Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Upcoming Article

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    There was a suspect, and he was identified.

    Those are the facts that anti-Andersons turning away from, and being so hard on the man. even to a degree to make him a big liar and ignoring completely that Swanson corroborated him.

    and why is that so?! only because of a personal attitude from the case, or for another favourite suspect.

    If those are not to be believed, I wonder who then can you put trust in.

    But anway...

    Comment


    • #32
      If you sincerely want to put your belief in Sir Robert Anderson having told the truth about the Whitechapel murderer, and for your trump card want to play Swanson corroborating him with a BS story about a Seaside Home, then I can only once again commend to you a copy of — Deconstructing Jack: The Secret History of the Whitechapel Murders. You'll end up being much the wiser.
      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by The Baron View Post
        There was a suspect, and he was identified.

        Those are the facts that anti-Andersons turning away from, and being so hard on the man. even to a degree to make him a big liar and ignoring completely that Swanson corroborated him.

        and why is that so?! only because of a personal attitude from the case, or for another favourite suspect.

        If those are not to be believed, I wonder who then can you put trust in.

        But anway...
        But Macngahten was Swansons superior in the chain of command, and he mentions nothing about any sea side home identification.

        As to Anderson in many quotes he made between 1888-1910 he states the police did not have any clues as to the identity of the killer. Then in 1910 when he publishes his book he mentions the ID, do you not think that is a bit strange. I have looked at photos of him in later years and his nose does seem to have grown larger

        Comment


        • #34
          Thank you Simon, put that is not playing cards, this is the history that arrived to us throw those men, you can ignore them, but that will not change what has been written.

          There was a suspect, a strong suspect, three head police-officers of the time mentioned him, and this is a fact.

          And this suspect was identified by two men: a fellow-jew witness and to a less degree a City PC.

          I think that Anderson was right afterall, and the Jack the Ripper murders were not one of those rare unsolved murders in London.

          This is history, whether you like it or not, the same as the fact that there was a murderer whose nickname is Jack the Ripper.

          Reading books is a good thing, I like reading about all the suspects in the case, but ignoring history for a personal attitude is not.



          The Baron



          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            As to Anderson in many quotes he made between 1888-1910 he states the police did not have any clues as to the identity of the killer.
            Thank you Trevor,

            May I kindly remind you, that you have been pointed before that this is not true about Anderson in 1910.

            The Baron

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              But Macngahten was Swansons superior in the chain of command, and he mentions nothing about any sea side home identification.
              Because he didn't know about it, and that is exactly why he favoured Druitt as a suspect.

              The Baron

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by The Baron View Post

                Because he didn't know about it, and that is exactly why he favoured Druitt as a suspect.

                The Baron
                Of course he must have known about it, officers do not embark on such an important part of a case such as this without telling their bosses.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  Of course he must have known about it, officers do not embark on such an important part of a case such as this without telling their bosses.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  If he must have known anything, at least he could have know that his favourite suspect was a barrister and not a doctor, not in his 40's...

                  All the best!

                  The Baron

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by The Baron View Post

                    If he must have known anything, at least he could have know that his favourite suspect was a barrister and not a doctor, not in his 40's...

                    All the best!

                    The Baron
                    I don't agree with it.... But, the issue of McNaghten's inconsistencies are addressed in a book by a man called Hainsworth (Jack the Ripper - Case Solved 1891). I think it's four or five years old. Anyway, the author theorizes that McNaughten purposely confused Druitt's particulars so as not to embarrass his (Druitt's) family which included a personal friend of McNaughten's, who worked for the Home Office, if I'm remembering correctly. I think there's some conjecture that McNaughten based the description of his man drowned in the Thames on the particulars of Dr. Jekyll, rather than on Druitt himself. Hainsworth cites contemporaries citing McNaughten's memory of case particulars, years after events, to support the idea that the man wouldn't have made such errors purposefully.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

                      I don't agree with it.... But, the issue of McNaghten's inconsistencies are addressed in a book by a man called Hainsworth (Jack the Ripper - Case Solved 1891). I think it's four or five years old. Anyway, the author theorizes that McNaughten purposely confused Druitt's particulars so as not to embarrass his (Druitt's) family which included a personal friend of McNaughten's, who worked for the Home Office, if I'm remember

                      In other words, he was a liar.

                      Even the basics we can't agree on.


                      Thank you


                      The Baron

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                        In other words, he was a liar.

                        Even the basics we can't agree on.


                        Thank you


                        The Baron
                        I'm sorry? I'm confused by your apparent hostility here. Who is "we" and what cannot be agreed upon? I simply presented a bit of information I'd recalled from a book. I didn't advocate for the perspective and, actually, stated at the outset I didn't agree with the authors interpretation.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Hello Patrick,

                          The close friend of Macnaghten (and George Sims) was Colonel Vivian Dering Majendie. He was one of the first bomb disposal experts and, until his death in 1898 he was Chief Inspector Of Explosives. The daughter of Majendie’s cousin married The Reverend Charles Druitt who was Monty’s cousin.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






                          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            By the way The Baron appears to think that Anderson is to be trusted but Macnaghten is not based purely on the ‘’40 year old Doctor’’ bit. Ignoring the fact that many of Mac’s former colleagues went on record to comment on his formidable memory. On that one snippet Mac is apparently utterly disreputable. Must have been a conspiracy.

                            The Baron also, on the one hand, believes that considering Druitt as at least a person of interest is far fetched and unbelievable whilst, on the other hand, he thinks that Randy Williams delusional fantasy is a creditable theory.

                            Remember?

                            Ditto.
                            Regards

                            Herlock






                            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                              Hello Patrick,

                              The close friend of Macnaghten (and George Sims) was Colonel Vivian Dering Majendie. He was one of the first bomb disposal experts and, until his death in 1898 he was Chief Inspector Of Explosives. The daughter of Majendie’s cousin married The Reverend Charles Druitt who was Monty’s cousin.
                              That sounds exact. Thanks, Herlock.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Remember?

                                Ditto.
                                Was thinking the same thing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X