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

[Herlock Sholmes]

No one is attempting to dismiss him, what is being stated is that there is no direct or tangible evidence to warrant him being regarded as a "supect", based on the different definitions between a person of interest and a suspect, but for some reason you seem to not want to accept those facts, and secondly for some reason you wont accept that the MM is unsafe to totally rely on for the reasons which have been stated over and over again.

How many times? I am not ‘relying’ on anything. If I was ‘relying’ on the MM then I’d be saying something like “Druitt was the ripper and the MM proves it.” But I haven’t. So why do you keep deliberately confusing this point? Considering that something might possibly be true or valid is a world away from relying on it to prove a point. It can’t be that you don’t understand the difference because it’s not even a subtle one point. Is a obvious difference. But on you go “blah, blah, unsafe to rely on, blah, blah.” So you’re point is invalid. You are arguing against a claim that I’ve never made. Which is arguing for the sake of it.

I dont know what else anyone can do to try to convince you if you are not convinced is there any point in you continuing to argue with posters on here because of late that is how it has been Herlock v The rest and to be fair its getting boring and repetitive and perhaps Admin should suspend this thread to give you and everyone else time to calm down and take stock of the situation

You’re right there’s no point in continuing so you might as well not bother posting on the subject. Do us all a favour.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Herlock vs the rest?

No, Herlock vs you and Fishy. Other posters like George, Doctored Whatsit, Wickerman, Roger and Abby can approach the topic with an open mind.

Strange that you don’t apply this criteria onto discussions like the one on your apron ‘theory.’ Absolutely no one agrees with you on that subject. It’s Trevor vs the rest. How come that’s ok?

The thread wouldn’t be boring if you stopped posting. Just don’t bother contributing to a subject which you don’t give any credence to. Simple.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Desperate attempt from a desperate man who has forgotton what he was even dicussing about the MM .

Just remember that paragraph is not included in the original MM and youll do just fine , now toddle off .

Or shall we continue through the night , im good ,

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.

Any proof yet of your accusation of fraud? (Quoted above in case you forgot.)

[Trevor Marriott]

Herlock vs the rest?

No, Herlock vs you and Fishy. Other posters like George, Doctored Whatsit, Wickerman, Roger and Abby can approach the topic with an open mind.

Strange that you don’t apply this criteria onto discussions like the one on your apron ‘theory.’ Absolutely no one agrees with you on that subject. It’s Trevor vs the rest. How come that’s ok?

The thread wouldn’t be boring if you stopped posting. Just don’t bother contributing to a subject which you don’t give any credence to. Simple.

and why dont I give any credence to it? because there is no credence to be given to it, but you are so far up your own backside you cant see, it or dont want to see it.

So for one final time please explain why Druitt should be regarded as a suspect and not a person of interest, and at the same time please explain what evidence you seek to rely on to back that up other than the MM which is unsafe because it is littered with errors.

Now when you answer please stick to answering the question and not digress into ranting and raving and a tirade of verbal abuse

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

and why dont I give any credence to it? because there is no credence to be given to it, but you are so far up your own backside you cant see, it or dont want to see it.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

.

As ever, you state your opinion as if it’s a fact. You always appear to believe that all that you need to do is to give your interpretation and then everyone else should say “oh well, if Trevor says it then it must be treated as fact.” That’s not the way life works Trevor. And for someone that’s probably disagreed with more than any other poster I’d have hoped that you’d have got this message by now, but clearly not.

No one could or should claim that Macnaghten couldn’t have been mistaken. And I certainly don’t. No one should claim that Macnaghten it’s not possible that he might have been given inaccurate information. And I certainly haven’t said that. Your the one with the unfounded and very convenient certainty.

So why do you keep claiming that I’m saying otherwise? It’s simply untrue. Doesn’t constantly repeating untrue things bother you?

[FISHY1118]

Any proof yet of your accusation of fraud? (Quoted above in case you forgot.)

