Druitt's 30 August Cricket Match

[FISHY1118]

What evidence to you base that positive statement on?

What we know is he was in Bournmouth on the 3rd and 4th Aug , what we dont know is where he was on the 7th .

[Herlock Sholmes]

What we know is he was in Bournmouth on the 3rd and 4th Aug , what we dont know is where he was on the 7th .

Exactly, but you claimed that he was still in Bournemouth. All that we know is that he now has no alibi for Tabram (which doesn’t make him guilty of course.)

[FISHY1118]

Exactly, but you claimed that he was still in Bournemouth. All that we know is that he now has no alibi for Tabram (which doesn’t make him guilty of course.)

Thats right, he was , because theres no evidence to say he was elswehere.

Just like the whole male population of Bournemounth was in Bournmouth that weekend too, unless you can place them somewhere else. So place Druitt in London on the 7th Aug 1888 in time for Tabrams murder with proof, or as ive always said about Druitt he has more flimsy ridiculous circumstancial evidence than any ripper suspect .

No 2. Ranking

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thats right, he was , because theres no evidence to say he was elswehere.

Just like the whole male population of Bournemounth was in Bournmouth that weekend too, unless you can place them somewhere else. So place Druitt in London on the 7th Aug 1888 in time for Tabrams murder with proof, or as ive always said about Druitt he has more flimsy ridiculous circumstancial evidence than any ripper suspect .

No 2. Ranking

So your ‘logic’ is that as Druitt was in Bournemouth on the 3rd and the 4th then he must have been there on the 5th, 6th and 7th? Can you really be saying this Fishy?

No one, including myself, has ever claimed that we can place Druitt anywhere on the date of any of the murders, but that would go for the vast majority of the population. For years it’s been assumed that Leighton was correct and that Druitt was playing cricket in Bournemouth at the time that Tabram was murdered. Despite the fact that we can’t claim Tabram as a certain victim some posters have quoted this ‘alibi’ with glee. Now, research has shown that this ‘alibi’ doesn’t exist so the reasonable, balanced response would have been “ok, he has no alibi for Tabram’s murder.” Simple as that. But we should have known better by now on this particular topic shouldn’t we? Despite the fact that we can’t even say that Tabram was a ripper victim you prefer to claim that he was still in Bournemouth despite a complete absence of evidence. Why can’t you just admit the facts Fishy? Without changing the subject. No one is claiming that this lack of an alibi is proof of anything. Of course it’s not proof of anything apart from his complete lack of an alibi. This is a fact. Why can’t you admit to a simple fact? Why the need to make statements like ‘he must have been there on the 7th because he was there on the 4th?’ There is so much in this case that remains unknown. But facts are facts. Druitt’s Tabram alibi has gone.

Its also worth mentioning that you believe that he must have been in Bournemouth because he was there 3 days before a murder and we know that Bournemouth was a mere train ride from London and yet when we know that Sickert was in Dieppe just before a murder you tell the rest of us that, because we can’t prove that he was still in Dieppe, we shouldn’t assume that he was in France at the time of a murder (and his journey would have required a boat and a train.) Take away the words ‘Bournemouth’ and ‘Dieppe’ and the parallel is exact. It’s not really the first time that Druitt/Macnaughten appears to demand different criteria to other suspects is lt? Why should we assume that Sickert had left France and returned to England yet also assume that Druitt couldn’t have left Bournemouth and gone to London. Can you prove that Sickert had returned to London? No you can’t. So why do I need to prove that Druitt had? Are there different rules for different suspects?

That you consider the any evidence against Druitt ‘flimsy and ridiculous’ whilst promoting the Knight theory is a bit rich to say the very least Fishy. Druitt has no alibi for Tabram. It’s just a fact. And as a fact it requires no discussion.

[FISHY1118]

Thats right, he was , because theres no evidence to say he was elswehere.

