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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

    But there’s so much that we don’t know how can we start starting things as facts. I’m no longer willing to discuss the suspect/person of interest point because it’s a joke. I recall me and Paul Begg trying to drill this into you and Harry but you were, as ever, dead to reason.

    Druitt is and will remain a SUSPECT so you can keep on with your ‘person of interest’ point Trevor but there’s only you and Harry who are in favour of it. You are free to call him what you will and I’m free to say that Feigenbaum is not even a person of interest and shouldn’t really be mentioned in terms of this case. He’s an irrelevance.

    You can ask a million questions but the point is how you do it. Asking questions is fine. Having doubts are fine. Expressing caution is fine. That’s not your approach though. Your approach is - why no mention of the ID parade? We don’t know so let’s dismiss it. There are some trivial errors in the MM so chuck it out. Any question that we can’t answer you use as an excuse for dismissal. That’s illogical, unreasonable and indicative of preconception. You have your own idea then you go to any lengths to weed out anything that doesn’t fit. For Christ sake Trevor I even got you to finally accept that you were wrong about the string on Eddowes apron which for ages you’ve been using to prove that it wasn’t a complete apron and yet you STILL won’t let go of a theory that no one agrees with. At least there are some that accept Druitt a possible and someone deserving of reasoned discussion. You are often posting on threads where not a single poster agrees with you but you never for once consider that you might be wrong. Too much confidence leads to rigid thinking and desperation.
    I wouldn’t class the errors in the MM as trivial

    and you did not get me to admit to being wrong about the apron I stand by everything I have stated right from day one

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
      One of two points I would like to make.

      To say that the copy of the memorandum found in the files is the original is nothing other than one massive assumption.
      All we know is it's from Feb 94.

      The Abberconway version is obviously different in several ways, and was typed up at later date than the file version.

      However, there is no way of knowing if the file version was the original or if the Abberconway version was taken from an earlier version.

      One other issue, why does Macnaghten not mention the ID of Kosminski it's asked?

      Well one answer is that an ID is mentioned, in the Abberconway version, it's said no one ever got a good view of the killer unless it was the City PC near to Mitre Square .
      Later, Macnaghten mentions that his Kosminski, greatly resembled the individual seen near to Mitre Square.
      That surely is mention of an ID, even if it's only in passing.
      Macnaghten then rejects this seemingly important statement in favour of Druitt.
      Why he does so we do not know?

      The memodraum is maybe the oddest document in the whole case.

      It's not addressed to anyone, and appears to a briefing note but is it?
      It's apparently was never sent anywhere, other than being put into a Scotland Yard file, and forgotten.

      Is it what it appears to be at first glance, a mistaken ridden, never used briefing paper for some unknown person; or is it something very different?

      That's of course is a very different question, one which I plan to address in a future work.

      We should at present try and stick to the known facts.

      That is there are two suriving versions of the memorandum, significantly different from each other.
      There is the possibility of a third , now lost version. This the Donner version may have simply been rough notes, or maybe it was a separate full version, possibly the earliest.

      Macnaghten was inclined to dismiss the 2nd and 3rd suspects in favour of Druitt .

      And that's it.

      Everything else is speculation.
      The id I was referring to was the mythical ID seaside home parade not mitre square which the alleged positive identification should have been a defining moment in the ripper investigation which mm should have been aware of had it have happened as he was swansons boss

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        I wouldn’t class the errors in the MM as trivial

        and you did not get me to admit to being wrong about the apron I stand by everything I have stated right from day one

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Another poster who can’t even bring themselves to admit what they themselves have said in b&w. In the discussion thread you said in post # 495:

        “The evidence I seek to rely on is that the GS piece was a corner piece with a string attached.”

        Please note the words ‘rely on.’

        I explained to you that it was the mortuary piece and not the Goulston Street that had the string attached which obviously dismantled the basis for your theory.

