Druitt.

[jmenges]

There’s evidence he was in Dorset the day before and the day of the murder. There’s no evidence he left Dorset. Yet for some reason we’re supposed to believe there’s a likelihood that he left Dorset? Based on what?

JM

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my answers below.

As I suspected. There’s no point in continuing.


It is you who have prolonged the argument by refusing to accept the fact that there are different grades of alibi and that Druitt does not have to have a proven cast-iron alibi in order to be considered to have had an alibi.



If you think that being in Dorset on the day before the murder and in Dorset hours after the murder constitutes an alibi then there’s no hope for reason.


It was you who suggested that Druitt's trip to Dorset was much longer than that.

The trip to Dorset constitutes an alibi for a murder in London.



But to try and use ‘he might have had a cast iron alibi if…” is little short of jaw-dropping.


Perhaps had he claimed to have visited Dorset without anyone seeing him there, but he was there with many companions.



Alibi’s have to be proven not assumed or imagined or created from scratch.


His trip to Dorset was not imagined.



You are the one ‘defending’ Druitt.


I am defending him from groundless insinuations that he committed a murder in Whitechapel during a cricket tour of Dorset.



The onus is on you to prove an alibi.


The onus is on you to discredit his alibi.

So far, the only evidence you have adduced is 'private information' that Druitt's relatives claimed he was doing rather more than playing cricket during his cricketing trip.

I suggest such 'evidence' would not have made much of an impression on a judge or jury.



You haven’t provided one iota of evidence despite being repeatedly asked.


The cricket trip is the evidence.

Without it, we would likely be told that Druitt caught a train that night from Blackheath to London.



Druitt has no alibi unless one is invented.


There is no need to invent one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s evidence he was in Dorset the day before and the day of the murder. There’s no evidence he left Dorset. Yet for some reason we’re supposed to believe there’s a likelihood that he left Dorset? Based on what?

JM

Nothing Jon. That’s not a claim that I’m making. All that I’m saying is that it’s possible. There’s no physical, evidential reason that tells us that it couldn’t have happened whether we think it likely or not.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I’m not claiming that he was the murderer though. I’m making no definite claim as to his guilt or innocence. I don’t know who the murderer was. I’m merely saying that he might have been the murderer. PI is the one that’s making the definite claim. He needs to prove the alibi.

“An alibi defense is showing evidence a defendant was not at the scene when the crime occurred. Simply put, under criminal law, an alibi is a legal defense strategy where a defendant provides evidence they couldn't have committed the crime because they were somewhere else when the crime occurred.”

This doesn’t mean proving that the defendant was elsewhere 8 or 10 or 12 hours either side of that murder unless you can prove that travel was impossible or else, at the very least, extremely unlikely. A man with ample time getting on a train that he’d used numerous times would not provide anything like sufficient doubt to be able to describe his time in Dorset as an alibi.

Druitt is not required to prove that it would have been impossible for him to have travelled to London to commit the murder, any more than Sickert is required to do so.

[jmenges]

Nothing Jon. That’s not a claim that I’m making. All that I’m saying is that it’s possible. There’s no physical, evidential reason that tells us that it couldn’t have happened whether we think it likely or not.

You said there would need to be proof that it was “extremely unlikely” he hopped the trains. Building a case against a suspect is actually the other way around. The suspect’s movements and behavior must be likely, based on evidence. Take Tumblety, for example*. He’s dismissed by most as a serious suspect on far less a thing than being 130 miles away, and yet theorists who believe in T’s guilt recognize that they must continue to unearth and present the largest pile of information they can. To build a picture of how he’s likely to have behaved. You don’t see them reclining back and saying “naysayers must prove he didn’t do it”.

That’s my final take for a while. You two behave yourselves.

JM

*edit- and no, I don’t believe that Tumblety was the Ripper.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please see my answers below.


It is you who have prolonged the argument by refusing to accept the fact that there are different grades of alibi and that Druitt does not have to have a proven cast-iron alibi in order to be considered to have had an alibi.

Could you provide the evidence that the legal system grades alibi’s please. It may be true but I’m unaware of this so I would appreciate some written evidence of it as opposed to opinion. And could you perhaps show where the legal system loosens it’s requirement for an alibi from the actual time of the crime in favour of a wide margin of time either side of that crime? Perhaps you could also provide evidence of a case of someone being exonerated purely on the grounds that he might have been elsewhere at the specific time of the crime?

