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

[Herlock Sholmes]

As usual a Longggggg winded drawn out post about nothing, didnt event consider the remote possibility what is a proven fact, that no such notes by MM about that paragraph exist and have ever been seen . FACT

YOUR JUST JOKE . You makes statements and then manipulate them 10 different ways to suit when you have to backpeddle your way out . Stop wasting my time . You were proven wrong, deal with it .

History tells us that discussing this case with you is like trying to teach a halibut to play chess Fishy.

What a weird response. You clearly ignored the Donner version which were notes and which were seen by Philip Loftus. Did you miss that part of Adam Wood’s article or are you going to resort to the usual tactic of assuming everyone who said something that you don’t like was a liar? The official version of the MM weren’t notes and can’t be described as such. Did you really think that you’d discovered some critical point that no one had noticed before? You’ve proven nothing except your ability to manipulate the known facts and to ignore inconvenient ones.

So…...Lady A made her copy from her father’s notes after he died in 1921 (the notes that ended up in the possession of his grandson, Gerald Melville Donner.) Macnaghten also wrote the official version from those notes (the notes that ended up in the possession of Gerald Melville Donner) but decided, for whatever reason, to leave out the passage in question - maybe he wanted put less personal opinion in it, we have no way of knowing? But when Lady A copied from the notes she obviously wasn’t editing (like her father) and so left the paragraph in. Therefore the Aberconway version contained the paragraph but the official version didn’t.

[caz]

I agree.
I have a very clear idea who Jack was but that secret will never be revealed by me, and I have destroyed all my documents etc Daily Mail 1913.
What !!!
Did Mac not care about justice for the victims or their families ?
What he is saying is akin to a cover up. Don't forget how chastised Anderson was mentioning that the family/people of certain Jews would not give up one of their own for justice.
Yet three years later Mac is virtually doing the same thing. Yes, Druitt was dead but the fact that he does not name him to me means he wasn't certain by any stretch and it would leave him open for libel.
We can't dismiss Druitt completely but again, to me it seems that Mac heard rumours at the least second hand and that Druitt fitted the criteria what Mac suspected the ripper may be - Sexually insane, Possible medical experience, committed suicide not long after Mary's death.

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

But Mac did name Druitt. It's how we all know today that he was suspected - at least after his untimely death - to have been the ripper.

You can't libel the dead, even if Mac had claimed to have destroyed 'proof' of Druitt's guilt.

But he never did claim that. The most he claimed was that he had little doubt that Druitt's own family suspected him.

Love,

Caz
X

[FISHY1118]

History tells us that discussing this case with you is like trying to teach a halibut to play chess Fishy.

What a weird response. You clearly ignored the Donner version which were notes and which were seen by Philip Loftus. Did you miss that part of Adam Wood’s article or are you going to resort to the usual tactic of assuming everyone who said something that you don’t like was a liar? The official version of the MM weren’t notes and can’t be described as such. Did you really think that you’d discovered some critical point that no one had noticed before? You’ve proven nothing except your ability to manipulate the known facts and to ignore inconvenient ones.

So…...Lady A made her copy from her father’s notes after he died in 1921 (the notes that ended up in the possession of his grandson, Gerald Melville Donner.) Macnaghten also wrote the official version from those notes (the notes that ended up in the possession of Gerald Melville Donner) but decided, for whatever reason, to leave out the passage in question - maybe he wanted put less personal opinion in it, we have no way of knowing? But when Lady A copied from the notes she obviously wasn’t editing (like her father) and so left the paragraph in. Therefore the Aberconway version contained the paragraph but the official version didn’t.

Your not listening are you ? or making any sense either , which it not suprizing, no matter what you try and spin form here on in its just you back pedeling and trying to confuse the argument with nonsense .

Lets remember why it started , the original MM which is right here for all to see does not contain the paragraph you mentioned about Druitt , that part which you described was written by his daughter supposedly copied from MM notes which he didnt include in his 1894 article

All the dodging and weaving and misdirection your doing will never change that fact , you cant prove that'' paragraph'' exist in MM own handwriting .. ''Another fact'' , .As Tom Cruise said in a few good men . '' It doesnt matter what i believe it only matters what i can prove '' so prove it . ill wait right here.

One job, thats all youll need to do, find the paragraph about Druitt in ''Mac,s own handwriting'' , until you do please refrain from quoting to the newbies the Aberconway version as MM own words, until such evidence emerges there not , Another Fact .

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Darryl,

But Mac did name Druitt. It's how we all know today that he was suspected - at least after his untimely death - to have been the ripper.

You can't libel the dead, even if Mac had claimed to have destroyed 'proof' of Druitt's guilt.

