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

[Herlock Sholmes]

I repeated what Farson wrote Herlock.It was his claim not mine.She gave them to him,there is only one interpretation of that,and no evidence he returned them.Why would she want the notes to be returned,when she had a copy of them.

Please try and understand this Harry. Lady A didn’t have 2 sets of notes. She made her version from her fathers notes. Her father died in 1921 when all of his papers went to his eldest daughter. So Lady A would have made her copy some time before Lady Julia took them. By the time that Farson met her they would have been gone for nearly 40 years. So Lady A only had her own copy. So you’re suggesting that she went to all of the trouble to copy them then she just gave them away to the first complete stranger who asked to see them. Surely you can see that this can’t have been the case Harry.

The photographs were of the notes she had in her possession.I do not believe it was asked or told whether they were the originals or a copy.
I have familiarised myself with the facts,as far as that is possible.

All that you have to do is read Adam Wood’s article Harry.

I was asking a question Herlock,not stating a fact.Do not ty to be too clever and misrespresent,it shows your'e the childish one that needs to grow up.

I’m not trying to be clever Harry but I’m being criticised by someone who’d never heard of the Aberconway version. I’m sorry but this is common knowledge to those interested in the case. It’s no secret or mystery.

It would be just a easy to cast doubt today,if the situation was the same.Mac id not need to rely on personnel notes.

That’s simply your opinion Harry. Many people use notes. It’s just a fact.

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.

[FISHY1118]

And I predicted that you wouldn’t provide evidence for this mythical argument as it was another invention. And whaddya know. Zilch

You clearly made this up. But you’re good at that.

Pay attention , it was a statement of a fact that trevor made when discussiong p.c neil , even he will admit to it , nothing to do with you.

But you missed its importance in relation to me posting it it , because you only see want you want , now shoo .

[FISHY1118]

Four times I’ve responded to the point and fully accepted that we no longer have Macnaghten’s original notes. I predicted that you would ignore it and whaddya know? Here we are again.

Ill count this as the 5th time I’ve acknowledged the obvious point. I’ll wait for the 6th.

keep waiting , ignorance is no excuse where that paragraph is concerned you should know this , but im not suprized you dont ,


ill wait here till you come back ,

[Herlock Sholmes]

Could you provide evidence of this please as I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about? I can’t recall ever having a disagreement with Trevor over PC Neil - I’ll make a prediction…..this will be a nothing thing that you try and ignore. I’ll watch this space.

Thats the problem, you dont get anything because you don t pay attention

And I predicted that you wouldn’t provide evidence for this mythical argument as it was another invention. And whaddya know. Zilch

You clearly made this up. But you’re good at that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thats ridiculous coming from you as your the king of avoiding them

Four times I’ve responded to the point and fully accepted that we no longer have Macnaghten’s original notes. I predicted that you would ignore it and whaddya know? Here we are again.

Ill count this as the 5th time I’ve acknowledged the obvious point. I’ll wait for the 6th.

[harry]

I repeated what Farson wrote Herlock.It was his claim not mine.She gave them to him,there is only one interpretation of that,and no evidence he returned them.Why would she want the notes to be returned,when she had a copy of them.
The photographs were of the notes she had in her possession.I do not believe it was asked or told whether they were the originals or a copy.
I have familiarised myself with the facts,as far as that is possible.
I was asking a question Herlock,not stating a fact.Do not ty to be too clever and misrespresent,it shows your'e the childish one that needs to grow up.
It would be just a easy to cast doubt today,if the situation was the same.Mac id not need to rely on personnel notes.

[FISHY1118]

You really should familiarise yourself with the facts before criticising others Harry.

Thats ridiculous coming from you as your the king of avoiding them

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

When things happen in the past it’s easy to cast doubt by saying “why didn’t he do this,” or “surely he would have been better doing it this way?”

How can we know the exact circumstances or thought processes that were influenced by them at the time?

[FISHY1118]

Post # 598 - Your point answered for the fourth time.



And your response to the above quote. Missing again.

MORE misdirection and utter nonsense

just dont quote that abercomway paragraph as proof that mac supported druitt as a suspect . Thats all you need to know .

Got any more bright ideas rambo ? im here all night

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am unaware of the Aberconway version Herlock?

So you’re telling me I’m wrong about stuff and yet you haven’t even heard of the Aberconway version?! It’s mentioned in Farson, Cullen, Howells & Skinner, Sugden, Begg, Odell, the A-Z. It’s one of the best known documents in the case.

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
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.

No Harry. She didn’t give them to him in the sense that Farson became the owner. No one has suggested that because it wasn’t the case. Lady Aberconway let him see and use them. They were her property and she retained them. And that’s how Adam Wood came to be able to photograph them.

So Herlock,you ommited an important part of that visit by Farson.I wonder why?

So you’re joining the conspiracy club and not only are you accusing Lady A but you’re accusing me of intentionally leaving something out. This is madness. Grow up Harry.

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?

Yes, entirely believable.

You really should familiarise yourself with the facts before criticising others Harry.

[FISHY1118]

Don’t want to be creating any false impressions do we?

Could you provide evidence of this please as I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about? I can’t recall ever having a disagreement with Trevor over PC Neil - I’ll make a prediction…..this will be a nothing thing that you try and ignore. I’ll watch this space.

Thats the problem, you dont get anything because you don t pay attention

[FISHY1118]

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)



Post # 527 (Acknowledgment Two)



Post #546 Acknowledgment Three)



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.

Nonsense and more sequels than a rambo movie , shoo Fly

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 .

The notes were mentioned. They were seen by Philip Loftus in the possession of Gerald Melville Donner, the son of the woman that inherited them.

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 .

Nope. We’re not operating in a court of law here. What needs to be considered is the question “what possible motive would Lady A have had for inserting a passage that didn’t exist?” Clearly she had none. So the suggestion is baseless.

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 .

Again, she had no reason to lie. It served absolutely no purpose. The only reason that you’re making an issue of it is because you’re continually scraping the bottom of the barrel to try and dismiss Druitt (whilst supporting the embarrassing Knight fantasy)

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.

Could you provide evidence of this please as I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about? I can’t recall ever having a disagreement with Trevor over PC Neil - I’ll make a prediction…..this will be a nothing thing that you try and ignore. I’ll watch this space.

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 ]

Oh you were being serious with that? I thought it was a joke. Lady A added a passage just to make her father seem more certain. Unbelievable!

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 ?

I think that the dog theory was Trevor’s wasn’t it? Apologies to Trevor if it wasn’t.

This is a silly point because Lady A clearly had no reason to do this. It achieved nothing and risked making her father look foolish id]f the rippers identity was ever revealed and it wasn’t Druitt. The idea can and should be dismissed.

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.

So you want to dismiss the MM because he got an age wrong 41 instead of 31), an occupation wrong (a Doctor instead of the son of a doctor, and the fact that he believed that Cutbush was the nephew of a senior officer (something that might have been a common rumour that most thought true.)

But you accept, a flat that didn’t exist at the time, a studio that didn’t exist at the time, a hospital that didn’t exist at the time, an invented religion, an incorrect victim of Newley’s coach, zero link between Sickert and the Royal family.

Slightly more serious ‘errors’ don’t you think? And there are more of course.

Don’t want to be creating any false impressions do we?

[harry]

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.