Oh, Dear Boss: Druitt's on a Sticky Wicket

[FISHY1118]

Like Fishy, you’re still suggesting by your posts, that Lady A might have dishonestly added a paragraph. This is based purely on the ‘it’s not physically impossible’ angle. Well lots of things are physically impossible so we have to weight up the likeliness and the likeliness of Lady A doing this is as close to zero as is possible and can safely be ignored.

Bingo, Just use that last paragraph, insert Druitt as likeliness to be jack the ripper like Ally described in the podcast at 45.30 sec and bingo we have a winner whooooo hooooo . Finally.

So should i tell Ally that Druitt can safley be ignored as jtr or will you ?.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok, it’s long past time to draw a line under this tissue of dishonesty.

For my own part, my apologies to George, Doctored Whatsit and Abby who wanted to discus this aspect of the case openly and honestly. I should have walked away from this insanity ages ago. I hold my hands up to my part in this tedious waste of a thread.

We all have differences of opinions and make different interpretations and conjectures but at the bottom of this should be honesty. It’s something that shouldn’t need requesting. This is rarely the case though when the subject of Macnaghten or Druitt are mentioned.

There are two points. Despite my acceptance that we don’t have Macnaghten’s original notes (something so obvious that it shouldn’t require stating and re-stating) Fishy continues to post as if I hadn’t accepted this. It’s a regular tactic. Trevor does it on every thread. I state my position and he responds as if I’d never said it. How many times should I have to keep stating and re-stating something? This is not honest posting. It not only lets down the subject as a whole it makes it impossible to discus the topic. It’s a distraction tactic.

The second point of course is that Fishy very clearly made an accusation. That if we don’t have the original notes then we should dismiss the Aberconway version because Lady A could have dishonestly added the passage in question. There’s no basis for this of course and when viewed honestly we can see that the idea is preposterous. Fishy seizes on it of course in a low attempt to dismiss. He then refuses to accept that he said this despite my reposting it several times. Is this honesty? I’ll leave it to fair-minded posters to form an opinion.

Of course I could have said “if you think that we should dismiss the Aberconway version because we don’t have the original written notes then could I ask you to produce the written evidence for Prince Eddie’s marriage to Annie Crook. Or the written evidence that Crook was incarcerated in that hospital that didn’t exist. Or the written evidence that Joseph Gorman was Sickert’s son. Or the evidence that the Sickert family had any connection to the Royal Family. Or that Annie Crook was a Roman Catholic. Or that the Freemason’s got involved in the case.” By Fishy’s reasoning we should then completely dismiss the `knight fantasy.’ But no. Not a bit of it. It only counts where Druitt and Macnaghten are involved. I don’t think that I need go on to make a clearer proof of the ‘one rule for one’ that goes on here. Like Trevor and the rigid rules that he applies to Macnaghten but not to William Sanford Lawton. Strange that.

I hope that others can find a way of discussing this interesting aspect of the case without it being hijacked by posters with an agenda.

So, I’ll let our little Fishy have the last word. It’s difficult to silence a Troll of course.

Send in the clown….

[FISHY1118]

Ok, it’s long past time to draw a line under this tissue of dishonesty.

For my own part, my apologies to George, Doctored Whatsit and Abby who wanted to discus this aspect of the case openly and honestly. I should have walked away from this insanity ages ago. I hold my hands up to my part in this tedious waste of a thread.

We all have differences of opinions and make different interpretations and conjectures but at the bottom of this should be honesty. It’s something that shouldn’t need requesting. This is rarely the case though when the subject of Macnaghten or Druitt are mentioned.

There are two points. Despite my acceptance that we don’t have Macnaghten’s original notes (something so obvious that it shouldn’t require stating and re-stating) Fishy continues to post as if I hadn’t accepted this. It’s a regular tactic. Trevor does it on every thread. I state my position and he responds as if I’d never said it. How many times should I have to keep stating and re-stating something? This is not honest posting. It not only lets down the subject as a whole it makes it impossible to discus the topic. It’s a distraction tactic.

The second point of course is that Fishy very clearly made an accusation. That if we don’t have the original notes then we should dismiss the Aberconway version because Lady A could have dishonestly added the passage in question. There’s no basis for this of course and when viewed honestly we can see that the idea is preposterous. Fishy seizes on it of course in a low attempt to dismiss. He then refuses to accept that he said this despite my reposting it several times. Is this honesty? I’ll leave it to fair-minded posters to form an opinion.

Of course I could have said “if you think that we should dismiss the Aberconway version because we don’t have the original written notes then could I ask you to produce the written evidence for Prince Eddie’s marriage to Annie Crook. Or the written evidence that Crook was incarcerated in that hospital that didn’t exist. Or the written evidence that Joseph Gorman was Sickert’s son. Or the evidence that the Sickert family had any connection to the Royal Family. Or that Annie Crook was a Roman Catholic. Or that the Freemason’s got involved in the case.” By Fishy’s reasoning we should then completely dismiss the `knight fantasy.’ But no. Not a bit of it. It only counts where Druitt and Macnaghten are involved. I don’t think that I need go on to make a clearer proof of the ‘one rule for one’ that goes on here. Like Trevor and the rigid rules that he applies to Macnaghten but not to William Sanford Lawton. Strange that.

I hope that others can find a way of discussing this interesting aspect of the case without it being hijacked by posters with an agenda.

So, I’ll let our little Fishy have the last word. It’s difficult to silence a Troll of course.

Send in the clown….

Are now we have the sympathy card , well was to be expected , diverting from the topic , im bored with you, youve showed your tru colors . as Trevor Harry and myself have exposed . Your right about one thing you will never ever silence me because i have an opinion and a right to express it on a public forum just as we all do .you seem to have a huge problem with this concept.

