Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

**J.S. Walsh The Invincible**

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

  • Jonathan Hainsworth
    replied
    Wolf, are you familiar with the psychological phenomenon of projection?

    I stand by everything I wrote. I find your arguments repetitive and abusive, as do others.

    You never deal with what I write--you just pretend to. When you find yourself cornered you call me idiotic, or words to that effect. Whereas you are The Truth, The Way & The Light and anybody who interprets limited and contradictory material differently to you is a F...ing Idiot (and you think you are paying them a compliment, because you are not calling them a liar). It is very childish and very arrogant. Besides, arguing with me is done by loads of people, some quite politely and a few, well, not so much. Dear, oh dear, you really have tickets on yourself as a ... self-appointed expert.

    I wondered how you would deal with the bits in Logan that match Druitt. How you would explain that away? For the third time you do so by ignoring it. A very weak response which you try and cover with much bluster about it being fiction. You cannot be bothered actually picking up Logan and reading it. I can't do it for you, mate.

    By all means have the last [abusive] word, that's your right.

    To Other Readers

    There is a fascinating mystery inside the mystery of Jack the Ripper, and my book is the first to try and analyse this aspect in-depth. There are a legion of writers (Fido, Evans, Begg, Rumbelow, Palmer, et. al.) who could do a much better job, but there is no nobody else to do it. I have done the best I can working a full-time job with a family.

    Here is a glimpse into my thesis based on recently discovered primary sources:

    "The inner history of the unspeakable crimes associated with the murder-name of 'Jack the Ripper' is known to very few. The relatives of that monumental criminal are still, many of them, in the land of the living, and I am consequently precluded from giving the exact name of the monster who haunted London's East End in 1888. In all particulars except that--and the place of the maniac's original confinement--this account of the Whitechapel Horrors is absolutely true."

    Guy Logan, 1905


    I think Logan, though a tabloid hack, may have believed that this was broadly true; that only the names were changed because his mentor and true crime writer, George Sims, had written, as fact, that the Ripper was an English doctor who had been a patient in an asylum prior to the murders.

    Other material by Logan is clearly fictitious padding, but he did not, I think, know that even the core details--a doctor who had been in a madhouse--were also fictional elements designed to impenetrably disguise Druitt and thus protect the "relatives of this monumental criminal".

    Before this source was found a couple of years ago, by Jan Bondeson, I had been arguing for years that Druitt was being deliberately disguised by upper class pals Sir Melville Macnaghten and George Sims. But I lacked a 'smoking gun' that explicitly confirmed this theory.

    Then Bondeson found Logan in which we can see the bits of Druitt that are real and the bits that are a fictional disguise--see them even better than Logan probably could as he was relying entirely on Sims (plus his own lurid imagination). On the other site Chris Phillips found a reporter in 1905 who wrote that Sims had told him that the profile of the real Ripper has to be kept strictly limited, in order to protect the killer's super-respectable relations.

    But the Sims' comment, as with Logan's serial, both contain a striking contradiction. Both writers supply enough material, not for the Ripper to be recognized by the press or public, but for him to be certainly [posthumously] recognized by the respectable circles in which his relations moved. Except that ... the core, critical details--a doctor (actually a middle-aged medical student in Logan) and an asylum vet--do not match Montague Druitt.

    The young barrister remains disguised (as is Dorset).

    Was that deliberate or a fortuitous accident by a police chief who was woefully under-informed? I think it has to be the former.

    By 1928 Guy Logan was quite understandably dismissive of Sims' Ripper solution, because instead of it finally being revealed/confirmed by a respectable researcher (though not an historian) Leonard Matters was instead claiming that whilst it was an English doctor this man had lived to old age in South America, and confessed on his deathbed, and was not a tormented suicide who had done away with himself, back in 1888, as the police net closed.

    No doubt Logan believed he had been manipulated by Sims (which he had) and now said that the Drowned Doctor was a myth--which it was. But he had the wrong half as mythical; as the killer was not a medical man, at all, but had indeed drowned himself in 1888.

    If this aspect interests you then consider buying my book, or borrowing it from your local library:

    http://www.amazon.com/Jack-Ripper-Ca.../dp/0786496762

    It contains another 'smoking gun' source (currently embargoed by the publisher) that was found only last year--this time by my researcher--and it arguably proves the 'case disguised' theory to be definitive.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wolf Vanderlinden
    replied
    Jonathan.