If you think that being in Dorset on the day before the murder and in Dorset hours after the murder constitutes an alibi then there’s no hope for reason.


It was you who suggested that Druitt's trip to Dorset was much longer than that.

The trip to Dorset constitutes an alibi for a murder in London.

That was in response to your incorrect claim that it was a three-day trip. We don’t know when he went to Dorset or when he ended his trip.


But to try and use ‘he might have had a cast iron alibi if…” is little short of jaw-dropping.


Perhaps had he claimed to have visited Dorset without anyone seeing him there, but he was there with many companions.

I really don’t understand that point. You’ll have to explain it.


Alibi’s have to be proven not assumed or imagined or created from scratch.


His trip to Dorset was not imagined.

But his trip to Dorset isn’t an alibi.

You are the one ‘defending’ Druitt.


I am defending him from groundless insinuations that he committed a murder in Whitechapel during a cricket tour of Dorset.

Which you can’t prove with facts.

The onus is on you to prove an alibi.


The onus is on you to discredit his alibi.

There’s nothing to discredit. He doesn’t have one.

So far, the only evidence you have adduced is 'private information' that Druitt's relatives claimed he was doing rather more than playing cricket during his cricketing trip.

For about the dozenth time, I’m not trying to prove that Druitt was guilty so you’re point is irrelevant.

I suggest such 'evidence' would not have made much of an impression on a judge or jury.

Neither would: “I suggest that my client should be found innocent because for all that we know he might have had an alibi.”

You haven’t provided one iota of evidence despite being repeatedly asked.


The cricket trip is the evidence.

Then you agree that there’s no evidence.

Without it, we would likely be told that Druitt caught a train that night from Blackheath to London.

Do you think that trains didn’t exist in 1888?

Druitt has no alibi unless one is invented.


There is no need to invent one.

Then why do it?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In reply to # 261:

I provided a reference to grades of alibi in # 221.

I have argued that it is likely that Druitt had a cast-iron alibi because his visit to Dorset was a very public one with many companions; it was not a private visit.

You continue to claim that I have invented an alibi.

You evidently do not understand what constitutes an alibi in English law.

[Doctored Whatsit]

In reply to # 261:

I provided a reference to grades of alibi in # 221.

I have argued that it is likely that Druitt had a cast-iron alibi because his visit to Dorset was a very public one with many companions; it was not a private visit.

You continue to claim that I have invented an alibi.

You evidently do not understand what constitutes an alibi in English law.

PI, you are saying firstly that "it is likely that Druitt had a cast-iron alibi", and then complain that it is suggested that you have invented an alibi. I agree that Druitt quite probably would have had a decent alibi if he had been asked at the time, but he wasn't asked, so he hasn't got one!

Although Druitt is an unlikely suspect, he doesn't have an alibi. A "partial alibi", or the probability that he had an alibi, is not an alibi.

I don't rate Druitt as a suspect, I consider his presence in Whitechapel at the relevant times to be unlikely, but I refuse to say he had an alibi. Your opinion that he is likely to have had a cast-iron alibi may be correct, but it is an unproven opinion.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

PI, you are saying firstly that "it is likely that Druitt had a cast-iron alibi", and then complain that it is suggested that you have invented an alibi. I agree that Druitt quite probably would have had a decent alibi if he had been asked at the time, but he wasn't asked, so he hasn't got one!

Although Druitt is an unlikely suspect, he doesn't have an alibi. A "partial alibi", or the probability that he had an alibi, is not an alibi.

I don't rate Druitt as a suspect, I consider his presence in Whitechapel at the relevant times to be unlikely, but I refuse to say he had an alibi. Your opinion that he is likely to have had a cast-iron alibi may be correct, but it is an unproven opinion.

That's not quite correct, Doc.

I am saying that Druitt had an alibi and complain that it is suggested that I have invented an alibi.

I have stated that I believe / it is likely that he had a cast iron alibi, that I am not claiming that he had a cast iron alibi, and that it cannot at present be proven.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In reply to # 261:

I provided a reference to grades of alibi in # 221.

I have argued that it is likely that Druitt had a cast-iron alibi because his visit to Dorset was a very public one with many companions; it was not a private visit.

You continue to claim that I have invented an alibi.

You evidently do not understand what constitutes an alibi in English law.

This is what you quoted:


”By raising doubt about your whereabouts at the time of the alleged crime, an alibi defense can be a powerful tool during a criminal trial. The prosecutor still has a requirement to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If your alibi is strong, this evidence may be enough to achieve a not guilty verdict.