But he never did claim that. The most he claimed was that he had little doubt that Druitt's own family suspected him.

Love,

Caz
X

MM had the time and the opportunity to speak to the family to ascertain what had aroused their supsicions and at least document those suspicions for the record. It would seem that thise information came to MM from another source outside the family circle. There is no evidence to show that any futher investigative work was conducted into Druitts suspect viabilty, and the fact that Druitt was dead should not have prevented that in such a high profile case.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your not listening are you ? or making any sense either , which it not suprizing, no matter what you try and spin form here on in its just you back pedeling and trying to confuse the argument with nonsense .

Lets remember why it started , the original MM which is right here for all to see does not contain the paragraph you mentioned about Druitt , that part which you described was written by his daughter supposedly copied from MM notes which he didnt include in his 1894 article

All the dodging and weaving and misdirection your doing will never change that fact , you cant prove that'' paragraph'' exist in MM own handwriting .. ''Another fact'' , .As Tom Cruise said in a few good men . '' It doesnt matter what i believe it only matters what i can prove '' so prove it . ill wait right here.

One job, thats all youll need to do, find the paragraph about Druitt in ''Mac,s own handwriting'' , until you do please refrain from quoting to the newbies the Aberconway version as MM own words, until such evidence emerges there not , Another Fact .

The only FACT is the FACT that you are utterly beyond reason.

How can I provide the paragraph in Macnaghten’s handwriting when no one knows where it is? But it very clearly existed and for all we know might still exist somewhere. This doesn’t give you the right to accused someone of forgery without the slightest cause just to further your silly agenda.

And please don’t question the existence of the Donner notes because Lady Aberconway clearly copied from something at it wasn’t the official version.

Adam Wood has produced a balanced, cogent overview of the Macnaghten Memorandum and notes. Along comes Fishy and claims that a woman with no particular interest in the case and with absolutely no idea that her version of the notes is ever going to be seen, decides to invent a passage out of the blue and for no reason.

The very idea is complete bilge of the worst kind.

[Herlock Sholmes]

MM had the time and the opportunity to speak to the family to ascertain what had aroused their supsicions and at least document those suspicions for the record. It would seem that thise information came to MM from another source outside the family circle. There is no evidence to show that any futher investigative work was conducted into Druitts suspect viabilty, and the fact that Druitt was dead should not have prevented that in such a high profile case.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We don’t know who Macnaghten’s source was and we can’t state that he never spoke to a family member. These are unknowns. It has to be at least a possibility that he did. So let’s speculate along those lines. What if William spoke to Majendie about Monty and Majendie didn’t feel that he could keep this information to himself and so he and William went to see Macnaghten. William explains to Macnaghten what led him to suspect Monty of being the ripper. Both Macnaghten and Majendie find what William says to be compelling (rightly or wrongly) but they realise that apart from what William tells him there’s no way of confirming any of this. Maybe it was a matter of Monty’s behaviour? Maybe they found a knife? Maybe Monty said something? None of which would prove his guilt and Macnaghten realised that there was nothing further that he could do to confirm their suspicions. Monty’s room(s) had already been searched and nothing further was found. So what else could Macnaghten have done to find out more? And added to this fact he knew that Monty was already dead.

Alternatively, how can we know that Macnaghten didn’t investigate further but off the record? How can we know that Majendie didn’t look further into it for him and Macnaghten simply trusted his friends judgment? And how can we dismiss the possibility that Macnaghten, after a request from Majendie or William or both might have decided not to go any further and make this public. After all, the MM wasn’t made public so it’s a fair bet that Macnaghten knew that it was never going to be.

Its all conjecture of course and I’m not suggesting otherwise but conjecture is all that we have in this case. But we can face issues if we assume that in 1888 things worked in exactly the same way as things do today. The same principles, methods and norms of behaviour don’t always apply.

One thing that I do find strange though is that we often here posters saying that we shouldn’t trust those senior police officers. Just upper class twits. Old school tie mob just covering each other’s backs! And yet when someone suggests that someone like Macnaghten might have done something ‘not by the book’ or that he might have wanted to protect the reputation of an upper class family we get cries of outrage. Talk about ‘having your cake and eating it!’

I can’t prove what did or didn’t happen (but I’ve never claimed to) and you can’t prove what did or didn’t happen (but you appear to believe that you can) Caution is to be recommended; doubts are understandable and reasonable. But you simply view everything negatively without considering all possibilities. Basically you’ve dismissed Druitt on less than a handful of trivial errors. I mean, 41 instead of 31! So what. Doctor instead of son of a Doctor. So what.

[harry]

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?

[FISHY1118]

The only FACT is the FACT that you are utterly beyond reason.