    Temper, temper, Wolf. Such a liong piece too. I'm flattered.
    No problem. I seem to be the only person who bothers to debate with you. Everyone else just ignores you.

    My persistence at cornering you, on your omissions and biases and unfairness, did flush you out as you finally dealt with Mac's memoirs and Logan and .... oh, no, not with the self-appointed crack
    You certainly cornered me there.

    Oh well, two out of three is pretty good for you.
    I thought so.

    Abusive? Why would I think that when you have now called me an idiot, my arguments cracked, absurd or beneath contempt and you end with a curse word?
    Excellent. I was afraid I was being too subtle for you.

    At least you now concede you were wrong about Tumblety never having been a Ripper suspect, though you are still off the mark about Andrews.
    Well, yes, you got me there. I have “now conceded” that I was wrong about Tumblety “never having been a Ripper suspect.” Tell me, though, exactly when and where have I denied that Tumblety was ever a Ripper suspect? I don’t remember that I ever did. In fact, I went into some detail describing exactly why Tumblety WAS a Ripper suspect in my articles dealing with Tumblety. And if you’ll look at what I posted below you’ll see where I stated:

    And, for the record, I have long supported, both in my writings and my posts, that Tumblety was a Scotland Yard suspect, and to Littlechild “a very likely one,” at the time of the murders. But, I understand that you aren’t one to check your facts very thoroughly so I’ll just point out that you are wrong – again.

    Claiming that I’ve “conceded” something I’ve always maintained is rather childish but predictable. I guess if you can’t win using rational arguments you have to simply make up imaginary victories where you can. Put a gold star next to your name.

    You prove the validity of my argument by quoting that striking coincidence re: that last line of Mac's chapter, on a page by Browne in which the other two senior policemens' opinions come from their respective memoirs.
    Ah, not going to bother actually answering what I wrote. Surprise, surprise (well, not a surprise, actually).

    Just a point of fact: although Anderson’s opinion on the Ripper’s identity referenced by Browne may, or may not, come from Anderson’s memoir (it isn’t listed in Browne’s bibliography) Sir Basil Thomson’s The Story of Scotland Yard, from which Browne takes Thomson’s opinion, is not, however, a memoir. It is a history of Scotland Yard. Two different things altogether. The validity of your argument, therefore, fails and, yet once again, as you aren’t one to check your facts very thoroughly, if at all, you are wrong.

    Be this as it may, the fact that Browne had access to Home Office and Scotland Yard files when he wrote The Rise of Scotland Yard is, predictably, ignored by you. You don’t even want to acknowledge that this is a fact. A fact supported by Browne’s 1956 text in which he actually quotes from Home Office files which weren’t seen by other researchers for at least twenty more years. I suppose that if you were to acknowledge this fact you’d have to explain it. Instead your “argument,” for want of a better word, is that Browne’s look into the official files never happened, or, if he did look at the files, there was nothing about Melville Macnaghten and an Irish extremist Ripper suspect in them. How you could know exactly what was in the official files in 1956, and exactly what Browne saw, is not explained by you, let’s face it, how could it be, but perhaps you could attempt, just this one time, to enlighten us all? (Thanks in advance.) You then claim, with what surely can’t be a straight face, that rather than Browne seeing some file or reference which is now lost (but which is supported by Clutterbuck’s research in the Special Branch files) that it is all a “striking coincidence.” This is gob-smackingly idiotic.

    Guy Logan's serial claims that it is with-holding identifying information for the sake of the murderer's family. That is why Edwardians knew it was a mixture of fact and fiction--they had been told as much by the author.
    Did you miss that, Wolf? Check Bondeson's book again. Perhaps you read it too quickly and missed this salient point. I suspect something like that happened with Browne too--it is a very human mistake to make.
    Actually, I did miss this, if in fact it appears anywhere in Bondeson’s writings about Logan. If, however, this statement appears in Logan’s work of fiction then it isn’t evidence of anything. Works of fiction aren’t generally considered to be a reliable source of facts since, you know… they’re works of fiction.

    You totally avoided the bits and pieces about Druitt in Logan that are correct: an Oxonian, an athlete, a venom-tongued MP, not killing himself immdeiately after Kelly, and so on. I quite understand why; because it renders your argument rather, eh, fragile.
    Well, I’m not sure “fragile” is the correct word here. I know I’m not basing my arguments on a fictional story, as you are, but I’m willing to bet that most people see my point of view: that facts and actual documented evidence trumps Peter Rabbit or Winnie the Pooh.

