that the family had found a bloodied knife and a uterus in a bag?!

            So as we can see, Lady Aberconway clearly had no motive for fraudulently adding a passage that Simple served to make her father seem slightly more confident in Druitt’s guilt. And she very obviously didn’t.

            And this is the point Fishy. Not the established fact that everyone is aware of - that Lady Aberconway version is in her own handwriting. The whole point of this disagreement items from your post #482 where you suggested that she’d added the passage. But you keep dragging it back to other by pointlessly repeating the same question whilst ignoring my answer.

            ​​​​​​​So…….do you still accuse Lady Aberconway of fraudulently altering her fathers words?
            Your just going over ground were already covered . Ive made my point and proven it as a fact, Aberconways version is different as to the paragraph in question ,'' Fact''. unless it produced the same way the MM IS IN HIS OWN HAND it should not be used as proof that mac wrote it . Move on

            Where your going with alll this other stuff god only knows.
            '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

              There’s nothing to ‘chew on’ Harry if you appear unwilling to check out some very well established facts. To be honest I’m surprised that you are so unaware of the origin of the Aberconway version.

              The Aberconway version wasn’t just ‘found.’ It was in Lady Aberconway’s possession. Dan Farson was staying with a woman called Lady Rose Maclaren and he mentioned that he was making a tv series and that one of the episodes was on the ripper. Rose Maclaren told him that coincidentally she’d planned to visited Lady Aberconway with Farson that evening and that she was Macnaghten’s daughter. So during the visit Lady A showed Farson the version that she’d copied from her fathers notes. There’s no mystery.

              We can be sure that she wrote it because the handwriting matches. Specifically a very distinctive ‘9’ that we know that Lady A used.

              Mac said that he destroyed anything that he considered as ‘evidence.’ We don’t know what that was of course. His notes, that he wrote the MM from, weren’t evidence of anything as everyone has correctly pointed out numerous times despite my never claiming that they were. So he had no need to destroy all of his papers.

              Its not a case of me just suggesting that Julia inherited his papers Harry. She was his eldest child and the man who had the ‘rough notes’ about the case was her son. So it was a natural passing on of family papers.

              Did Mac need notes? People do make notes Harry. There’s nothing unusual or suspicious about it. Some don’t, some do.

              Why should part of it have been typed? This makes perfect sense when we consider that Lady A was absolutely insistent that a condition of her allowing them to be used was that the names shouldn’t be mentioned. She said this to two different people. So it looks like she had the bulk of the notes typed by a Secretary but the more sensitive parts (the parts that included the three names) she wrote out by hand to prevent the possibility of a Secretary spilling the beans.
              To me all of this who wrote what and when, is nothing more than a smokescreen to cover the fact that Druitt was mentioned as a person of interest by MM, and there is no supportive evidence to corroborate this, and despite modern day reserchers trying to find that evidence there is still nothing to suggest that at best Druitt is nothing more than a person of interest, and that the MM is totally unsafe to rely on and is littered with errors, and the Aberconway Version does not in any way help because that as i see it is also littered with errors.

              Fishy has referred to Ripperolgist 124 I f you havent read it then I would suggest you do before you continue to argue your untennable position.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                Your just going over ground were already covered . Ive made my point and proven it as a fact, Aberconways version is different as to the paragraph in question ,'' Fact''. unless it produced the same way the MM IS IN HIS OWN HAND it should not be used as proof that mac wrote it . Move on



                Where your going with alll this other stuff god only knows.
                No problem Fishy, we all know you by know. Logical and reason that would disgrace a nursery and a despicable and baseless accusation against a woman with no direct connection to the case who was simply writing from her fathers rough notes invented by you to try and substantiate your terminally biased opinions. A woman that we know was so concerned about the families of the three men that she refused to allow their names to be mentioned. You call her a liar and a fraud.

                We can leave it at that. No problem.
                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 Trevor Marriott View Post

                  To me all of this who wrote what and when, is nothing more than a smokescreen to cover the fact that Druitt was mentioned as a person of interest by MM, and there is no supportive evidence to corroborate this, and despite modern day reserchers trying to find that evidence there is still nothing to suggest that at best Druitt is nothing more than a person of interest, and that the MM is totally unsafe to rely on and is littered with errors, and the Aberconway Version does not in any way help because that as i see it is also littered with errors.