How can I provide the paragraph in Macnaghten’s handwriting when no one knows where it is? But it very clearly existed and for all we know might still exist somewhere. This doesn’t give you the right to accused someone of forgery without the slightest cause just to further your silly agenda.

And please don’t question the existence of the Donner notes because Lady Aberconway clearly copied from something at it wasn’t the official version.

Adam Wood has produced a balanced, cogent overview of the Macnaghten Memorandum and notes. Along comes Fishy and claims that a woman with no particular interest in the case and with absolutely no idea that her version of the notes is ever going to be seen, decides to invent a passage out of the blue and for no reason.

The very idea is complete bilge of the worst kind.

You seem to have gone right off the deep end old man , simmer down and stay on topic . Forget about all your little meaningless slures and insults, there useless far as im concerned .


Firstly i didnt accuse anyone of forgery, you made that up as you do , never mind we used to that . 2nd all that matters is there is ''no proof'' that paragraph exist in MM own handwriting, just a copy from L.A , so if you or anyone wants to claim MM wrote that paragraph without proof then your speculating as to its very existance . Go back and read the Ripperoligist 124 again and do it properly this time , or stop wasting my and everyones time with your nonsense.

Day 1 , No evidence provided of MM opinion he personally suspected Druitt in his own hand writing .

[GUT]

You seem to have gone right off the deep end old man , simmer down and stay on topic . Forget about all your little meaningless slures and insults, there useless far as im concerned .


Firstly i didnt accuse anyone of forgery, you made that up as you do , never mind we used to that . 2nd all that matters is there is ''no proof'' that paragraph exist in MM own handwriting, just a copy from L.A , so if you or anyone wants to claim MM wrote that paragraph without proof then your speculating as to its very existance . Go back and read the Ripperoligist 124 again and do it properly this time , or stop wasting my and everyones time with your nonsense.

Day 1 , No evidence provided of MM opinion he personally suspected Druitt in his own hand writing .

What about in his book though???

[FISHY1118]

What about in his book though???

Specificly what was quoted in the Aberconway version in relation to Druitt is what is important as per this discussion . So i would have to see what wording the book has as to see what Mac says . Feel free to post it .

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hi Darryl,

But Mac did name Druitt. It's how we all know today that he was suspected - at least after his untimely death - to have been the ripper.

You can't libel the dead, even if Mac had claimed to have destroyed 'proof' of Druitt's guilt.

But he never did claim that. The most he claimed was that he had little doubt that Druitt's own family suspected him.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Mac never named Druitt publicly, just bits and pieces here and there about a drowned Doctor . But your point is a good one , if his evidence was compelling why not clear up the matter

Fair point about libelling the dead. I was thinking more of Druitt's family
Sorry for the quick reply , late for work
Regards Darryl

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I can't imagine Mac personally investigating anything, he wasn't a police officer, he was a bureaucrat. He wasn't hitting the streets chasing up leads. If he was privy to private information, surely he'd have delegated the footwork to a detective?

The fact that there's no record of this suggests that IF it was done, it probably didn't produce anything of note.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You seem to have gone right off the deep end old man , simmer down and stay on topic . Forget about all your little meaningless slures and insults, there useless far as im concerned .


Firstly i didnt accuse anyone of forgery, you made that up as you do , never mind we used to that . 2nd all that matters is there is ''no proof'' that paragraph exist in MM own handwriting, just a copy from L.A , so if you or anyone wants to claim MM wrote that paragraph without proof then your speculating as to its very existance . Go back and read the Ripperoligist 124 again and do it properly this time , or stop wasting my and everyones time with your nonsense.

Day 1 , No evidence provided of MM opinion he personally suspected Druitt in his own hand writing .

You can’t resist adding the word ‘insults’ can you? Every time we disagree you slip straight into ‘poor little me’ victim mode with a hope that you will indirectly get me censured in some way.

As ever you are wriggling and using semantics to try and justify what you said and I have to waste time posting what you said in black and white only for you to keep denying what everyone else can see.

All the dodging and weaving and misdirection your doing will never change that fact , you cant prove that'' paragraph'' exist in MM own handwriting .. ''Another fact'' , .As Tom Cruise said in a few good men . '' It doesnt matter what i believe it only matters what i can prove '' so prove it . ill wait right here.

One job, thats all youll need to do, find the paragraph about Druitt in ''Mac,s own handwriting'' , until you do please refrain from quoting to the newbies the Aberconway version as MM own words, until such evidence emerges there not , Another Fact .

Im prepared for some positively Olympian level wriggling but here we go go…..

You say “…you can’t prove that “paragraph” exist in MM own handwriting..”