    Guy Logan, much later, was reacting to Leonard Matters--who had already printed his theory in newspapers prior to his book--in which he savaged the notion of the Drowned Doctor as rubbish (as no newspaper mentioned a doctor pulled from the Thames, which they do not). Logan felt he had been used by Sims, which he had been of course.
    Matters wrote an article for The People magazine in early December, 1926, and this article was reprinted and commented on by several other newspapers at the time. However, the article makes no mention of the Drowned Doctor theory so Logan, therefore, couldn’t very well have been reacting to this when he wrote Masters of Crime. And, as Logan’s book was published in 1928, before Mathews published The Mystery of Jack the Ripper in early 1929, he couldn’t have been reacting to Matters’ chapter on the Drowned Doctor either. Your claim, that when Logan stated “nothing to establish this story [the drowned doctor] was ever put forward, and I regard it as a pure myth” he was just reacting to what Matters wrote, is based on absolutely nothing. You’ve just made this up. Just as you have, apparently, made up the statement that Logan “felt he had been used by Sims.” You offer no evidence that this is even remotely true and, given your track record with the facts, can’t be taken seriously.

    This is how real people in the real world react, something about which you are not strong about. Divall records a Druitt-centric notion from Macnaghten, which fits Tumblety better. Another variation of this can be seen in Littlechild--that's my theory.
    Yes, if you ignore exactly what Divall wrote, and the context in which he wrote it, and also keep ignoring how this has been pointed out to you several times now, then you can keep pretending that Divall’s words were “Druitt-centric.” At least you can convince yourself that you’re right, if not anyone else. And, actually, Divall’s suspect fits John Walsh to a T but the square Tumblety peg has to be hammered into the round hole of the available evidence.

    …Could I be wrong? Of course. I often am.
    You always stamp your feet and demand the evidence, or the sources, and then when you have them you don't read them.
    There's not much I can do about that.
    Here, at last, is the crux of your problem: you feel that anyone who deigns to ask you to prove what you say, who dares to actually want to see evidence that backs up your words, is somehow in the wrong. I “stamp [my] feet and demand evidence” when, instead, I should just believe whatever you say (without looking too closely at those offensive facts). Or, if you ever actually condescend to offer “evidence” we are given works of fiction, “striking coincidences,” ignorance of the facts, opinions based on incorrect assumptions and a convoluted conspiracy theory based on nothing more than your own fevered imagination. I’ll be curious to see how you handle simple questions once your book is published. You can’t simply ignore everyone.

    Wolf.

    Leave a comment:


  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    Originally posted by Jonathan Hainsworth View Post
    I appreciate that you are committed to your own opinion and interpretation, and there's nothing wrong with that in itself.
    Quite so.

    But you knew that what you were supplying to me, about which I did not know until you did so and you knew I did not, would confirm--for m--
    Sorry, could you run that past me again - in English please?

    That's what I am thanking you for. Perhaps I put it clumsily, but the sincerity is still the real deal. My proof is, some time ago, you that shafted me, again, on the Druitt thread and I let it go. I let you have the last mean-spirited word, because I was grateful for the other, fairer side of you.
    You are just too, too much dahhling.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Jonathan Hainsworth
    replied
    I appreciate that you are committed to your own opinion and interpretation, and there's nothing wrong with that in itself.

    But you knew that what you were supplying to me, about which I did not know until you did so and you knew I did not, would confirm--for m--that the watch and 'diary' are modern fakes, and pretty lousy ones too.

    My praise for you was based on you being genuinely generous, as you claimed for yourself at the time, despite me being briefly expelled. You could have just denied me the shocker about the watch's provenance, but you chose not to out of sense of academic rigor and fairness to an alternate view, e.g. knowing that, from my point of view--not yours, I appreciate that--this would be the coup de grace to the whole Maybrick hustle, which it is.

    That's what I am thanking you for. Perhaps I put it clumsily, but the sincerity is still the real deal. My proof is, some time ago, you that shafted me, again, on the Druitt thread and I let it go. I let you have the last mean-spirited word, because I was grateful for the other, fairer side of you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    Originally posted by Jonathan Hainsworth View Post
    You are so off-track that you cannot even see that I agree with you.
    I must be. I certainly can't see where you 'agreed' with me over anything in that post. You described my posts to you as 'nasty' while 'thanking' me (damn me with faint praise, why don't you? ) for supplying you with some very basic Maybrick watch related information.