Just like the whole male population of Bournemounth was in Bournmouth that weekend too, unless you can place them somewhere else. So place Druitt in London on the 7th Aug 1888 in time for Tabrams murder with proof, or as ive always said about Druitt he has more flimsy ridiculous circumstancial evidence than any ripper suspect .

No 2. Ranking

Because you didnt get it the first time . ,,

Let me know when you do ,

[FISHY1118]

So your ‘logic’ is that as Druitt was in Bournemouth on the 3rd and the 4th then he must have been there on the 5th, 6th and 7th? Can you really be saying this Fishy?

No one, including myself, has ever claimed that we can place Druitt anywhere on the date of any of the murders, but that would go for the vast majority of the population. For years it’s been assumed that Leighton was correct and that Druitt was playing cricket in Bournemouth at the time that Tabram was murdered. Despite the fact that we can’t claim Tabram as a certain victim some posters have quoted this ‘alibi’ with glee. Now, research has shown that this ‘alibi’ doesn’t exist so the reasonable, balanced response would have been “ok, he has no alibi for Tabram’s murder.” Simple as that. But we should have known better by now on this particular topic shouldn’t we? Despite the fact that we can’t even say that Tabram was a ripper victim you prefer to claim that he was still in Bournemouth despite a complete absence of evidence. Why can’t you just admit the facts Fishy? Without changing the subject. No one is claiming that this lack of an alibi is proof of anything. Of course it’s not proof of anything apart from his complete lack of an alibi. This is a fact. Why can’t you admit to a simple fact? Why the need to make statements like ‘he must have been there on the 7th because he was there on the 4th?’ There is so much in this case that remains unknown. But facts are facts. Druitt’s Tabram alibi has gone.

Its also worth mentioning that you believe that he must have been in Bournemouth because he was there 3 days before a murder and we know that Bournemouth was a mere train ride from London and yet when we know that Sickert was in Dieppe just before a murder you tell the rest of us that, because we can’t prove that he was still in Dieppe, we shouldn’t assume that he was in France at the time of a murder (and his journey would have required a boat and a train.) Take away the words ‘Bournemouth’ and ‘Dieppe’ and the parallel is exact. It’s not really the first time that Druitt/Macnaughten appears to demand different criteria to other suspects is lt? Why should we assume that Sickert had left France and returned to England yet also assume that Druitt couldn’t have left Bournemouth and gone to London. Can you prove that Sickert had returned to London? No you can’t. So why do I need to prove that Druitt had? Are there different rules for different suspects?

That you consider the any evidence against Druitt ‘flimsy and ridiculous’ whilst promoting the Knight theory is a bit rich to say the very least Fishy. Druitt has no alibi for Tabram. It’s just a fact. And as a fact it requires no discussion.

Heres a ''FACT'' you cant prove he was in London can you ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ll answer your 2 posts as one.

No I can’t prove that he was in London. I’ve never said that I can place him in London. Of course I can’t. We can’t even prove that Tabram was a victim of the ripper as opinion is divided. Can you prove that Sickert was in London? If you can’t, then by your own logic we should assume that he was in France and completely innocent or does your ‘logic’ only apply to Druitt? There’s a huge difference between not being able to prove someone was somewhere to being able to prove that they weren’t.

Just because you can’t prove that he was in London it doesn’t prove that he was in Bournemouth as you are claiming though. The suggestion is ludicrous. We can’t prove that he wasn’t in Southampton or Leeds or Newcastle or Derby or Swansea or Hull or thousands of other locations. I should be used to this kind of silliness by now.

You say that because he was in Bournemouth on the 4th and we can’t prove that he was in London on the 7th then that somehow proves that he was in Bournemouth on the 7th!!!

A challenge for you Fishy……. find me one living, breathing, conscious human being that agrees with this feeble excuse for logic.

You’ve dug yourself into a hole that’s it’s impossible to climb out of Fishy. For the first time ever I’m looking forward to a reply from you.

[FISHY1118]

There nothing to reply too , you misread and misinterpreted [which is what you always do ] and totally butcherered the whole druitt thread as to what i was saying, your hole you dug not mine .

