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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Idont think even you know what your your trying to say here , your all over the shot .

Wheres the paragraph about druitt in macs writing? Ripperoligist #124

I genuinely haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. And I’d hazard a guess that no one els does either. Which ‘paragraph in Mac’s writing’ are you talking about?

[FISHY1118]

So not only are you suggesting that Lady Aberconway fraudulently added a passage you are now suggesting that she might have fraudulently created the whole thing.

And so she made the Aberconway version up completely out of thin air but it just happened to match in most respects the official version which she would never have seen. Great theory Fishy. Got any more?

Keep going Fishy. Perhaps you might brilliantly deduce that Sir Melville Macnaghten never existed?

Now youve really gone from bad to worst , deflect ,deflect deflect and make up silly little meaningless things like this nonsense . thats how you do it , see how totally off topic you have gone, im suprized anyone even bothers with you .

Now have you found that paragraph in macs own writing yet ,or are you going to make more excuses .

[FISHY1118]

I genuinely haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. And I’d hazard a guess that no one els does either. Which ‘paragraph in Mac’s writing’ are you talking about?

Its any wonder because youve butchered this topic like you always do . Because you hate the fact you were wrong, simple .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now youve really gone from bad to worst , deflect ,deflect deflect and make up silly little meaningless things like this nonsense . thats how you do it , see how totally off topic you have gone, im suprized anyone even bothers with you .

Now have you found that paragraph in macs own writing yet ,or are you going to make more excuses .

Just tell me which paragraph I’m supposed to be finding. I’m not psychic. How many times do I need to ask? Tell me which one you mean and then I’ll respond.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Its any wonder because youve butchered this topic like you always do . Because you hate the fact you were wrong, simple .

You’ve been proven wrong in black and white. But this happened the last time and the time before that. Just be honest, stop wriggling and hoping that I’ll forget or move on, and explain your point, in English. You appear reluctant to do so. Understandably of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok, you appear reluctant to clarify so let’s make a reasonable assumption shall we? I assume that the paragraph that you allude to (but are reluctant to quote) is this one from the Aberconway version:


“Personally, & after much careful & deliberate consideration, I am inclined to exonerate the last 2. but I have always held strong opinions regarding no1, and the more I think the matter over, the stronger to these opinions become. The truth, however, will never be known, and did indeed, at one time lie at the bottom of the Thames, if my conjecture be correct.”


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. So now that I’ve hopefully made that clear, and assuming that you won’t feel strangely compelled to ask me again, we can move on to the reason that you were making the point in the first place shall we? The point that you are so keen to distance yourself from. So what do we know?


We know that Lady Aberconway compiled her version directly from her father’s notes. We know that she didn’t get her information from the official version because her father would have handed it on to whoever requested it and she only saw her fathers notes on his death which occurred in 1921. We also know that she couldn’t have created the Aberconway version simply from her own imagination as it tallies far too closely with the official version so we can for certain that she used his notes.


We know that Philip Loftus saw Macnaughten’s rough notes in the possession of Gerald Melville Donner. This makes absolute sense because his mother was Lady Julia Donner who was Macnaghten’s eldest daughter and she had inherited her fathers papers. No issue there. Clearly these notes existed.


So Lady Aberconway took her version from her fathers notes and Gerald Donner was in possession of Mac’s rough notes. Could this be clearer?

Then in post #482 you said this:


“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.
Unless of course she copied that from another original letter which no ones ever seen”


So you are making two claims….


Firstly, that the paragraph in question was her own opinion and not her fathers as she claimed - and so you are suggesting that she fraudulently added the paragraph.


Secondly, that she copied it from notes that no one had ever seen - which is clearly wrong because she very obvious copied it from the notes which were in the possession of Gerald Melville Donner which were indeed seen by Philip Loftus.

……


So there can be no doubt at all, despite your embarrassing wriggling and your desperate attempts to move on, that you are indeed accusing Lady Aberconway of either fraudulently creating an entire document and then passing it of as her fathers work, or that she fraudulently added a passage in an attempt to pass it of as her fathers work.


Either way, you are accusing her of fraudulent behaviour on absolutely no grounds.



For once, learn a lesson from this Fishy. I’m tired of exposing your nonsense.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Its any wonder because youve butchered this topic like you always do . Because you hate the fact you were wrong, simple .

Could we possibly return to genuine constructive debate please?

[FISHY1118]

Ok, you appear reluctant to clarify so let’s make a reasonable assumption shall we? I assume that the paragraph that you allude to (but are reluctant to quote) is this one from the Aberconway version:


“Personally, & after much careful & deliberate consideration, I am inclined to exonerate the last 2. but I have always held strong opinions regarding no1, and the more I think the matter over, the stronger to these opinions become. The truth, however, will never be known, and did indeed, at one time lie at the bottom of the Thames, if my conjecture be correct.”


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. So now that I’ve hopefully made that clear, and assuming that you won’t feel strangely compelled to ask me again, we can move on to the reason that you were making the point in the first place shall we? The point that you are so keen to distance yourself from. So what do we know?


We know that Lady Aberconway compiled her version directly from her father’s notes. We know that she didn’t get her information from the official version because her father would have handed it on to whoever requested it and she only saw her fathers notes on his death which occurred in 1921. We also know that she couldn’t have created the Aberconway version simply from her own imagination as it tallies far too closely with the official version so we can for certain that she used his notes.