        You replied in Post #498:

        I did make a mistake it was the mortuary piece which had the string attached”

        But you didn’t admit to being wrong did you? Cue a piece of Fishy-type wriggling in the face of the proven.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


          Another poster who can’t even bring themselves to admit what they themselves have said in b&w. In the discussion thread you said in post # 495:

          “The evidence I seek to rely on is that the GS piece was a corner piece with a string attached.”

          Please note the words ‘rely on.’

          I explained to you that it was the mortuary piece and not the Goulston Street that had the string attached which obviously dismantled the basis for your theory.

          You replied in Post #498:

          I did make a mistake it was the mortuary piece which had the string attached”

          But you didn’t admit to being wrong did you? Cue a piece of Fishy-type wriggling in the face of the proven.
          I admitted that I was wrong when discussing which piece had the string attached but that was a freudian slip in the heat of the moment, but as I used the term in my post from day one I was referring to day one when the results of my cold case review went into print in my book "Jack the Ripper-The Real Truth" and just to corrroborate that and to dispel your wriggling suggestion here is the extract from the said book which if you havent read it can be bought on Amazon in Kindle and paperback form

          "The official statement of Dr Brown I believe adds real corroboration to the fact that she wasn’t wearing an apron. “My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached.” This shows that the apron piece from the mortuary was of the type which originally had two strings attached.
          However, he describes it as a corner piece with a string attached, so that would mean that it was either the left or right-hand corner nearest to the waistband.


          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            I admitted that I was wrong when discussing which piece had the string attached but that was a freudian slip in the heat of the moment, but as I used the term in my post from day one I was referring to day one when the results of my cold case review went into print in my book "Jack the Ripper-The Real Truth" and just to corrroborate that and to dispel your wriggling suggestion here is the extract from the said book which if you havent read it can be bought on Amazon in Kindle and paperback form

            "The official statement of Dr Brown I believe adds real corroboration to the fact that she wasn’t wearing an apron. “My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached.” This shows that the apron piece from the mortuary was of the type which originally had two strings attached.
            However, he describes it as a corner piece with a string attached, so that would mean that it was either the left or right-hand corner nearest to the waistband.


            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            I challenge any poster to make sense of this embarrassing drivel. ‘A Freudian slip in the heat of the moment!!’ Give it a rest Trevor!

            You stated that the Goulston Street piece was the piece with the string attached. I showed that you were wrong (by actually reading) and you admitted it. And as I predicted, just like Fishy, you are now trying to backtrack and deny something what is written in black and white. You’re simply not worth talking to Trevor. Ripperology scrapes the barrel yet again!

            Absolutely pathetic!
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              The id I was referring to was the mythical ID seaside home parade not mitre square which the alleged positive identification should have been a defining moment in the ripper investigation which mm should have been aware of had it have happened as he was swansons boss

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              Trevor,

              Firstly by referring to it as "mythical" merely demonstrates that your mind is closed. There is no logical reason to suggest an ID did not occur, as Swanson and Anderson state, other than one DOES NOT WANT to accept it.
              While people refuse to accept such in all probability occurred, in effect burying their heads in the sand, serious research cannot advance.
              That research is, who was the witness? what did they see?
              When did it occur?

              And perhaps most importantly who was the individual referred to by Swanson and Anderson.

              Secondly, it's clear from Swanson, that there is no "PARADE" , in all probability it's a one on one confrontation.
              Please don't tell us such would be inadmissible, we know that.
              However, maybe the real aim of an ID was to confirm they were looking at the right man rather than a possible arrest and prosecution, especially if the police were aware the witness would not cooperate because of Mesirah.

              Thirdly, MM mentions where the witness saw the suspect, NOT where the identification actually took place.

              I covered all of this in a talk for the Casebook Conference last year.

              Why do you assume he does not know about the ID, at the Seaside Home, given that he cleary talks of an ID.

              Many now consider the possibility of 2 ID's.
              One which would convict for 1 murder, and a 2nd that links the suspect to one or more other of the murders.

              Indeed it WAS the defining momment, you simply assume what that should mean.

              Macnaghten of course was not directly linked to the murders, whereas Swanson was appointed by the commissioner to coordinate the case, and Anderson was of course the superior of both Swanson and Macnaghten .