    I got banned because of a conflict with another poster.
    So you said. I guessed the offending posts must have been considered 'nastier' than any of my posts to you. But keep playing the victim if you think it helps.

    An answer that proves the diary is a modern forgery.
    To your personal satisfaction, no doubt. But not to mine, so you don't agree with me there.

    The watch was already engraved and shown to Robert Smith before the public learned what was contained in the diary. There has never been, and never will be, the slightest evidence that the people who brought the watch forward knew the people who brought the diary forward, or could have known in advance what markings would work with the diary text and what wouldn't. If both were old hoaxes (as I firmly believe) it makes sense that the same person or persons would have been involved with both. If both had been modern hoaxes, they would need to have been created independently and in total ignorance of the details of each.

    You're very welcome to the extra information by the way.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Jonathan Hainsworth
    replied
    Temper, temper, Wolf. Such a liong piece too. I'm flattered.

    My persistence at cornering you, on your omissions and biases and unfairness, did flush you out as you finally dealt with Mac's memoirs and Logan and .... oh, no, not with the self-appointed crack

    Oh well, two out of three is pretty good for you.

    Abusive? Why would I think that when you have now called me an idiot, my arguments cracked, absurd or beneath contempt and you end with a curse word?

    At least you now concede you were wrong about Tumblety never having been a Ripper suspect, though you are still off the mark about Andrews.

    I'll be quick.

    You prove the validity of my argument by quoting that striking coincidence re: that last line of Mac's chapter, on a page by Browne in which the other two senior policemens' opinions come from their respective memoirs.

    Guy Logan's serial claims that it is with-holding identifying information for the sake of the murderer's family. That is why Edwardians knew it was a mixture of fact and fiction--they had been told as much by the author.

    Did you miss that, Wolf? Check Bondeson's book again. Perhaps you read it too quickly and missed this salient point. I suspect something like that happened with Browne too--it is a very human mistake to make.

    You totally avoided the bits and pieces about Druitt in Logan that are correct: an Oxonian, an athlete, a venom-tongued MP, not killing himself immdeiately after Kelly, and so on. I quite understand why; because it renders your argument rather, eh, fragile.

    Guy Logan, much later, was reacting to Leonard Matters--who had already printed his theory in newspapers prior to his book--in which he savaged the notion of the Drowned Doctor as rubbish (as no newspaper mentioned a doctor pulled from the Thames, which they do not). Logan felt he had been used by Sims, which he had been of course.

    This is how real people in the real world react, something about which you are not strong about. Divall records a Druitt-centric notion from Macnaghten, which fits Tumblety better. Another variation of this can be seen in Littlechild--that's my theory. It is reasonable, based on this police chief telling so many gentlemanly fibs. Could I be wrong? Of course. I often am.

    You always stamp your feet and demand the evidence, or the sources, and then when you have them you don't read them.

    There's not much I can do about that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wolf Vanderlinden
    replied
    Jonathan.

    Wolf
    You have not dealt with the 'self-appointed' crack, as expected.
    Well, if you expected it, then why do you keep bringing it up?

    Nor have I altered my stance from post to post. I have a theory. I can entertain its opposite. Even adopt its opposite, if the evidence points that way (which is how I got to Druitt). I realise that you do not know what I am talking about. I concede I could be msitaken--I often am--but you will never make such a concession.
    And yet you never do seem to “entertain its opposite,” or even “adopt its opposite,” and if the evidence points away from your pet theories or beliefs you simply either ignore the evidence, dismiss it out of hand (as you have done with Clutterbuck) or come up with some convoluted alternate explanation (Browne and Divall) which you pull out of your ass (pardon my French). As for my never making such concessions, which you yourself fail to do, I have done so in the past. However, this is always based on compelling evidence or credible proof. You never seem to offer any.

