Druitt.

[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.

The only thing I'll be applying for is that this thread to be closed to spare P.I and myself further frustrating comments .

[Herlock Sholmes]

The only thing I'll be applying for is that this thread to be closed to spare P.I and myself further frustrating comments .

As I predicted, the questions are dodged as usual because there are no reasoned answers . I’d also suggest that PI is beyond frustration at the moment if you hadn’t noticed.

[FISHY1118]

As I predicted, the questions are dodged as usual because there are no reasoned answers . I’d also suggest that PI is beyond frustration at the moment if you hadn’t noticed.

Your questions do not require answering herlock, they they are simple statements by you that over the entire course of this topic have already been discussed and opinions given many times over , you just want to drag this out for arguement sake . Once again your tactics that dont allow for posters to have an opinion based on the evidence which you cant defend has come into play , you did it with the Richardson , JFK ,and now Druitt threads . Your the only one that does it . Well done chap.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your questions do not require answering herlock, they they are simple statements by you that over the entire course of this topic have already been discussed and opinions given many times over , you just want to drag this out for arguement sake . Once again your tactics that dont allow for posters to have an opinion based on the evidence which you cant defend has come into play , you did it with the Richardson , JFK ,and now Druitt threads .

There’s nothing wrong with opinions. Inventions and manipulations are a different thing. I tend to dislike them as almost all posters.

Your the only one that does it . Well done chap.

Nice comment from the man who is demanding that certain suspects are eliminated from discussion. Very fair-minded.

They were questions. You can tell that by my use of question marks at the end of the sentences. And they are questions that you know that you can’t answer Fishy.

I don’t mind leaving it at that. It’s there in black and white. Five questions - not one answer.

[FISHY1118]

They were questions. You can tell that by my use of question marks at the end of the sentences. And they are questions that you know that you can’t answer Fishy.

I don’t mind leaving it at that. It’s there in black and white. Five questions - not one answer.

You have my answers to your post already herlock, multiple post ,no proper relevant response . See herlock thats your game everyone knows it by now. Perhaps a change of record would better suit.

Im happy to close on that .

[FISHY1118]

"Yes," said Mr. Abberline, "I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is ''absolutely nothing'' beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him.


Still the single most daminig evidence we have that we have that puts Druitt at the bottom of the heap of suspects along side Lechmere and Maybrick imo .

Last time i checked were allowed to have opinions based on evidence . Its a pity some think otherwise.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have my answers to your post already herlock, multiple post ,no proper relevant response . See herlock thats your game everyone knows it by now. Perhaps a change of record would better suit.

I've already shown your 'tactic' Fishy. Avoid answering by constant attempts to get someone that you disagree with banned. So perhaps we should stick to the facts rather than this repetition?

Im happy to close on that .

I'll post them again as you must have missed them. They're very easy questions too.


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?

Straightforward stuff I'd have thought?

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Yes," said Mr. Abberline, "I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is ''absolutely nothing'' beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him.


Still the single most daminig evidence we have that we have that puts Druitt at the bottom of the heap of suspects along side Lechmere and Maybrick imo .

Last time i checked were allowed to have opinions based on evidence . Its a pity some think otherwise.

You certainly are allowed an opinion as we all are and I've never suggested otherwise. But you don't just want to have on opinion do you? You want others to be unable to discuss theirs. You have stated explicitly that Druitt should be eliminated from all discussion on here. So it's not just posters that you want banned it's suspects too. On what planet is that an acceptance of the opinions of others? Is that what you consider 'fair?'

[FISHY1118]

I'll post them again as you must have missed them. They're very easy questions too.


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?

Straightforward stuff I'd have thought?

So was mine which you also ignored . stop playing games herlock .

[FISHY1118]

You certainly are allowed an opinion as we all are and I've never suggested otherwise. But you don't just want to have on opinion do you? You want others to be unable to discuss theirs. You have stated explicitly that Druitt should be eliminated from all discussion on here. So it's not just posters that you want banned it's suspects too. On what planet is that an acceptance of the opinions of others? Is that what you consider 'fair?'

I never said i wanted posters banned

[FISHY1118]

No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer; many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one. I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders:


MM doesnt actually name Druitt as a suspect only that he like the other two would be more likely to have committed the crimes . Opinion based on evidence .

[Darryl Kenyon]

No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer; many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one. I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders:


MM doesnt actually name Druitt as a suspect only that he like the other two would be more likely to have committed the crimes . Opinion based on evidence .

Isn't this the crux though Fishy ? If Druitt had a cast iron alibi he wouldn't have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed a murder.

Of course there is the argument that Ostrog did have a cast iron alibi. But it seems likely that MM was unaware of it, " His whereabouts at the time of the murders could never be ascertained "

Where with Druitt he said he had private info " That he had little doubt his own family suspected him ". One has to ask what his family were doing suspecting one of their own if he had a capable and sound alibi . And if they didn't know about his trip to Dorset why not ? And wouldn't they have investigated their own family member, if fearing the worst on the relevant dates , if for peace of mind if nothing else ?

Regards Darryl

[FISHY1118]

Isn't this the crux though Fishy ? If Druitt had a cast iron alibi he wouldn't have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed a murder.

Of course there is the argument that Ostrog did have a cast iron alibi. But it seems likely that MM was unaware of it, " His whereabouts at the time of the murders could never be ascertained "

Where with Druitt he said he had private info " That he had little doubt his own family suspected him ". One has to ask what his family were doing suspecting one of their own if he had a capable and sound alibi . And if they didn't know about his trip to Dorset why not ? And wouldn't they have investigated their own family member, if fearing the worst on the relevant dates , if for peace of mind if nothing else ?

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryle, perhaps because at the time neither MM or Druitts family new or could ascertain he had a '' cast iron alibi '' , i dont put much into what his family mayor may not have said tho as we dont have any evidence of that , just my opinion on that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I never said i wanted posters banned

I didn’t say that you said it. Your repeated comments show it to have been your tactic.

And could you try not to keep changing the subject to evade answering my very simple questions based on your own previous comments.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer; many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one. I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders:


MM doesnt actually name Druitt as a suspect only that he like the other two would be more likely to have committed the crimes . Opinion based on evidence .

And his opinion the evidence that he saw. You are dismissing evidence that we have never seen to be able to assess.

So you’re assuming that the evidence wasn’t worthy of interest…..when you don’t know what that evidence was. Exactly as I’ve been saying all along, to a chorus of complaining.

Very fair-minded.