Druitt.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Druitt could have fitted various witness identifications.

(HS, # 291)


You cannot seriously be suggesting that Druitt could have been shabbily dressed in a pepper-and-salt jacket, with a neckerchief tied in a knot, and a fair moustache, chatting with Catherine Eddowes, the day before he represented a client in the West Country?

Where is the evidence that Druitt ever looked remotely like a sailor?

Are you expecting readers to believe that the stout drunkard who threw Stride about and shouted an insult at a passing Jew could have been Druitt, the day before he represented a client in the West Country?

Or that the man seen in Hanbury Street, who looked about ten years older than Druitt and a little over five feet tall, was hours later transformed into a fiercesome fast bowler?

Or perhaps you think Druitt was Astrakhan Man, in button boots and gaiters, wearing a very thick gold chain.

Please tell us what happened to Druitt's thick gold chain.

Maybe it was part of Macnaghten's 'private information.'

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Admin and I decide what constitutes a personal attack. If you feel that a post might qualify, then you should report it. I’ve given out warnings, some subtle, some not, some public, some private, based on what I have seen. We can’t be everywhere reading every post on every thread. It’s interesting with all this talk about “personal attacks” that not a single post has been reported.

JM

Thank you for the advice.

I was not sure that such reports would be welcome, but in any case I thought, upon reading your # 207, that you were well aware that I have recently been the object of personal attack.

[erobitha]

Thank you for the advice.

I was not sure that such reports would be welcome, but in any case I thought, upon reading your # 207, that you were well aware that I have recently been the object of personal attack.

PI is looking for a bravery biscuit.

[DJA]

[FISHY1118]

I’m hard work?!

I’m up against people claiming non-existent alibi’s. And you claiming that Druitt should be dismissed simply because a retired detective officer didn’t think that he was the killer.

That and everything else that has shown us nothing that Druitt was the murderer.

[Fiver]

Robert Anderson was prejudiced against Polish Jews.

Anderson was not the only police to suspect a Polish Jew. There were also Macnaghton and Swanson.

Anderson being prejudiced does not prove that he was wrong. And even if Anderson was wrong, that dies not exonerate all Polish Jewish suspects.

OTOH, John Pizer was proven to have an alibi.

[Lewis C]

I don't think that Herlock and PI are as far apart on the real issue as it would appear from the last several pages. I think that both would say that it is possible that Druitt was in Whitechapel at the time that Nichols was murdered, and certainly very possible that he wasn't. They've largely been arguing about the definition of the word "alibi". The question of what exactly constitutes an alibi need not be a roadblock to discussion about the likelihood of Druitt being in Whitechapel at the time of the murder, and certainly shouldn't get in the way of discussing other issues regarding Druitt.

[GBinOz]

To PI - I think that if we could get Macnaghten to explain the contents of his private information we would find that he had very valid reasons for calling Druitt a possible ripper.

Quite so, but since he said that he destroyed all that evidence to protect the family (from what I wonder), I fear that wish may be whistling in the wind.

Cheers, George

P.S. Looking forward to England's run chase. Hope it is not the weather that decides the result.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't think that Herlock and PI are as far apart on the real issue as it would appear from the last several pages. I think that both would say that it is possible that Druitt was in Whitechapel at the time that Nichols was murdered, and certainly very possible that he wasn't. They've largely been arguing about the definition of the word "alibi". The question of what exactly constitutes an alibi need not be a roadblock to discussion about the likelihood of Druitt being in Whitechapel at the time of the murder, and certainly shouldn't get in the way of discussing other issues regarding Druitt.

To be honest Lewis I don’t think that the specific issue of whether Druitt could or couldn’t have been (or was or wasn’t) in Whitechapel is really worth pursuing as I certainly can’t prove that he was there or that he didn’t remain in Dorset at the time of the Nichols murder. He certainly might have done. My issue was the application of the word ‘alibi,’ and the claim that he ‘probably had a cast-iron alibi.’ Let’s face it, we could all suggest that every single suspect probably had an alibi without feeling the need to prove one. I think that the point that he didn’t get was that yes, an alibi can be less solid (if, for example, witnesses can be suggested to have lied or been mistaken) but the alibi still has to be in relation to the actual time of the murder and not just a general period of a few hours either way. Then it was down to terminology with my point being that if the alibi didn’t preclude him being in Whitechapel at 3.40 then it’s not effective as an alibi. Anyone can still have an opinion on the likelihood of course but I even think that’s a bit of a dead end because it requires us to know how someone would have acted or thought. I’ve no issue with anyone saying that they think it unlikely that he returned to London though. I just don’t see it as particularly unlikely in the absence of evidence.

I just wish that Druitt and Macnaghten didn’t cause such strong feeling. Druitt has interested me for 35 and that interest is still there. Doesn’t make him a killer though of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That and everything else that has shown us nothing that Druitt was the murderer.

I’d ask a simple two-part question Fishy.

Can you name a suspect that we have real evidence for as the murderer? And if not, why should Druitt (or Lechmere or Maybrick for that matter [neither of whom I personally believe was the killer]) be eliminated from discussion on those same grounds?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Quite so, but since he said that he destroyed all that evidence to protect the family (from what I wonder), I fear that wish may be whistling in the wind.