    You get everything wrong, Wolf, which is not a crime. In fact you are a perfect barometer of getting everything wrong about this subject; about Macnaghten, Druitt, Tumblety, Andrews, Divall and Browne.
    And you get Clutteruck wrong too, poor man.
    Coming from you, this is truly meaningless. You have to have some credibility on these subjects in order to have any weight behind your words. Your knowledge, and I use the term loosely here, of Macnaghten and Druitt seems to stem from an imagined conspiracy theory which you have cobbled together to your own inexplicable satisfaction. Your “knowledge” of Tumblety and Andrews comes from the biased and subjective writings of R.J. Palmer. As for Browne, Divall and Clutterbuck, you have proved, here on this board, what I have said above about evidence that goes against your own pet theories. You aren't just unwilling to understand what they are saying but you seem to actually refuse to understand anything but your own interpretation. There is no possible meaning other than your own.

    It is your abusive attitude that is indefensible.
    Sorry, what abusive attitude would that be? I’m the one who is attempting to have a reasoned debate while you throw pissy (Gasp! Horror!) little remarks at me in response. In fact, you can’t seem to help yourself in this regard. I, and probably many others, can almost see the foam spraying from your mouth (SEE! SEE how he mistreats me! The fiend!!) and yet you seem to want to believe that you are the one hard done by. But it’s what I’ve come to expect from you. I’m not saying it’s wrong, it’s just the way you seem to be.

    Again you have ignored what I wrote about Mac's memoirs coinicidentally including the allusion to a minister being nearly destroyed by the Ripper, on a page where the other two chiefs' memoirs are being discussed…
    I didn’t ignore it so much as think it was too idiotic to reply to, but here goes. Your theory, your explanation, is that Browne read this passage from Macnaghten’s Days of My Years:
    I incline to the belief that the individual who held up London in terror resided with his own people; that he absented himself from home at certain times, and that he committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888, after he had knocked out a Commissioner of Police and very nearly settled the hash of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State.

    Browne then, when he came to write The Rise of Scotland Yard (for which he used Home Office files some 20 years before other researchers were able to. Files which have, we know, been much depleted over time) wrote “Sir Melville Macnaghten, appears to identify the Ripper with the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr. Balfour at the Irish Office.

    So, first off, are you claiming that you know exactly what Browne read in the now depleted files? That no correspondence spoke of an Irish terrorist Ripper suspect (even though Clutterbuck says the same thing) and that Macnaghten’s name was not connected with anything along those lines? That’s quite impressive, if true. Perhaps you could offer us some proof of your omniscience. Secondly, are you actually saying that somehow Browne believed that when Macnaghten wrote “[the Ripper] very nearly settled the hash of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State” what he really meant was “the Ripper [was] the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr. Balfour at the Irish Office.” Really? We are supposed to take this seriously?

    Although Macnaghten was talking about Warren and Mathews this, apparently, sailed right over Browne’s head. And, even though the brief passage Macnaghten wrote in Days of My Years makes no mention of a “plot,” the “leader” of the not mentioned “plot,” Arthur Balfour or the timing of the not mentioned “plot,” i.e. 1887 to 1891, when Balfour was Chief Secretary for Ireland, Browne just interpreted this to be what Macnaghten meant? Of course Browne would have to be a) an idiot (who totally misinterpreted what Macnaghten wrote) and/or b) a fantasist (who, apparently, just decided to make things up) for this to be true. Do we have any evidence of this? Any evidence at all? No, we don’t. However, I can see why you would come up with this scenario since it’s the same type of tortuous interpretation which seems to punctuate your own way of thinking.

    and you completely ignored what I wrote about Logan.
    Logan's serial is not a work of fiction. It is a work of fact and fiction. It gets insider details about Druitt correct. You deal with this by ... ignoring it. Mortemer is like Moriarty. But the latter is sa surname. Montague is the killer's first name and Mortemer is smiliar to it, and the character's first name--but even this tiny detail must be resisted at all costs.
    The Edwardian readership would not be able to tell what was true and what was false. Whereas we can can. Well, not we, because that would include you who knows less about this source than somebody in 1905, who at least grasped that this was the solution of somebody in authority, but one that was also discreetly disguised.
    Yes, those parts of the book which you think point to Druitt are fact. Those parts which don’t match with Druitt, and, in fact disprove your theory, are fiction. Mortemer/Montegue? FACT! Slade a medical man/Druitt not? FICTION! That’s how easy it is for you to believe you are right. Everyone else, however, probably thinks you’re cracked. And you’ll have to explain exactly why Edwardian readers would “at least [grasp] that this was the solution of somebody in authority, but one that was also discreetly disguised.” You make this as a bald statement of fact, as if there is some proof of your claim. If so, please provide it. Or is this more of your usual “it is what I say it is and no proof is necessary” way of thinking?

