Tweet
Originally posted by Omlor
View Post
That is nonsense, I agree, because if you can say that Paul Butler accused Harris of ‘deliberately’ fitting up D’Onston ‘just’ to deflect the limelight away from the diary, I can similarly say that you have ‘deliberately’ misled the readers here by failing to quote Paul directly or in context, and by putting your own spin on what he actually wrote, ‘just’ to give it the worst possible interpretation. I can say this because you claim to be a bit of an expert when it comes to interpreting the written word, and you even claim to know about all the inherent ambiguities of the language. So there can be no possible excuse in your case for misinterpreting Paul when you could have quoted him directly if his own words were enough to condemn him. He didn't write an essay - it was a brief observation.
This is my own interpretation of what Paul was saying (without looking it up or quoting directly), and everyone is welcome to judge mine alongside your own.
Paul was comparing the ‘fitting up’ of Maybrick, the sex and drug-addicted merchant, as Jack (presumably by Shirley and Feldy), with Macnaghten’s ‘fitting up’ of Druitt the suicidal barrister as Jack, and Harris’s ‘fitting up’ of D’Onston the hospital in-patient as Jack.
In this context (especially if Paul used quote marks for the ‘fitting up’ - I’ll check after posting this), it becomes quite ludicrous to suggest that Paul meant that Macnaghten or Harris had literally fitted up their suspects, ie by deliberately fabricating evidence to incriminate them. Neither theorist produced any incriminating evidence, genuine or otherwise! It was all speculation. I naturally took it to be the same figurative ‘fitting up’ done by every published ripper theorist from day one with a favourite suspect to push. Nobody would have said a word if Paul had used Cornwell to illustrate his point instead, and said that she had ‘fitted up’ Sickert with a speculative fistula and a postbag full of speculative ripper letters. It would have been taken in the spirit it was intended.
There is little doubt that Harris ‘fitted up’ D’Onston in the figurative sense, with a speculative ability to plan and execute the murders from his sick bed in hospital, requiring him to have faked his illness and fooled the hospital staff over a considerable period of time. That does not mean Harris didn’t personally believe the man to be guilty. One man’s definition of plausible need not be everyone else’s. It just puts him on a par with other speculators who brought out books claiming to have closed the case. His book The True Face of Jack the Ripper was published on the basis that he had solved the case. The title is self-evident, before you even get inside and find the bit where D’Onston ‘went on to become the most notorious of all the Rippers - the one known as Jack…’ (Remember the hard time you always gave Feldy for using ellipses?) I don’t doubt he would have tried to ascertain before its publication that his patient could have left his hospital bed to commit the murders. But if he didn’t succeed or didn’t think it was crucial for his theory it wouldn't have made him any better or worse than the next published ripper theorist in my view. But his case solution ticket certainly gave him a timely publishing opportunity to include his Maybrick diary beliefs in the same work.
I don't think Paul was trying to imply that Macnaghten and Harris realised their suspects could be non-starters, or that they attempted to con anyone with their not-so-definitive ripper solutions, either for the sole purpose of getting Cutbush off the hook or ‘just’ to put the diary in the shade.
I'm still curious as to why you feel so strongly about what Paul wrote (or at least the way you chose to interpret it), considering you have never given the least indication that you support Harris's case against D'Onston as a sound one, which justified his book claiming that this man murdered several women.
Love,
Caz
X
Comment