You left out this bit tho didnt you silly boy

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

So meaning two things ,1 That they are his words , but and heres the but ive being saying all along which you havent had the smarts to realize.

No ones Ever Ever Ever seen them in his hand writing like the MM .

2. If thats the case, which it is just a fact, dont bother saying it isnt, the paragraph you so dearly need to be his but was written by L.A, NO ONE CAN SAY 100 % THAT THEY WERENT HER OWN WORDS AND NOT HIS . You sure do have a funny idea of fraud i pretty much think your fraud fantasy is over.

So got any other bright ideas youd like to share with us .

[FISHY1118]

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 .


Should read, Judge , find the original or stop wasteing mine and everyones time . Either way i still like it .

[Trevor Marriott]

.

As ever, you state your opinion as if it’s a fact. You always appear to believe that all that you need to do is to give your interpretation and then everyone else should say “oh well, if Trevor says it then it must be treated as fact.” That’s not the way life works Trevor. And for someone that’s probably disagreed with more than any other poster I’d have hoped that you’d have got this message by now, but clearly not.

No one could or should claim that Macnaghten couldn’t have been mistaken. And I certainly don’t. No one should claim that Macnaghten it’s not possible that he might have been given inaccurate information. And I certainly haven’t said that. Your the one with the unfounded and very convenient certainty.

So why do you keep claiming that I’m saying otherwise? It’s simply untrue. Doesn’t constantly repeating untrue things bother you?

So if we are to accept what you say you do, why do you contstantly argue against it? and please tell us where you exactly do stand as far as Druitt`s suspect viablitly is concerned?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You left out this bit tho didnt you silly boy

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

So meaning two things ,1 That they are his words , but and heres the but ive being saying all along which you havent had the smarts to realize.

No ones Ever Ever Ever seen them in his hand writing like the MM .

2. If thats the case, which it is just a fact, dont bother saying it isnt, the paragraph you so dearly need to be his but was written by L.A, NO ONE CAN SAY 100 % THAT THEY WERENT HER OWN WORDS AND NOT HIS . You sure do have a funny idea of fraud i pretty much think your fraud fantasy is over.

So got any other bright ideas youd like to share with us .

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…

. 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

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So if we are to accept what you say you do, why do you contstantly argue against it? and please tell us where you exactly do stand as far as Druitt`s suspect viablitly is concerned?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You don’t have to accept my opinions. No one does. I’ll re-state my position for the 100th time as you’ve asked.

I think it’s likeliest that the ripper has probably not been named yet, though I can’t say that with any certainty. Of the named suspects I find Kosminski, Druitt and Bury the most interesting. If we look at it on paper and by doing a kind of tick box assessment then I’d have to say that simply as a person to be assessed then Bury is the strongest of the three as he was a murderer, he was violent, he consorted with prostitutes and he was nearby at the time of the murders. I think that Druitt and Kosminski are interesting and worthy of consideration because they were both named by senior police officers and others. This isn’t proof of course but it raises then above the crowd in my opinion.

Personally I tend to favour Druitt but that is only my opinion and I’ve never claimed anything even approaching certainty despite falsely being accused of being someone that will do anything to support him as a suspect. Such claims are false and unfair. He’s a ‘possible.’ It is my opinion that I think it highly unlikely that Macnaghten simply plucked Druitt’s name out of thin air just because he committed suicide after Kelly’s death so I believe that he had what he believed were valid reasons for naming him. This doesn’t prove that these reasons might not have been wrong though. There are other points worthy of consideration like the fact that Farquaharsen pointed to him as the ripper (not by name of course but he clearly meant Druitt)

So I’d really like to know why those, very mild opinions (imo) are a constant source of anger and derision from certain posters. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again Trevor. Whenever Druitt is mentioned calm reason and open-minded discussion flies out of the window due to certain posters who believe that they know for a fact that which cannot be known for a fact. None of us know who was or wasn’t the ripper.