    At the risk (probability) of being called wrong, again, I notice that you never mention Logan’s factual based writing on the Ripper Murders. Why is that? Is it because Logan states that the Ripper Murders were never solved, and never likely to be? Is it because Logan’s own theory was that the Ripper was probably an American Jew with some medical experience who contracted a STD from a London prostitute and then went on a killing spree for revenge and who, later, returned to America? Or is it because Logan actually writes:

    The late George R. Sims was fond of declaring that, in the end, the murderer’s identity was known to the police, that he was a doctor who had become insane, and that his dead body was found in the Thames soon after his last exploit, but nothing to establish this story was ever put forward, and I regard it as a pure myth.

    So, no Macnaghten but, instead, Logan mentions Sims. And Logan believes the Druitt story to be unsupported and a pure myth yet you believe that Logan was planting some sort of clues about Druitt in his work of fiction? But, as I said, you’re the expert and I’m sure I’ve misinterpreted what Logan meant by “nothing to establish this story was ever put forward, and I regard it as a pure myth.” Or is this part of the Great Conspiracy, whereby Logan, for some reason, published the “discreetly disguised facts” in a work of fiction in 1905, but then decided, 23 years later, to hide the truth behind a denial in his 1928 work of nonfiction (long after the death of Machiavellian puppet master Macnaghten)? Any actual evidence to support this convoluted scheme? None.

    Again, your sweating Wolf.
    No. Actually I’m fine, thanks for wondering.

    Your whole approach to analyses is that you see sources in an entirely one-dimensional way.
    If a Canadian newspaper says that Inspector Andrews admitted he was there to investigate Patrnell, then that's that.
    Funny how you don't have the same flat, rigid and sterile view of the Littrlechild Letter, which proclaims that Tumblety was a major polcie suspect and remained so for this ex-chief?
    Actually, as you keep proving, it is you who see sources in an entirely one-dimensional way. To you there is only black and white; only what you say is correct and what you say is wrong. Macnaghten, in your view, had only one suspect in his entire life: Druitt. It is impossible that he could have held other views earlier on in his career. Full stop. Evidence to the contrary? Wrong, misinterpreted, untrustworthy. Why is the evidence wrong, misinterpreted, untrustworthy? Simply because it goes against your pet theory. Browne? An idiot fantasist. Clutterbuck? An untrustworthy secondary source who can’t be checked. Divall? Manipulated by Macnaghten. Evidence for any of this? None.

    And, for the record, I have long supported, both in my writings and my posts, that Tumblety was a Scotland Yard suspect, and to Littlechild “a very likely one,” at the time of the murders. But, I understand that you aren’t one to check your facts very thoroughly so I’ll just point out that you are wrong – again.

    As for the “Canadian newspaper,” the Toronto Daily Mail, and its interview with Inspector Andrews (why you would bring this up on this board is beyond me), your opinion, the one which Palmer gave you, has been that this was an entirely biased, unreliable, Irish extremist supporting rag; one that could not be trusted. Whatever it printed must be ignored because it was just trying to embarrass the British Government. You have even, several times, written here and on Casebook that all the newspaper sources have been proven worthless and should be disregarded (your very usual tack with anything that doesn’t support your own views). Palmer, and you, however, couldn’t be more wrong. When I pointed out recently that the Daily Mail was, instead, the largest newspaper in Canada at the time, with a nation-wide readership; a pro-British, pro-Empire slant, and Tory in editorial policy, and was completely trustworthy as a source, (in fact the-paper-of-record in Canada) you, as usual, simply ignored this. This attitude towards what you consider a reliable source (supports what Hainswroth believes = reliable and must be taken as Gospel; goes against what Hainsworth believes = unreliable and must be ignored) is very much like your ignoring what Browne, Clutterbuck and Divall have said about an Irish extremist Scotland Yard suspect. But yes, you have a multi-dimensional view of evidence, as long as by “multi” you mean “one.”

