Originally posted by FISHY1118
View Post
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.
Comment