                  Fishy has referred to Ripperolgist 124 I f you havent read it then I would suggest you do before you continue to argue your untennable position.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  I’ve read it and understood. I knew the facts years ago and understood them. My position is 100% correct against a baseless accusation of fraud. Your opinion doesn’t interest me Trevor. You haven’t a clue what you’re talking about and all that you do is parrot the same old boring script. And this from a man that supports a suspect that wasn’t even in the country at the time of the murders. Says it all. If Druitt is a ‘person of interest’ then Feigenbaum is a ‘person of no interest’ a ‘non-suspect.’ A person not worthy of discussion or consideration.
                  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

                    No problem Fishy, we all know you by know. Logical and reason that would disgrace a nursery and a despicable and baseless accusation against a woman with no direct connection to the case who was simply writing from her fathers rough notes invented by you to try and substantiate your terminally biased opinions. A woman that we know was so concerned about the families of the three men that she refused to allow their names to be mentioned. You call her a liar and a fraud.

                    We can leave it at that. No problem.
                    You should take Trevors advice and read Ripperolgist, as for all your other ramblings well thats all been covered and you have got it all wrong no suprize there. keep up the smoke and mirrors act old boy, as you deflect from the real issuse which of course you were wrong but wont admit it.

                    So keep going i got all night


                    Remember dont use that paragraph will you .
                    '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

                      I’ve read it and understood. I knew the facts years ago and understood them. My position is 100% correct against a baseless accusation of fraud. Your opinion doesn’t interest me Trevor. You haven’t a clue what you’re talking about and all that you do is parrot the same old boring script. And this from a man that supports a suspect that wasn’t even in the country at the time of the murders. Says it all. If Druitt is a ‘person of interest’ then Feigenbaum is a ‘person of no interest’ a ‘non-suspect.’ A person not worthy of discussion or consideration.
                      Now now Herlock, you are showing signs of despair, if that the best reply you can offer

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        Now now Herlock, you are showing signs of despair, if that the best reply you can offer

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        I do despair Trevor. I constantly despair at having to deal with posters who are just determined at all costs to try and eliminate Druitt. Posters like you who won’t discuss is openly and fairly. Your every post is an attempt to dismiss. Why are you so against considereing possibilities?
                        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 Trevor Marriott View Post

                          Now now Herlock, you are showing signs of despair, if that the best reply you can offer

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          His way past despair
                          '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

                            I do despair Trevor. I constantly despair at having to deal with posters who are just determined at all costs to try and eliminate Druitt. Posters like you who won’t discuss is openly and fairly. Your every post is an attempt to dismiss. Why are you so against considereing possibilities?
                            No one is attempting to dismiss him, what is being stated is that there is no direct or tangible evidence to warrant him being regarded as a "supect", based on the different definitions between a person of interest and a suspect, but for some reason you seem to not want to accept those facts, and secondly for some reason you wont accept that the MM is unsafe to totally rely on for the reasons which have been stated over and over again.

                            I dont know what else anyone can do to try to convince you if you are not convinced is there any point in you continuing to argue with posters on here because of late that is how it has been Herlock v The rest and to be fair its getting boring and repetitive and perhaps Admin should suspend this thread to give you and everyone else time to calm down and take stock of the situation

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                              You should take Trevors advice and read Ripperolgist, as for all your other ramblings well thats all been covered and you have got it all wrong no suprize there. keep up the smoke and mirrors act old boy, as you deflect from the real issuse which of course you were wrong but wont admit it.

                              So keep going i got all night


                              Remember dont use that paragraph will you .
                              And keep denying that you’ve made an accusation of fraud.
                              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 keep denying that you’ve made an accusation of fraud.
                                Desperate attempt from a desperate man who has forgotton what he was even dicussing about the MM .

                                Just remember that paragraph is not included in the original MM and youll do just fine , now toddle off .

                                Or shall we continue through the night , im good ,
                                '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

                                Working...
                                X