    You do the same with Divall, because his work inlcudes contradictory bits of data. He recalls accurately, as did Reid, that the case was protracted, that it took place over many years and that nobody inside Scotland Yard was identified as the killer (at least in some kind of instutitonal consensus). But then he records Macnaghten as saying that it involved a man who fled to the States and died in an asylum, and there were no more murders after that moment.
    Actually, Divall never wrote that the murderer “fled” to America (another of those pesky little facts which you seem incapable of getting right). He stated that Macnaghten had received information that the murderer “had gone to America.” This is beside the point. What isn’t, is the fact that you have made statements about Divall, and what he wrote, just the other day that have proven to be absolutely wrong:

    Divall implies that the murders stopped with the fleeing of the suspect to the States. That's Druitt-centric because the murders did not stop with Kelly in 1888 but with Coles in 1891. Therefore, by the time Macnaghten likely told this to Divall he had already found Druitt and backdated the ending of the police investigation for propagadnist purposes. How do I know this? Because of the writings of George R. Sims…”

    Divall didn’t say that the murders stopped in 1888. He said they stopped in 1891. This isn’t “Druitt-centric,” as you claim, because Druitt had been dead for three years when, according to Divall’s belief, the murders ended. Macnaghten didn’t backdate the ending of the police investigation for propagandist purposes when he “told this” to Divall, as you also claim, since Divall clearly states that the murders ended in 1891, not 1888. Whatever Macnaghten told Divall had nothing to do with Druitt or Tumblety, or any conflation of the two, because they were both out of the picture by late 1888. However, the information could pertain to John Walsh – who had gone to America and died in an asylum there in 1891, after which “nothing was ever heard of any similar crime being committed.” And Clutterbuck tells us (Yes, I know he’s absolutely wrong according to the Gospel of St. Jonathan) that the Pinkerton’s Detective Agency was watching Walsh in America for Scotland Yard and might have been the source from which Macnaghten “received some information” about his dying in an asylum there in March, 1891.

    In the latter's memoir Macnaghten, however, pointedly denies the asylum element
    and also agrees with Divall that it was protracted (as they did not know the killer was deceased). Yet the element of the murders halting abruptly--which both Divall and Macnaghten can be shown to know is not how it was perceived by the cops between 1888 and 1891--is Druitt-centric.
    All that you can claim here is “that by 1913/1914 Macnaghten had come to the conclusion that the killer had never been detained in an asylum.” Now all you have to do is prove that Macnaghten spoke to Divall at around that time. Can’t do that? Then what you are saying is meaningless. Of course Divall knew that the murders stopped in 1891, he was writing in 1929. Everyone knew the murders had stopped abruptly by 1929. Because Divall, and everyone else, knew this fact in hindsight this “element” is in no way “Druitt-centric.” To suggest this is absurd.

    This means that by the time that Macnaghten spoke to Divall he already knew the fiend's true identity and was experimenting with the idea of the police knowing it had ended in 1888, by the killer dying--and that the police knew this at the time.
    This, in no way, follows. You have completely ignored what Divall wrote and when he wrote it. According to Divall, the murders ended in 1891, not 1888, and he mentions Macnagten’s theory as a possible explanation as to why they eventually stopped – in 1891. You have fabricated a timeframe of your own liking, one that does not take into account Divall at all, and one which only agrees with your personal theory. You have no clue exactly when Divall spoke to Macnaghten about the murderer, or if he ever did. Nor have you any proof that Macnaghten was “experimenting with the idea of the police knowing it had ended in 1888, by the killer dying--and that the police knew this at the time.” This is just more unsupported supposition and unsubstantiated guesswork.

    But Druitt did not flee abroad… whereas Tumblety, a major police suspect, did.
    Again, if you are using Divall’s account he did not say that the murderer “fled abroad,” but that he “had gone to America.” You, apparently, like to use the word “fled” in context with Divall because you want people to think that Macnaghten was talking about Tumblety. However, according to Divall’s belief that the murders stopped in 1891, and that Macnaghten had information about a suspect who died in an asylum in America and the murders stopped – i.e. the murderer died in America sometime around or after 1891 – then, once again, Macnaghten wasn’t talking about Tumblety or Druitt.

    By the time Littlechild writes his letter the fusion of Druitt and Tumblety is complete: the mad doctor who took his own life and it was all over in late 1888.
    Because, apparently, according to you, no one at Scotland Yard had any personal opinion or knowledge about the murders or the murderer unless it was given to them by Macnaghten. Scotland Yard must have been staffed with a collection of completely malleable innocents with absolutely no capability for independent thought.

