Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proof of Innocence?

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

  • Originally posted by Phil Kellingley View Post

    Your pathetic attempt to suggest that MacN didn't lie but 'had a fallible memory' is beyond reason. Here's a man who was supposedly in his position for years, who had access to his own notes and apparently was still able to look at Scotland Yard files but couldn't remember details. Yet if that were true you need to accept that he also got things wrong about Druitt. MacN was a self-publicising liar. To suggest that he didn't remember anything accurately for his book includes that he didn't remember accurately anything about a case that he never took part in. Your choice. Either his memory was fallible(and he was wrong about Druitt) or he lied (and also lied abouit Druitt).
    His memory was fallible. No competition.
    Regards

    Michael🔎


    " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Phil Kellingley View Post


      You have no idea about my cricket knowledge (thanks for being so condescending) and totally fail to address the possibility that rain could have stopped play. Thus it's indeed just as possible that it could have lasted the whole day. As you rightly say we don't know when it started or ended - so your argument about it all being over in 2 or 3 hours is pure supposition. Do explain why the weather wouldn't come into it. (from your superior knowledge of cricket).
      I can’t believe that I’m actually having to respond to this.

      If we knew that rain had affected the play that day then of course we would have had to take that into consideration. But we have no mention of rain affecting the match so what’s the point in suggesting it? You might as well say “what if the train had broken down.” Under normal circumstances the game would have been a very short one.

      And I’ll say it again, all that I’ve said is that there is nothing about the evidence that we have here that would have hindered Druitt in getting to London. How can this be a controversial statement? It’s simply a statement of the facts as we know them at this point in time.
      Regards

      Michael🔎


      " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
        Hi All,

        This is from "Cricket: A Weekly Record of the Game," Thursday, 13th September 1888—

        Click image for larger version

Name:	CRICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME 13 SEP 1888.jpg
Views:	114
Size:	95.9 KB
ID:	588426

        "Saturday Last" was 8th September 1888.

        Regards,

        Simon
        And if the game started at 6am Simon we could eliminate Druitt and all go home.
        Regards

        Michael🔎


        " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Phil Kellingley View Post
          .

          ? What came from MacN? An erroneous statement about someone he said 'private information' that he wouldn't disclose
          I’m sure that we would all be grateful if you could provide the proof that what Macnaughten said was wrong or untrue. Thanks in advance.
          Regards

          Michael🔎


          " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Phil Kellingley View Post


            I think you misunderstand. It's not up to anyone to dismiss a suspect. It's up to someone to prove that the suspect is, beyond reasonable doubt, guilty. But it's perfectly valid to point out the failures of anyone who tries to make such a case.
            And could you point out the person on here who has tried make the case that Druitt was guilty because I must have missed it.
            Regards

            Michael🔎


            " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post

              I can’t believe that I’m actually having to respond to this.

              If we knew that rain had affected the play that day then of course we would have had to take that into consideration. But we have no mention of rain affecting the match so what’s the point in suggesting it? You might as well say “what if the train had broken down.” Under normal circumstances the game would have been a very short one.

              And I’ll say it again, all that I’ve said is that there is nothing about the evidence that we have here that would have hindered Druitt in getting to London. How can this be a controversial statement? It’s simply a statement of the facts as we know them at this point in time.
              The Blandford Weekly News frequently commented on the weather conditions during matches. That they didn’t mention rain interrupting play in this case suggests it probably didn’t.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post

                And if the game started at 6am Simon we could eliminate Druitt and all go home.
                A fairly mediocre performance from Druitt, would you say Mike?

                Comment


                • If there’s one thing that I believe that I’m correct on it’s that anything related to Druitt or Macnaughten is toxic for some reason. It genuinely makes people angry. So much so that you’d think that some were actually related to Druitt and so they felt compelled to eliminate him at all costs. How can a suspect in a murder case 134 years ago arouse so much feeling. I could start a thread proposing JM Barrie as the ripper and no one would raise an eyelid but mention someone that was named by The Chief Constable Of The Met and you might as well be claiming that The Queen is an alien. It’s only a minority of course. The majority who don’t feel Druitt much of a suspect do it in a fair-minded, calm, non-hysterical way. But it just raises real anger or irritation or frustration in some. I’ve experienced it on both Forums from a minority of posters and it’s wearying, boring and ends up ruining the discussion for everyone so I’ll walk away.
                  Regards

