Druitt's 30 August Cricket Match

[Herlock Sholmes]

Druitt was apparently dismissed for "serious trouble" how many of the above fall into that bracket which might apply to a gay man?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why do they have to apply to a gay man unless we are making an assumption?

So I’d say 11 out of 13.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why do they have to apply to a gay man unless we are making an assumption?

So I’d say 11 out of 13.

Your defintion of serious trouble is clearly different to mine

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

There is no 31st Nov, it only has 30 days. I know England does some things different, but not that one.

and there are some funny things in Williams testimony, as it is reported.

Thanks GUT. Your right of course. I'm getting old and slipping. My edit time has expired, so for Sat 31 Nov read Sat 1 Dec. Funny, and a little suspicious.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Your defintion of serious trouble is clearly different to mine

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

We have only William's testimony that the trouble was serious. The same William who testified that he and his mother were Monty's only relatives, apparently forgetting the five sisters. It was also William who allegedly found the suicide note, and one wonders if William was MM's source for the family thinking Monty was the ripper. Monty lived alone and apart from any family so how would they know anything other than from William may have told them? I am at a loss as to why Valentine was not at the inquest.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your defintion of serious trouble is clearly different to mine

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It’s not mine though Trevor, it’s what would be considered serious in Victorian England. Anything that might have had a whiff of scandal or a suggestion of dishonouring the name of the school, even if an unfounded rumour, would have been serious to someone like George Valentine. Middle and upper class parents wouldn’t have sent their children to a school that had any possible scandal attached to it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Trevor,

We have only William's testimony that the trouble was serious. The same William who testified that he and his mother were Monty's only relatives, apparently forgetting the five sisters. It was also William who allegedly found the suicide note, and one wonders if William was MM's source for the family thinking Monty was the ripper. Monty lived alone and apart from any family so how would they know anything other than from William may have told them? I am at a loss as to why Valentine was not at the inquest.

Cheers, George

Another question that’s at least worth an ask George is why only part of the suicide note was made public? We can’t read anything sinister into this of course but it’s not impossible that there might have been something that the family wished to be withheld. Whatever that might have been.

[Trevor Marriott]

Another question that’s at least worth an ask George is why only part of the suicide note was made public? We can’t read anything sinister into this of course but it’s not impossible that there might have been something that the family wished to be withheld. Whatever that might have been.

Suicide notes form part of a coroners inquest

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Another question that’s at least worth an ask George is why only part of the suicide note was made public? We can’t read anything sinister into this of course but it’s not impossible that there might have been something that the family wished to be withheld. Whatever that might have been.

Hi Herlock,

At the risk of being labelled a conspiracy theorist, if we contemplate that the Friday to which "Since Friday" refers was Friday 9 Nov, this introduces two additional possibilities:
1. Monty was referring to the night of MJK's death, which would be a strong clue to his being JtR or
2. William wrote the note to implicate Monty, and may have even been involved in his death?

I am unable to shake off the feeling that there is something very wrong going on here. From the contents of Monty's pockets when found in the Thames to the mysterious discovery of his alleged cryptic suicide note. As you say, it is likely that there was more to the note than was stated, but if that were incriminating I think the coroner would have had no choice but to reveal it despite the feelings of the "family", which according to William was only his mother in an asylum and himself.

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Herlock,

At the risk of being labelled a conspiracy theorist, if we contemplate that the Friday to which "Since Friday" refers was Friday 9 Nov, this introduces two additional possibilities:
1. Monty was referring to the night of MJK's death, which would be a strong clue to his being JtR or
2. William wrote the note to implicate Monty, and may have even been involved in his death?

I am unable to shake off the feeling that there is something very wrong going on here. From the contents of Monty's pockets when found in the Thames to the mysterious discovery of his alleged cryptic suicide note. As you say, it is likely that there was more to the note than was stated, but if that were incriminating I think the coroner would have had no choice but to reveal it despite the feelings of the "family", which according to William was only his mother in an asylum and himself.

Cheers, George

Do you know where the suicide note was found?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[NotBlamedForNothing]

This thread raises the issue; if a substantial number of people supposed that new evidence indicated a suspect should no longer be regarded as such, would that person conceivably be taken off suspect lists? More generally, does any name that has ever gone onto a JtR suspect list, ever leave it, or is being added to one a bit like being welcomed to the Hotel California?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that we can only dismiss a suspect if we can categorically prove that he couldn’t have been the murderer, like Cream. The rest is down to interpretation. Individuals either believe that Druitt is a suspect worthy of consideration or they don’t. The new cricket info changes nothing factually.

Trevor has a different take on who should get the title ‘suspect’ or not. It makes no difference what we call them though. It’s still down to individual opinion. No one knows who the killer was.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think that we can only dismiss a suspect if we can categorically prove that he couldn’t have been the murderer, like Cream. The rest is down to interpretation. Individuals either believe that Druitt is a suspect worthy of consideration or they don’t. The new cricket info changes nothing factually.

Trevor has a different take on who should get the title ‘suspect’ or not. It makes no difference what we call them though. It’s still down to individual opinion. No one knows who the killer was.

I dont have a different take, the method I use for catergorizing suspects in the official police method based on the evidence and suspcion against each one.

I.E. Druitt a prime suspect ? No, simply a person of interest

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I dont have a different take, the method I use for catergorizing suspects in the official police method based on the evidence and suspcion against each one.

I.E. Druitt a prime suspect ? No, simply a person of interest

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Which is of course a completely different situation to what we’re doing here.

[Trevor Marriott]

Which is of course a completely different situation to what we’re doing here.

and the wrong way, you are creating prime suspects, when the evidence you and others seek to rely on is only sufficient enough to label then as persons of interest
and some not even that.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

and the wrong way, you are creating prime suspects, when the evidence you and others seek to rely on is only sufficient enough to label then as persons of interest
and some not even that.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yet again Trevor no one is relying on anything. To rely on something would be like me saying that Macnaughten’s Private Info must have been valid. Which is something that we can’t know. Simply saying that his information might have been valid is just reasonable possibility. If there are 2 possibilities then one is correct and one is incorrect so there’s surely no point in dismissing the information as a whole simply because doubts might exist or that there are questions to be answered. I can’t speak for everyone but I don’t rely on anything. I just think that we should explore both possibles. Considering the possibility of something being true isn’t the same as relying on it being true.

Its not the wrong way because it makes no difference as we’ve gone through before. Yes, if your conducting an ongoing police investigation then the benefits of narrowing down a field of suspects more rigidly is a good way of trying not to waste man hours and to avoid further future victims. Neither are a problem for us though. No one is going to die or get sent to prison as a result of anything that we say or any errors that we might make or false leads that we might follow. We have no time or financial constraints to consider. It doesn’t matter. So if someone is suspected by someone we label them a suspect and decide as individuals how weak or strong they are. And if we decided on using Suspect and Person Of Interest who decides who goes into which category? You and I both agree on Lechmere but many disagree with us so why should our opinion count more than theirs so that we label him a person of interest as opposed to a suspect? Does Ripperology suffer one iota if a couple of posters on here decided to discus the merits of Lewis Carroll as a suspect in a thread? No, because we’re all free to not bother taking part. It’s unworkable and totally pointless.