    That's my interpretation.
    Yeah, no f*cking kidding.

    Wolf.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynn Cates
    replied
    R I C

    Hello Chris. Thanks for the lovely drawings.

    Are those local police or perhaps R I C?

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Jonathan Hainsworth
    replied
    You are so off-track that you cannot even see that I agree with you.

    I got banned because of a conflict with another poster.

    Our dialogue was interrupted, yet I salute the fact that you did not use that sideshow as an excuse to drop the answer to the question.

    An answer that proves the diary is a modern forgery.

    Leave a comment:


  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    Originally posted by Jonathan Hainsworth View Post
    Caz,

    You always misread me, but that's ok. Because I am going to thank you. This is straight and sincere and belated, and for that I somewhat shamefacedly apologize.

    Did you notice that in your last Druitt post on this site, shafting me as usual, I didn't reply. Usually I defend myself against your nasty posts, or anybody's, but that time I let it go.

    Because I owed you. Big time.

    A couple of years ago I asked you a simple and straight-forward question--where and when did the so-called Maybrick watch first surface.

    Your explosive over-reaction, to use your own colorful words spitting blood, caught me quite by surprise. I knew that this must be like drilling into a raw nerve.

    And then, right in the middle of that, some twerp annoyed me and I defended myself against him/her--and ended up being banned from Casebook (temporarily).

    In other words, my question about the watch was halted in its tracks. You certainly did not have to answer a poster who was now blackballed.

    But you did answer me!

    You said you had decided to be generous. That was quite the understatement. Because you answered the question and thus provided the circumstantial evidence that the so-called Diary is a modern forgery, going against your own cherished opinion that it is not (not modern that is).

    Again, thanks.
    Blimey, what a state you get yourself in over trifles, Jonathan. If I had an 'explosive over-reaction' in your opinion to something you posted, it was you who got yourself banned for your own reaction to another poster, not me.

    That should tell you something about our respective 'tones' - as seen by others.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris G.
    replied
    Thanks, Lynn. Certainly the troubles in Ireland are endlessly interesting. Here's a panel showing a series of images of a riot on a farm in Galway in 1886.



    http://www.rte.ie/centuryireland/art...farm-in-galway

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynn Cates
    replied
    Tynan

    Hello Chris. Thanks.

    Yes, indeed. As close as one can get is Tynan, who had a spot of affection for him.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris G.
    replied
    Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
    Hello Caroline. Wolf? Tone? Ah! Wolf Tone! Yes, Irish politician. So, he was an Invincible too? (heh-heh)

    (Sorry, couldn't resist. Dearth of humour in my life. Carry on.)

    Cheers.
    LC
    Hi Lynn

    Of course, Theobald Wolfe Tone aka Wolf Tone died in the Provost's Prison, Dublin, on 19 November, 1798, so he wasn't one of the Invincibles, who didn't operate until some 80 years later, in the 1880's -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_National_Invincibles -- but I think you know that!

    Best regards

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynn Cates
    replied
    equivocally speaking

    Hello Caroline. Wolf? Tone? Ah! Wolf Tone! Yes, Irish politician. So, he was an Invincible too? (heh-heh)

    (Sorry, couldn't resist. Dearth of humour in my life. Carry on.)

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Jonathan Hainsworth
    replied
    Caz,

    You always misread me, but that's ok. Because I am going to thank you. This is straight and sincere and belated, and for that I somewhat shamefacedly apologize.

    Did you notice that in your last Druitt post on this site, shafting me as usual, I didn't reply. Usually I defend myself against your nasty posts, or anybody's, but that time I let it go.

    Because I owed you. Big time.

    A couple of years ago I asked you a simple and straight-forward question--where and when did the so-called Maybrick watch first surface.

    Your explosive over-reaction, to use your own colorful words spitting blood, caught me quite by surprise. I knew that this must be like drilling into a raw nerve.

    And then, right in the middle of that, some twerp annoyed me and I defended myself against him/her--and ended up being banned from Casebook (temporarily).

    In other words, my question about the watch was halted in its tracks. You certainly did not have to answer a poster who was now blackballed.

    But you did answer me!

    You said you had decided to be generous. That was quite the understatement. Because you answered the question and thus provided the circumstantial evidence that the so-called Diary is a modern forgery, going against your own cherished opinion that it is not (not modern that is).

    Again, thanks.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X