                  Michael🔎


                  " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post
                    If there’s one thing that I believe that I’m correct on it’s that anything related to Druitt or Macnaughten is toxic for some reason. It genuinely makes people angry.
                    You should try rooting for Lechmere, Mike. It will give you some perspective.
                    "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                    Comment



                    • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

                      The Blandford Weekly News frequently commented on the weather conditions during matches. That they didn’t mention rain interrupting play in this case suggests it probably didn’t.
                      And yet they described the weather of August 30th as "very unfavorable" (this was two-and-half miles to the northwest) so it is not implausible that the paper just didn't feel the need to report it since it was a local match and half the village might have been there anyway.

                      We need data or we'll keep arguing over individual speculations.

                      Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                      Hi RJ,

                      Too much Catullus at Eton, and not enough Basic English Reader?

                      Montague John Druitt, 31 years of age. [Echo 3rd January 1889].

                      The deceased was his brother, who was 31 last birthday. [Acton, Chiswick & Turnham Green Gazette, 5th January 1889].

                      Simon

                      All well and good, Simon. I have always applauded David Anderson and Dan Farson for having done more research into the local press accounts of Druitt's drowning than Macnaghten ever did.

                      But why should that surprise us? They had to use their wits, but Macnaghten had access to PC George Moulson's report of the drowning at Chiswck, so he wouldn’t need to go digging.

                      A waterlogged batch of papers in the Thames and a PC who couldn't do math, and viola! 31 becomes 41.

                      I still don't find it a particularly compelling example of either woeful stupidity or serial lying.

                      And Phil Kellingley is welcome to prove me wrong, "but the first woman hanged in the 20th Century" sounds more like a trivia question that Guinness dreamed up in the 1960s than something widely discussed at the time.

                      I've looked through a number accounts of the hanging and I'm not immediately seeing any reference to this startling fact. I know it was mentioned in a text published by Mango Books a few years ago, but I doubt that Macnghten read it there.

                      Comment


                      • Long time lurker, first time poster....

                        Louise Masset wasn't the first woman hanged in Britain in the 20th century...because 1900 was the last year of the 19th Century.

                        https://murderpedia.org/female.M/m/masset-louise.htm
                        To Join JTR Forums :
                        Contact [email protected]

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post


                          And yet they described the weather of August 30th as "very unfavorable" (this was two-and-half miles to the northwest) so it is not implausible that the paper just didn't feel the need to report it since it was a local match and half the village might have been there anyway.

                          We need data or we'll keep arguing over individual speculations.




                          All well and good, Simon. I have always applauded David Anderson and Dan Farson for having done more research into the local press accounts of Druitt's drowning than Macnaghten ever did.

                          But why should that surprise us? They had to use their wits, but Macnaghten had access to PC George Moulson's report of the drowning at Chiswck, so he wouldn’t need to go digging.

                          A waterlogged batch of papers in the Thames and a PC who couldn't do math, and viola! 31 becomes 41.

                          I still don't find it a particularly compelling example of either woeful stupidity or serial lying.

                          And Phil Kellingley is welcome to prove me wrong, "but the first woman hanged in the 20th Century" sounds more like a trivia question that Guinness dreamed up in the 1960s than something widely discussed at the time.

                          I've looked through a number accounts of the hanging and I'm not immediately seeing any reference to this startling fact. I know it was mentioned in a text published by Mango Books a few years ago, but I doubt that Macnghten read it there.
                          At your patronising best, R. J.

                          The fact that the weather was ‘unfavourable’ elsewhere is relevant, but the fact that there was no mention of an interruption to play isn’t?

                          If half the village was there, why bother to report the match all?

                          Comment


                          • Hi Michael,

                            I'm not angry, just mildly intrigued that so many people buy into Macnaghten's memorandum and the lengths to which they are willing to go to defend his honour.

                            Cricket matches either side of a murder date—even a cricket match on a murder date—yet still the believers insist indignantly, "Oh there's absolutely no reason why Druitt couldn't have got up at four in the morning, caught the four-twenty seven from Blackheath to Charing Cross, taken the Underground to Aldgate East, wandered around Whitechapel and down Hanbury Street, murdered Annie Chapman, stuffed her uterus in his coat pocket and made it back to Blackheath in time to clean himself up, take breakfast, and play a match against the Christopherson brothers.