Druitt no2 , for reasons ive already explained.... in my opinion

[Herlock Sholmes]

There nothing to reply too , you misread and misinterpreted [which is what you always do ] and totally butcherered the whole druitt thread as to what i was saying, your hole you dug not mine .

Druitt no2 , for reasons ive already explained.... in my opinion

As ever Fishy, rather than admit your error you decide to try the tactic of ignoring the point. Your tactics are always the same…..you either pretend that the person you are debating with said something that he never did, you wriggle squirm and make things up, or you just refuse to respond and hope that the point is forgotten and then when it’s mentioned you try and pretend that you’ve already answered itYou said that because we can’t prove that Druitt was in London on the 7th then he MUST have been in Bournemouth. Which has to be one of the most ridiculous claims that has ever been made in the history of ripperology. No, I’ll change that…..in the history of anything!

It’s the kind of utter nonsense that a child could see through. I challenge you to find one single person that will agree that your point makes logical sense.

You won’t because it doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t even come close to making sense. So you’ll continue to try and change the subject.

Absolutely pathetic.

So I can now say….we know that Sickert was in Dieppe just before one of the murders and we cannot place him in London on the days of the murders. Therefore Sickert can be eliminated.

[FISHY1118]

Too late , your done ✔

[FISHY1118]

''So I can now say….we know that Sickert was in Dieppe just before one of the murders and we cannot place him in London on the days of the murders. Therefore Sickert can be eliminated''

Please refain from the ''we know'' stuff, thats just incorrect, we dont know we ''speculate'' and theres a difference, but youll changed that to suit whatever like, as you do.


btw ,Thanks for the likes from who ever , at least someone gets it .

[Herlock Sholmes]

''So I can now say….we know that Sickert was in Dieppe just before one of the murders and we cannot place him in London on the days of the murders. Therefore Sickert can be eliminated''

Please refain from the ''we know'' stuff, thats just incorrect, we dont know we ''speculate'' and theres a difference, but youll changed that to suit whatever like, as you do.


btw ,Thanks for the likes from who ever , at least someone gets it .

Then why did you claim to know that Druitt was still in London on the 7th then. That was speculation as we have no evidence that he was still there.

Keep digging and dodging Fishy.

And btw, if you got a like it wasn’t from me, but I challenge them to identify themselves if they agree with you. So, come on mystery man or woman, stand up and tells that you agree with Fishy……Lets face it, we can have a pretty good guess who it was from.

[FISHY1118]

Go back and re read my post properly your confusing yourself

[FISHY1118]

What we know is he was in Bournmouth on the 3rd and 4th Aug , what we dont know is where he was on the 7th .

[Herlock Sholmes]

So here we go again. You say something. Deny it. I post the exact post proving that you said it. Then you wriggle and dissemble. Embarrassing but hey….it’s what you do so we expect nothing more.

Ok, I mention that fact that Druitt no longer has an alibi for the Tabram murder (which is not an opinion, it’s a fact.)

You just said…

Go back and re read my post properly your confusing yourself

Ill do more than that Fishy, I’ll even print it here for anyone to read. In response to my statement about Druitt not having an alibi for August 7th you said…

He was still in Bournmouth

Not “he might have been in Bournemouth.” Not “he could have been in Bournmouth.” But HE WAS STILL IN BOURNMOUTH. A statement of fact rather than opinion.

So I asked you what you based that positive statement on and you said.

.
What we know is he was in Bournmouth on the 3rd and 4th Aug , what we dont know is where he was on the 7th .

And so, we can very clearly see that your claim was that because we know where he was on the 4th and because we don’t know where he was on the 7th then we have to assume that he was still in Bournemouth (as you said in post # 163 - or have you now changed your mind?)

Just for once Fishy, stop wasting time denying what you clearly stated in black and white. No wonder you took the name Fishy considering the amount of time you spend wriggling on the hook.