……

Now the usual course of action is for you to say something about me relying on MacNaghten to prove that Druitt was the ripper or that I don’t accept that MacNaghten might have been wrong or that I’m some rabid, inflexible Druittist. Or that I should simply accept your opinion as fact.

This is what’s annoying Trevor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 .


Should read, Judge , find the original or stop wasteing mine and everyones time . Either way i still like it .

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.

[Abby Normal]

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.

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!?!

[Trevor Marriott]

You don’t have to accept my opinions. No one does. I’ll re-state my position for the 100th time as you’ve asked.

I think it’s likeliest that the ripper has probably not been named yet, though I can’t say that with any certainty. Of the named suspects I find Kosminski, Druitt and Bury the most interesting. If we look at it on paper and by doing a kind of tick box assessment then I’d have to say that simply as a person to be assessed then Bury is the strongest of the three as he was a murderer, he was violent, he consorted with prostitutes and he was nearby at the time of the murders. I think that Druitt and Kosminski are interesting and worthy of consideration because they were both named by senior police officers and others. This isn’t proof of course but it raises then above the crowd in my opinion.

Personally I tend to favour Druitt but that is only my opinion and I’ve never claimed anything even approaching certainty despite falsely being accused of being someone that will do anything to support him as a suspect. Such claims are false and unfair. He’s a ‘possible.’ It is my opinion that I think it highly unlikely that Macnaghten simply plucked Druitt’s name out of thin air just because he committed suicide after Kelly’s death so I believe that he had what he believed were valid reasons for naming him. This doesn’t prove that these reasons might not have been wrong though. There are other points worthy of consideration like the fact that Farquaharsen pointed to him as the ripper (not by name of course but he clearly meant Druitt)

So I’d really like to know why those, very mild opinions (imo) are a constant source of anger and derision from certain posters. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again Trevor. Whenever Druitt is mentioned calm reason and open-minded discussion flies out of the window due to certain posters who believe that they know for a fact that which cannot be known for a fact. None of us know who was or wasn’t the ripper.

……

Now the usual course of action is for you to say something about me relying on MacNaghten to prove that Druitt was the ripper or that I don’t accept that MacNaghten might have been wrong or that I’m some rabid, inflexible Druittist. Or that I should simply accept your opinion as fact.

This is what’s annoying Trevor.

Whats annoying with what you have just posted is that its not about opinions its about what the facts and the evidence tells us so that we may form our own opinions based on those facts and the evidence, and based on those facts and the evidence Druiit is nothing more than a person of interest and that is not an opinion it is a fact.

But MM exonerated Kosminksi and Ostrogg so we have to ask how did he do that, this shows that some for of invetsgative work was carried out into their suspect status and as a result he was able to exonerat them, but we see nothing in relation toi Druitt.

What I dont get is that he exonerates Kosminski and Ostrogg yet he mentions nothing about the mythical ID parade purportedly penned by Swanson who was put in charge of the investigation and Swanson mentions nothing about Druitt you have to ask why were they not all singing from the same songsheet?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

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!?!

Yup, a fully paid up member of Gull/Sickert Masonic conspiracy club. And I get abuse for even suggesting that Druitt might have been guilty. Welcome to the rabbit-hole. You’re right though. It’s a waste of time trying to talk reasonably

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whats annoying with what you have just posted is that its not about opinions its about what the facts and the evidence tells us so that we may form our own opinions based on those facts and the evidence, and based on those facts and the evidence Druiit is nothing more than a person of interest and that is not an opinion it is a fact.

But MM exonerated Kosminksi and Ostrogg so we have to ask how did he do that, this shows that some for of invetsgative work was carried out into their suspect status and as a result he was able to exonerat them, but we see nothing in relation toi Druitt.

What I dont get is that he exonerates Kosminski and Ostrogg yet he mentions nothing about the mythical ID parade purportedly penned by Swanson who was put in charge of the investigation and Swanson mentions nothing about Druitt you have to ask why were they not all singing from the same songsheet?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

[Elamarna]

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.