So you are clearly, and I mean CLEARLY, challenging the existence of that paragraph in Mac’s writing. The only reason that you do that , and I mean the ONLY reason is that you are suggesting, implying, claiming or whatever word we wish to use, that Macnaghten didn’t actually write it in his notes.

And so, if it wasn’t in his original notes but it appeared in the Aberconway version (undoubtedly written by Lady A, except for the typed part of course) then you are clearly suggesting, implying or whatever, that the paragraph had been added. And if it had been added then it could only have been added by Lady Aberconway. Therefore, clearly and without a shadow of a doubt, you are suggesting that Lady A added that paragraph.

And for the avoidance of any scintilla of doubt you go on to say…

”….please refrain from quoting to the newbies the Aberconway version as MM own words, until such evidence emerges there not, “

So, in black and white, you are stating (not even suggesting or implying) that the paragraph isn’t in Mac’s own words - so if they aren’t his own words then they are someone else’s - and if they are someone else’s then they can only have been Lady A’s - therefore in black and white you are accusing Lady Aberconway of manufacturing a paragraph and passing it off as her fathers words.

Therefore, in black and white and using child proof logic, you are indeed accusing Lady Aberconway of forging a paragraph in her version of her father’s memorandum.

Wriggle away Fishy.

[FISHY1118]

You can’t resist adding the word ‘insults’ can you? Every time we disagree you slip straight into ‘poor little me’ victim mode with a hope that you will indirectly get me censured in some way.

As ever you are wriggling and using semantics to try and justify what you said and I have to waste time posting what you said in black and white only for you to keep denying what everyone else can see.



Im prepared for some positively Olympian level wriggling but here we go go…..

You say “…you can’t prove that “paragraph” exist in MM own handwriting..”

So you are clearly, and I mean CLEARLY, challenging the existence of that paragraph in Mac’s writing. The only reason that you do that , and I mean the ONLY reason is that you are suggesting, implying, claiming or whatever word we wish to use, that Macnaghten didn’t actually write it in his notes.

And so, if it wasn’t in his original notes but it appeared in the Aberconway version (undoubtedly written by Lady A, except for the typed part of course) then you are clearly suggesting, implying or whatever, that the paragraph had been added. And if it had been added then it could only have been added by Lady Aberconway. Therefore, clearly and without a shadow of a doubt, you are suggesting that Lady A added that paragraph.

And for the avoidance of any scintilla of doubt you go on to say…

”….please refrain from quoting to the newbies the Aberconway version as MM own words, until such evidence emerges there not, “

So, in black and white, you are stating (not even suggesting or implying) that the paragraph isn’t in Mac’s own words - so if they aren’t his own words then they are someone else’s - and if they are someone else’s then they can only have been Lady A’s - therefore in black and white you are accusing Lady Aberconway of manufacturing a paragraph and passing it off as her fathers words.

Therefore, in black and white and using child proof logic, you are indeed accusing Lady Aberconway of forging a paragraph in her version of her father’s memorandum.

Wriggle away Fishy.

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 .

[Abby Normal]

You can’t resist adding the word ‘insults’ can you? Every time we disagree you slip straight into ‘poor little me’ victim mode with a hope that you will indirectly get me censured in some way.

As ever you are wriggling and using semantics to try and justify what you said and I have to waste time posting what you said in black and white only for you to keep denying what everyone else can see.



Im prepared for some positively Olympian level wriggling but here we go go…..

You say “…you can’t prove that “paragraph” exist in MM own handwriting..”

So you are clearly, and I mean CLEARLY, challenging the existence of that paragraph in Mac’s writing. The only reason that you do that , and I mean the ONLY reason is that you are suggesting, implying, claiming or whatever word we wish to use, that Macnaghten didn’t actually write it in his notes.

And so, if it wasn’t in his original notes but it appeared in the Aberconway version (undoubtedly written by Lady A, except for the typed part of course) then you are clearly suggesting, implying or whatever, that the paragraph had been added. And if it had been added then it could only have been added by Lady Aberconway. Therefore, clearly and without a shadow of a doubt, you are suggesting that Lady A added that paragraph.

And for the avoidance of any scintilla of doubt you go on to say…

”….please refrain from quoting to the newbies the Aberconway version as MM own words, until such evidence emerges there not, “

So, in black and white, you are stating (not even suggesting or implying) that the paragraph isn’t in Mac’s own words - so if they aren’t his own words then they are someone else’s - and if they are someone else’s then they can only have been Lady A’s - therefore in black and white you are accusing Lady Aberconway of manufacturing a paragraph and passing it off as her fathers words.

Therefore, in black and white and using child proof logic, you are indeed accusing Lady Aberconway of forging a paragraph in her version of her father’s memorandum.

Wriggle away Fishy.

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