                            It transcends BS.

                            Regards,

                            Simon

                            Comment


                            • Simon, thank you for posting the entry in Cricket: A Weekly Record of the Game.

                              In the book Montague Druitt, Portait of a Contender by D.J. Leighton, you'll find on page 217 the scorecard for the Blackheath V. The Christopherson Brothers game that was played on September 8, 1888. It was at The Rectory Field. The scorecard shows that Blackheath won by 22 runs, 115 to 93. And it does confirm that Druitt played in the match.

                              I mention this because it gives confirmation to what you've discovered in Cricket: A Weekly Record of the Game. But I think Leighton used a different source than you did when he presented the scorecard for that Sept 8th match in his book. It doesn't look like Leighton used Cricket: A Weekly Record of the Game.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                                Hi Michael,

                                I'm not angry, just mildly intrigued that so many people buy into Macnaghten's memorandum and the lengths to which they are willing to go to defend his honour.

                                Cricket matches either side of a murder date—even a cricket match on a murder date—yet still the believers insist indignantly, "Oh there's absolutely no reason why Druitt couldn't have got up at four in the morning, caught the four-twenty seven from Blackheath to Charing Cross, taken the Underground to Aldgate East, wandered around Whitechapel and down Hanbury Street, murdered Annie Chapman, stuffed her uterus in his coat pocket and made it back to Blackheath in time to clean himself up, take breakfast, and play a match against the Christopherson brothers.

                                It transcends BS.

                                Regards,

                                Simon
                                Hi Simon,

                                Its not so much defending his honour as seeing absolutely zero reason for a character assassination. He might have been mistaken in the he believed the information to have been more incriminating than it actually was, he might have received dodgy info and been taken in by it, but we have zero reason to demonise him. I also see no reason to assume that he was a complete dimwit either.

                                The alternative suggestion, that you favour, is that he lied. Why?

                                1. He wasn’t pressured into naming 3 suspects so why not just name the criminal and the lunatic who were both unlikely to have had anyone eliminate them by tracing their movements….unlike Druitt?

                                2. He was Chief Constable of the Met and so had easy access to the names of numerous criminals or lunatics who had died in the period between 1888 and 1894 all of whom would have appeared on the face of it far more likely suspects than Druitt.

                                3. If he’d have alighted on one of these criminals or lunatics he’d have had zero problem in manufacturing an interesting back story like “a close friend of his saw him in Hanbury Street on the morning of Chapman’s murder with blood on his hands.” It would hardly have taken a genius to drum up a convincing, difficult if not impossible to exonerate suspect.

                                4. At a time when family honour meant everything and families would rather have died than suffer a whiff of scandal why would Macnaughten, with innumerable alternatives, have named as a possible Jack the Ripper someone who was related by marriage to one of his best friends without what he felt was a valid reason.

                                5. Why is the date of Druitt’s suicide considered a factor in his naming of him when when his boss and friend Munro and Reid and many others were convinced that Mackenzie was a ripper victim. Surely he’d have selected a dodgy suspect that had died or was incarcerated after Chapmans murder.

                                6. Even if Macnaughten had lied on other occasions and the incidents were so trivial that reason points overwhelmingly in my opinion that these were simple and very understandable lapses of memory, it still doesn’t mean that he lied about Druitt. Everyone has told lies in their lives and far more than a few times….do we then assume that they must always be lying.

                                7. If he was simply inventing a list to show that there were better suspects than Druitt why didn’t Mac (who must had no scruples about falsely accusing an innocent man of an horrific series of murders) simply go the whole hog and name an anonymous criminal or lunatic and say that not only did his friend see him in Hanbury Street but that he’d confessed to being the ripper and had shown him the bloody knife and a body part or two. Case solved, well done Mac. I’m sure that this alleged self-publicist could have thrown in a Holmes-like deduction or two to present himself as the hero of the hour.

                                So yes, Macnaughten could have been fed malicious information. He could have been given evidence which he overestimated the importance or validity of. Or the person that gave him the information could have over-estimated the validity of the evidence. But for the 7 reasons above I just can’t accept that Macnaughten just made this up. It makes zero sense. If he did lie then there was a village somewhere out there missing an idiot.
                                Regards

                                Michael🔎


                                " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X