Spare us all from theses long winded drival post . Post 616 caught you by suprize didnt it

[Trevor Marriott]

I don’t think that I need go on to make a clearer proof of the ‘one rule for one’ that goes on here. Like Trevor and the rigid rules that he applies to Macnaghten but not to William Sanford Lawton. Strange that.

It has been explained to you several times on here the difference between the information MM received which is hearsay, of which there is no record of him acting on that information, and what Lawton was told, and all the enquiries that have been done on that info by Lawton at the time and by modern day researchers but you dont listen.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

Are now we have the sympathy card , well was to be expected , diverting from the topic , im bored with you, youve showed your tru colors . as Trevor Harry and myself have exposed . Your right about one thing you will never ever silence me because i have an opinion and a right to express it on a public forum just as we all do .you seem to have a huge problem with this concept.

Spare us all from theses long winded drival post . Post 616 caught you by suprize didnt it

Well, at least Herlock apologised for allowing himself to be forced to repeat the same things over and over, hopefully you will stop now, Fishy, and we can get back to actually debating this topic instead of just arguing.

[FISHY1118]

Well, at least Herlock apologised for allowing himself to be forced to repeat the same things over and over, hopefully you will stop now, Fishy, and we can get back to actually debating this topic instead of just arguing.

Fair enough , but he wouldnt had to if he would have just let me have an opinion, which he could have disagreed with instead of doing what he did .

[harry]

Or the rigid rules that Herlock lays down about how we should accept suspects,which he and others apply to certain people.

[GBinOz]

Well, at least Herlock apologised for allowing himself to be forced to repeat the same things over and over, hopefully you will stop now, Fishy, and we can get back to actually debating this topic instead of just arguing.

Well said Doc!

[GBinOz]

Or the rigid rules that Herlock lays down about how we should accept suspects,which he and others apply to certain people.

On this forum in the index to "Ripper Discussions" is the category Suspects which is defined as "Discussion of the various individuals who have been suggested as being Jack the Ripper".

If you wish to use the term "Person of interest" instead, and apply strict legal protocol, feel free to do so, but without attempting to impose your rigid rules on others. Thank you.

[GBinOz]

For my own part, my apologies to George, Doctored Whatsit and Abby who wanted to discus this aspect of the case openly and honestly. I should have walked away from this insanity ages ago. I hold my hands up to my part in this tedious waste of a thread.

Thanks Herlock,

Hold on to that thought.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Herlock,

The memorandum by MM is the backbone of the case for Monty being JtR, and your contention that MM's accusation of MJD would not have been made lightly is entirely valid. If we for a moment accept that the semantics and the errors tend to imply that MM's opinions were not necessarily based on evidence, then we need to look at the "private information" aspect. You have in this regard raised Farquarson, but do we know the source of his contentions.

One possibility for the source of MM's private information, and perhaps also Farquarson is the Crawford Letter:

2 CAVENDISH SQUARE
W.

My dear Anderson,

I send you this line to ask you to see and hear the bearer, whose name is unknown to me. She has or thinks she has a knowledge of the author of the Whitechapel murders. The author is supposed to be nearly related to her, and she is in great fear lest any suspicions should attach to her and place her and her family in peril.

I have advised her to place the whole story before you, without giving you any names, so that you may form an opinion as to its being worth while to investigate.

Very sincerely yours,
Crawford

As usual, this letter contains more questions than answers. The letter does not contains a date or the identity of the woman concerned, who is unknown to Crawford. Use of the word "nearly" rather than "closely" possibly implies a cousin or in-law rather than a brother, and it has been speculated that it may have been Monty's cousin, Emily Druitt. The fact that she was unknown to Crawford suggests an intermediary. Could that have been Farquarson? The letter would seem to fit MM's "family suspicions", but it would have to be assumed that Anderson would have followed up, and Anderson's suspect was Kosminski. So was MM's Memorandum based on family suspicions that, on investigation by Anderson, proved to be without basis, or did Anderson consider the suspicions to be unworthy of further investigation? Or, were MM and Farquarson basing their suspicions on something else entirely, and the Crawford letter referring to a Kosminski family member, remembering that Aaron was not named, and there was more than one Kosminski family in the area?

Just speculation here, for interesting discussion only.

Cheers, George

[Doctored Whatsit]

On this forum in the index to "Ripper Discussions" is the category Suspects which is defined as "Discussion of the various individuals who have been suggested as being Jack the Ripper".

If you wish to use the term "Person of interest" instead, and apply strict legal protocol, feel free to do so, but without attempting to impose your rigid rules on others. Thank you.

Agreed. Almost every eminent ripperologist with a highly acclaimed book has a chapter called "suspects", or something similar. If you consult the A - Z, the first word after Monty's name is "suspect". If you consult a dictionary, "to suspect" is when person A believes that person B may have done something, and that person B is therefore a "suspect". I personally use the words Person of Interest, because I don't have a suspect of my own, but that is my choice.

[harry]

I suggest George,we use the term 'Person of interest',not demand it.I cannot of course impose my suggestion.
Exactly Doctor Whatsit,they do,but how many have been able to convince every eminent ripperologist the description merits its use.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I suggest George,we use the term 'Person of interest',not demand it.I cannot of course impose my suggestion.
Exactly Doctor Whatsit,they do,but how many have been able to convince every eminent ripperologist the description merits its use.

Yes, "suspect" has an English dictionary meaning and a police procedural meaning, and they are not identical. I do agree that sometimes adopting the term "Person of Interest" makes that difference clearer.