However, some alibis are not very strong or rely on unverifiable or untrustworthy evidence. If a jury does not believe an alibi, the prosecutor still has an opportunity to prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the jury may issue a guilty verdict despite the presence of an alibi.”

It seems to be missing even the slightest hint of grades of alibi. You are clearly confusing this with when an alibi is challenged (which is what the quote talks about) and which is something I previously mentioned. When an alibi is proposed attempts are often made to try and weaken it or to destroy it completely. So an alibi might be weakened by someone casting doubt on a witness for example. It’s not weakened or strengthened by assumptions or maybes.

So we know that only 87 runs were scored. We know that those runs could have been achieved in 2 hours and certainly less. We don’t know when the match begun but we do know that they often began at 11.00 or 12.00. So we know that the period of actual play could have ended between 1.00 and 2.00. That leaves a period of 13-14 hours for the game to have been called off and for Druitt to have gone to the nearby station to catch a train to London. So unless he got lost or drunk and then decided to travel to London by steam roller there is nothing in the evidence which makes it impossible or particularly unlikely. And the constant assumption that we know how individuals must have acted or must have thought is clearly pointless.

In court if Druitt had simply said: “I was in Dorset on the 30th,” without further evidence the prosecution would say: “the murder occurred at 3.40 on the 31st, can you prove that you were in Dorset at that time or that you couldn’t have got to Bucks Row by that time.”

And as it stands, there is nothing to prove that he couldn’t have got to London. Therefore saying ‘he was in Dorset’ is about as useful as an inflatable anchor.

I asked for proof of an alibi more than once and I’m still waiting.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just for the record….in my opinion…..of all of the named suspects only Druitt, Kosminski and Bury are worthy of a second look. They are in a different league to the rest. Others will disagree but that’s life.

[jmenges]

Cold case investigators, armchair detectives, websluths or whomever can call a new discovery about a long dead suspect an “alibi” and I think we all know what they mean. Perhaps calling it “a convincing account of his whereabouts for the Nichols murder” might not ruffle as many feathers, but I doubt it.

JM

[jmenges]

Just a few years ago Adam Selzer discovered ample new evidence that H.H. Holmes was in Chicago on several dates from mid-September to mid-October 1888. I'd go out on a limb to say that Adam's discoveries have provided H.H.Holmes an "alibi" for the Whitechapel Murders. Feel free to disagree. Or burn me at the stake. But hopefully you get my drift.

JM

[FISHY1118]

The above isn’t strictly true of course because Abberline had retired from the force whilst Macnaghten was working. So at the time he was doing his gardening in Bournemouth. So it might be said that when it came to having insider knowledge about Druitt, Abberline had a real, and not an imagined, alibi.

Of course its true, unless your calling Detective Abberline a liar without any evidence to suggest otherwise.

1 . Isnt strickly tru that he said it .

2 Isnt strickey tru he was correct.

Please provide evidence to show why ? .






But there is ''absolutely nothing'' beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him''

,''
Pay attention here herlock, read what his actually saying, ..''Found at the time'', that could mean one thing in my book , the police obviously thought enough to look into DRUITT as the whitechapel murderer. Guess what they found ,absolutely nothing.

Surely were not going down the old line that Detective Frederick Abberline was an idiot , mistaken or lied ?

[GBinOz]

I think it is generally agreed (although not proved) that Valentine had dismissed Druitt from the school on [Friday] November 30th 1888 and not on December 30th as printed in the newspaper. It is also conjectured that Druitt went to visit his mother in Tuke's asylum at Chiswick on December 1st 1888. If that is the case, it could be surmised the visit to his mother played on his mind over the weekend and he decided to commit suicide on the Monday December 3rd 1888. - ie Since Friday...

Hi erobitha,

While changing the date of dismissal is convenient if the reason for dismissal is viewed as mis-conduct, I see no reason to change the date as December 30th would fit if the reason for dismissal was Monty being AWOL.

If Monty decided to commit suicide on the Monday December 3rd, Friday November 30 could not have been the referred to Friday in the "suicide note" as that note was allegedly found at Blackheath. Besides, if the visit to his mother was the trigger, that is conjectured to have occurred on Saturday, not Friday.

Whoever wrote the "suicide note", I am persuaded that the day referred to was that of the Kelly murder.

Cheers, George