              But all of this deflects from the subject of the thread.
              We assume that we know what the aim of the memorandum was, what if we are wrong ?

              As I say Trevor, I do have an very in depth work on the Memo planned.
              It will look at it from all angles, in far greater detail than any other work.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                Really?

                So…

                1. Lady A’s notes might have been copied from notes that no one has ever seen (which you clearly only ever suggested sarcastically) - So that would have meant that Macnaghten, for some bizarre reason, would have had to have made 2 lots of rough notes. The Donner notes and your ‘unseen’ ones. And even if this was the case it would still have meant that she’d copied it from her fathers notes - so that little fantasy (which you don’t believe for a minute) gets you nowhere.

                or…

                2. Because we haven’t seen the Donner notes and have no way of confirming there exact contents this gives you leave to claim that Lady Aberconway could have added the paragraph herself. But the point is, and here we go back to the quote that you’re so keen to backtrack on, you weren’t just suggesting a possibility, you were claiming a fact. I’ll post it again…



                As we can all see. You’re making a very specific and very definite claim. Not that they ‘might’ have been her own words, but that they definitely were her own words.

                You simply can’t with honesty wriggle away from from words posted by yourself. Your words aren’t open to interpretation. You are clearly stating that Lady Aberconway invented the paragraph. There’s no going back on it. You can’t edit the past because you’ve been embarrassed by something that you posted. Keep wasting time if you feel the desperate need to though. I’ll keep posting that quote.
                I see your deflecting and ranting on again. All the stomping of feet and dummy spitting wont divert from the one fact which you refuse to acknowedge. That is the one paragraph you like to claim that Mac wrote suspecting Druitt as the ripper, has not ever been seen and there is no evidence of it in Mac own handwriting , This is a FACT ,


                Got any other bright ideas youd like to share whilst your in denial ?
                '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

                  The evidence clearly tells us that the accusation that Lady Aberconway fraudulently added a paragraph is baseless and frankly despicable. Perhaps you should stick to scouring the planet to try and find some looney that agrees with you that Sir William Gull was the ripper. It might be time better spent.
                  The evidence clearly tells me that you just ignored anotherFACT wow your getteing good at that ,

                  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 .

                  This is what you just ignored as a FACT which you well know would be the case in a court of law .


                  But you simple overlook it and deflect with smoke and mirrors mumbo jumbo .
                  '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


                  • I am unaware of the Aberconway version Herlock?You state facts?No one knows when the memo was created,or who typed the majority of it.Fact.That it was typed by Lady A's secretarry is speculation.Fact. That it was not found,is obvious.It was never lost.It originated with the family,and was retained by them.What is argued,is the supposed notes that Mac used to compile his version.These notes cannot now be found,but if we are to believe Farson,who does?,the notes were given to him(Farson),by Mac's daughter.
                    Farson's claim,in his words,not mine. "I explained my interest to Christabel Aberconway,and she was kind enough to give me her father's private notes,which she had copied out soon after his death"
                    So what are we to make of that.Well it seems that Farson walked away with the originals,and a copy was retained by Christabel.So there are two versions of the notes lying around somewhere,unless they have been destroyed.
                    So Herlock,you ommited an important part of that visit by Farson.I wonder why?
                    Yes,the suggestion was made that the family kept the secretary ignorant,but lets consider that.They didn't trust a person who was close to the family,but had no hesitation in giving the notes to a stranger at a first meeting. Believable?

                    Comment


                    • Herlock,your post 584 seems a mass of contradictions.You had previouly written a long tirade which suggested you had no idea of who the ripper was,and there was no real evidence against anyone.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                        Trevor,

                        Firstly by referring to it as "mythical" merely demonstrates that your mind is closed. There is no logical reason to suggest an ID did not occur, as Swanson and Anderson state, other than one DOES NOT WANT to accept it.

                        Its not a case of not wanting to accept it its a case of the facts go against all know ID police procedures of the period, so it has to be assumed that if it ever took place as described it would have been of no evidential value and those who were involved in that would and should have known that so why would they conduct such a parade knowing that what they were doing was not going to be of any evidential value.