Cheers, George

P.S. Looking forward to England's run chase. Hope it is not the weather that decides the result.

I agree that’s unlikely that we’ll ever get anything like a conclusive answer either way George. Unless someone finds Druitt’s diary of course. My money’s always been on the case remaining unsolved.

I don’t fancy England’s chances to be honest George. I agree with Boycott in that England appear to be focused on entertaining whilst the Aussies are focused on winning (and if winning is doubtful they focus on not losing - which is something England don’t do) The weather is certainly dodgy and might be a factor though a draw is no good to England of course. I was thinking of starting a cricket thread in Pub Talk btw.

[FISHY1118]

I think your looking at this the wrong way Herlock, its not a matter of the question you ask that needs answering.

Its because we don't have a great deal of evidence that can be shown to pick "A " suspect outright, were simply saying(well I am anyway) the ones who have been shown to be far less probable than possible should in my opinion be eliminated .

I just happen to believe that Druitt ,Lechmere Maybrick are three that because of their extreme unlikely almost impossible circumstances that have been shown . So again, for me and based on 100s of post that support that , I think they can be eliminated .

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think your looking at this the wrong way Herlock, its not a matter of the question you ask that needs answering.

Its because we don't have a great deal of evidence that can be shown to pick "A " suspect outright, were simply saying(well I am anyway) the ones who have been shown to be far less probable than possible should in my opinion be eliminated .

I just happen to believe that Druitt ,Lechmere Maybrick are three that because of their extreme unlikely almost impossible circumstances that have been shown . So again, for me and based on 100s of post that support that , I think they can be eliminated .

The 100’s of posts of support that came from one person you mean? Name the posters who say that discussion of certain suspects should be eliminated please.


1. What is ‘almost impossible’ about a man catching a train?

2. Who do you think should be the one who decides which suspects are less likely and therefore eliminated?

3. Every singly poster on here (apart from yourself) would call Gull about as unlikely a suspect as possible (ditto Sickert) so do you accept that, as per your own criteria, they should both be eliminated (and please don’t try the ‘this isn’t about Gull’ argument because we’re talking about suspects in general and you’ve mentioned 3 by name so it’s absolutely legitimate to ask you which ones you would or wouldn’t eliminate.)

4. If you go with these alleged ‘posts of support’ do you therefore eliminate the opinions of the posters who don’t eliminate Druitt? Are you claiming that the opinions of those who dismiss Druitt are more important or valid than those that don’t? And how do you judge which posters have valid opinions and which don’t?

5. Finally, when will you be applying to Admin for the new ‘eliminated suspects’ ruling?

I tend to expect that you won’t answer these specific questions.

[FISHY1118]

The 100’s of posts of support that came from one person you mean? Name the posters who say that discussion of certain suspects should be eliminated please.


1. What is ‘almost impossible’ about a man catching a train?

2. Who do you think should be the one who decides which suspects are less likely and therefore eliminated?

3. Every singly poster on here (apart from yourself) would call Gull about as unlikely a suspect as possible (ditto Sickert) so do you accept that, as per your own criteria, they should both be eliminated (and please don’t try the ‘this isn’t about Gull’ argument because we’re talking about suspects in general and you’ve mentioned 3 by name so it’s absolutely legitimate to ask you which ones you would or wouldn’t eliminate.)

4. If you go with these alleged ‘posts of support’ do you therefore eliminate the opinions of the posters who don’t eliminate Druitt? Are you claiming that the opinions of those who dismiss Druitt are more important or valid than those that don’t? And how do you judge which posters have valid opinions and which don’t?

5. Finally, when will you be applying to Admin for the new ‘eliminated suspects’ ruling?

I tend to expect that you won’t answer these specific questions.

You seriously have no idea what or why this topic is about herlock , I wonder if you do it purpose just get a rise , you can't grasp the concept of what I just posted , you totally ignored the reason behind it , and you have the nerve to ask them stupid questions .

Your a waste of time . But ill accommodate you when you make stupid comments any time you like.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Druitt could have fitted various witness identifications.

(HS, # 291)


You cannot seriously be suggesting that Druitt could have been shabbily dressed in a pepper-and-salt jacket, with a neckerchief tied in a knot, and a fair moustache, chatting with Catherine Eddowes, the day before he represented a client in the West Country?


Where is the evidence that Druitt ever looked remotely like a sailor?

Are you expecting readers to believe that the stout drunkard who threw Stride about and shouted an insult at a passing Jew could have been Druitt, the day before he represented a client in the West Country?

Or that the man seen in Hanbury Street, who looked about ten years older than Druitt and a little over five feet tall, was hours later transformed into a fiercesome fast bowler?

Or perhaps you think Druitt was Astrakhan Man, in button boots and gaiters, wearing a very thick gold chain.

Please tell us what happened to Druitt's thick gold chain.

Maybe it was part of Macnaghten's 'private information.'

How many of the above witnesses do you believe saw Jack ? i know you don't believe in the Hanbury st sighting for instance [ earlier time of death, as in your relevant posts on Richardson ] . So how come you are using it as evidence that Druitt wasn't the killer now ?