We know that Philip Loftus saw Macnaughten’s rough notes in the possession of Gerald Melville Donner. This makes absolute sense because his mother was Lady Julia Donner who was Macnaghten’s eldest daughter and she had inherited her fathers papers. No issue there. Clearly these notes existed.


So Lady Aberconway took her version from her fathers notes and Gerald Donner was in possession of Mac’s rough notes. Could this be clearer?

Then in post #482 you said this:


“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.
Unless of course she copied that from another original letter which no ones ever seen”


So you are making two claims….


Firstly, that the paragraph in question was her own opinion and not her fathers as she claimed - and so you are suggesting that she fraudulently added the paragraph.


Secondly, that she copied it from notes that no one had ever seen - which is clearly wrong because she very obvious copied it from the notes which were in the possession of Gerald Melville Donner which were indeed seen by Philip Loftus.

……


So there can be no doubt at all, despite your embarrassing wriggling and your desperate attempts to move on, that you are indeed accusing Lady Aberconway of either fraudulently creating an entire document and then passing it of as her fathers work, or that she fraudulently added a passage in an attempt to pass it of as her fathers work.


Either way, you are accusing her of fraudulent behaviour on absolutely no grounds.



For once, learn a lesson from this Fishy. I’m tired of exposing your nonsense.

Just don't used that paragraph unless like the MM its in his own hand writing, simple. I've explained and proven why, many thanks to the ripperoligist 124. ,move on .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just don't used that paragraph unless like the MM its in his own hand writing, simple. I've explained and proven why, many thanks to the ripperoligist 124. ,move on .

So what you’re actually saying is “let’s ignore the proven fact that I accused Lady Aberconway of falsifying a document (based on no evidence.) A fact that I don’t have the integrity to admit to even though it’s in black and white, so let’s please, please move on and hope that everyone forgets about it.”

Yeah right

[FISHY1118]

So what you’re actually saying is “let’s ignore the proven fact that I accused Lady Aberconway of falsifying a document (based on no evidence.) A fact that I don’t have the integrity to admit to even though it’s in black and white, so let’s please, please move on and hope that everyone forgets about it.”

Yeah right

More nonsence from you of course to hide the fact you were wrong ,pure misdirection ,smoke and mirror ploy at its best .

Feel free to keep going , i can play your childish game all day long .




Just stating a fact abby thats alll .

Its just so simple its childs play really, that paragraph thats refered to in the Aberconway version about Druitt has not to the best of my knowledge been seen in Macs handwriting as the same as the in the MM , jesus how hard is it for people to get that .

Its not about trying to discredit anyone, it the same every time when facts and evidence is discussed , if someone want to claim something go right ahead, i dont give a toss. But dont feed me or others horseshit and ask that we just take someones word for it because they ask us to, which is exactly what herlock did before i pointed out to him that it was in fact lady aberconways own hand the paragraph he so desparaley likes to use as proof mac wrote. . Get Real . In this case if you been following the discussion at all, the paragraph is question like i said does not appear in Macs handwriting. Its a copy of it. 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 .

All your misdirection cant disprove this fact ,

Ill just keep posting it in regard to that druitt paragraph.

[GBinOz]

“Personally, & after much careful & deliberate consideration, I am inclined to exonerate the last 2. but I have always held strong opinions regarding no1, and the more I think the matter over, the stronger to these opinions become. The truth, however, will never be known, and did indeed, at one time lie at the bottom of the Thames, if my conjecture be correct.”

"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

[harry]

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.

[FISHY1118]

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.

Harry i encourage you or anyone for that matter go check out the Ripperoligist magazine #124 easy to download, then draw your own conclusion. Youll find all the answers there .

[Doctored Whatsit]

"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

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

More nonsence from you of course to hide the fact you were wrong ,pure misdirection ,smoke and mirror ploy at its best .

Feel free to keep going , i can play your childish game all day long .




Just stating a fact abby thats alll .

Its just so simple its childs play really, that paragraph thats refered to in the Aberconway version about Druitt has not to the best of my knowledge been seen in Macs handwriting as the same as the in the MM , jesus how hard is it for people to get that .

And no one has questioned or denied this. You asked me the question and I answered it twice and yet you still felt the need to ask me a third time. There’s nothing hard about it. You made it hard by pretending that I hadn’t answered the question when I had.

Its not about trying to discredit anyone, it the same every time when facts and evidence is discussed , if someone want to claim something go right ahead, i dont give a toss. But dont feed me or others horseshit and ask that we just take someones word for it because they ask us to, which is exactly what herlock did before i pointed out to him that it was in fact lady aberconways own hand the paragraph he so desparaley likes to use as proof mac wrote.

In the history of ripperology, as far as I’m aware, there isn’t a single person who isn’t aware that the Aberconway version isn’t written in her own hand. So why are you claiming this as some kind of revelation? You call this horseshit?!

. Get Real . In this case if you been following the discussion at all, the paragraph is question like i said does not appear in Macs handwriting. Its a copy of it. 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 .

How the hell could I ‘not have worked this out’ Fishy. It’s too obvious a fact not to know and the fact that I answered twice (and now three times) saying exactly this proves this fact.

All your misdirection cant disprove this fact ,

Tactics by you in the hope that I’ll slip up and say something that you can report.

Ill just keep posting it in regard to that druitt paragraph.

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?