                        While people refuse to accept such in all probability occurred, in effect burying their heads in the sand, serious research cannot advance.
                        That research is, who was the witness? what did they see?
                        When did it occur?

                        And perhaps most importantly who was the individual referred to by Swanson and Anderson.

                        That research has led to much speculation but if we are to believe MM and other officers who say "No one saw the killer" any continuing research 130 years later is futile and can only lead to pointless speculation

                        Secondly, it's clear from Swanson, that there is no "PARADE" , in all probability it's a one on one confrontation.
                        Please don't tell us such would be inadmissible, we know that.
                        However, maybe the real aim of an ID was to confirm they were looking at the right man rather than a possible arrest and prosecution, especially if the police were aware the witness would not cooperate because of Mesirah

                        Now who is speculating ?

                        Direct confrontations were only used as a last resort when a suspect does not co-operate with the police with a normal ID procedure. That clearly didnt happen if we are to believe what is written.

                        Why is there no evidence from any other officers senior or otherwise detailing this ID procedure I again use the term defining moment.

                        I am sure that if it took place Swanson and Anderson didnt take the suspect down to wherever on the train handcuffed to them other officers would have been needed as escorts and used to ensure the suspect didnt escape, so they would have been a party to this identification yet nothing in later years from anyone.

                        and the real spanner in the works for me is what is alleged to have taken place following this ID parade. If we are to believe Swanson the suspect was taken back to Whitechapel and dropped of at his brothers house. Now this is farcical here we have a situation where according to Swanson, Kosminski has been identified as JTR, and yet the police knowing that simply take him back to Whitechapel and drop him off at his brothers house!!!!!!!!!!!

                        Why did they not arrest him and take him into custody and interview him, or they could have taken him to a mental institution and got him sectioned. There is no mention of either being considered, and you wonder why I question this whole scenario surrounding the ID parade


                        Thirdly, MM mentions where the witness saw the suspect, NOT where the identification actually took place.

                        And your point is?

                        I covered all of this in a talk for the Casebook Conference last year.

                        Why do you assume he does not know about the ID, at the Seaside Home, given that he cleary talks of an ID.

                        Yes but not the seaside home ID which is pivotal to the whole series of murders jack the Ripper finally identified!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                        Many now consider the possibility of 2 ID's.
                        One which would convict for 1 murder, and a 2nd that links the suspect to one or more other of the murders.

                        But if that had been the case would it not have been recorded as such?

                        Indeed it WAS the defining momment, you simply assume what that should mean.

                        No assumption, the positive identification of a killer who had terrorsied London and murdered a number of women I would describe as a defining moment.

                        Macnaghten of course was not directly linked to the murders, whereas Swanson was appointed by the commissioner to coordinate the case, and Anderson was of course the superior of both Swanson and Macnaghten .

                        You are right but it was MM who was asked to reply internally via the memo to the Cutbush article, if this ID had taken place in the way described why did he not simply write "Cutbush could not have been the killer because we have identified the killer who cannot or could not be brought to trial because he is/was insane"

                        But all of this deflects from the subject of the thread.
                        We assume that we know what the aim of the memorandum was, what if we are wrong ?

                        Wrong or not, it doesnt detract from the blatant errors in the Memo

                        As I say Trevor, I do have an very in depth work on the Memo planned.
                        It will look at it from all angles, in far greater detail than any other work.
                        i am sure we all will look forward to its publication

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 07-03-2022, 08:21 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                          hi herlock
                          the idea that lady a or anyone else for that matter forged a paragraph to attribute to MM is tin foil hat stuff. i wouldnt waste any more time with it. its pointless. mac thought druitt was probably the ripper and he says it in his own words and writing and told people, so this latest nonsense is a moot any way.

                          and please dear lord dont tell me fishy beleives in the royal conspiracy!?!
                          Abby let me explain as i think your missing the point
                          .
                          Firstly the Aberconway version is written in her own hand , i dont think anybodys disputing that . However what is being disputed is the fact that such a document being the copy of the original ,that can not be found or produced or has been made mention of anywhere [the paragraph in question] in Mac own handwriting should be trusted to be his .

                          Imagine trying to use a photo copy of your Licence , Passport, Rego, Bank card Visa any document that by law requires the original for it to be legal .How far would you get? . Seriously .

                          Yes, not exactly the same but you surely see what i mean .

                          If no such paragraph can be proven to exist in Mac own handwriting, how can we expect the Abercomways version is the same as the original ? just because Lady Aberconway copied it and she and others claim it to be ? Sorry but i just dont work that way . Neither does the Law .

                          All this other garbage about accusing L.A for fraud is just nonsense, where was the personnal attack aimed at Trevor Marriot by Herlock when he suggested P.C Neil may have lied ? under oath i might add, when he claimed Neil didnt go through bucks row at the time he said he did ? This and hundreds more example on these boards by poster over the years go unchallenged , its just a silly little game he likes to play . So please lets put that horseshit to bed.


                          Now if it seems to far fetched and totally ridiculous as to her motive for adding that paragraph for what ever reason i dont know. [i did suggest one in my post somewhere back in my post ]

                          Are we not forgetting that some posters actually suggest and believe a dog, a frikin dog mind you somehow dragged the blood soaked apron of Eddowes and just happen to drop it at the foot of the GSG !!!!!!!!! . Again these and hundreds of crackpot suggestion involving theories , suspects all sorts wild ideas put forward by posters when discussing jtr. Why does this perticular topic on the aberconway version of a paragraph create such doubt ? is it any less of a possability than some stupid dog theory ?

                          As far a the R. C is concerned, by that i take it you mean knights book which although has errors is also factual in many other areas of information. Which because they are facts i will continue to use and let my own research be my guide .

                          Fishy.




                          '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

                            I see your deflecting and ranting on again. All the stomping of feet and dummy spitting wont divert from the one fact which you refuse to acknowedge. That is the one paragraph you like to claim that Mac wrote suspecting Druitt as the ripper, has not ever been seen and there is no evidence of it in Mac own handwriting , This is a FACT ,


                            Got any other bright ideas youd like to share whilst your in denial ?
                            You keep claiming that I refuse to acknowledge that the paragraph in question hasn’t been seen, in Mac’s handwriting. As we all know, this is untrue.

                            Post # 515 (Acknowledgement One)

                            .
                            How can I provide the paragraph in Macnaghten’s handwriting when no one knows where it is?
                            Post # 527 (Acknowledgment Two)

                            .
                            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.
                            Post #546 Acknowledgment Three)

                            And so you are asking me if I can produce this paragraph in Macnaghten’s own handwriting. Despite the fact that I’ve very clearly answered this question at least twice in this thread I’ll answer it a third time - no I can’t of course because we no longer know who is in possession of the relevant notes
                            And, just for jolly, I’ll add an acknowledgment four.

                            ”We do not have the original notes that Lady A used to compile her version of the memorandum. Macnaghten’s notes did exist and were seen but we no longer know their location.”

                            Perhaps you could let me know in advance how many times I need to post something before it sinks I with you?

                            What’s the betting that you’ll make the same point again.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                              The evidence clearly tells me that you just ignored anotherFACT wow your getteing good at that ,

                              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 .

                              This is what you just ignored as a FACT which you well know would be the case in a court of law .


                              But you simple overlook it and deflect with smoke and mirrors mumbo jumbo .
                              Post # 598 - Your point answered for the fourth time.

                              . Which as i suspected all along and now confirmed, that the Aberconway version and particularly the paragraph in question regarding Mac,s opinion about Druitt was indeed written by Lady Aberconway herself, and not the opinion of Sir Melville Macnaghten.
                              And your response to the above quote. Missing again.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes

                              Comment


                              • Was it 'Notes' Mac used?.He was not included in the investigatons of the murders,but he did have access to the accumulated information that would have been in files.Would't that have been a better proposition than relying on memory and perhaps a few personnel jottings?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X