Tweet
The arguments used to dismiss Druitt aren’t really worthy of discussion as they are more than a little embarrassing and one dimensional. Just desperate attempts to manufacture a reason to dismiss him out of thin air by claiming to know what we don’t. There’s no real evidence against any suspect and yet this argument seems only to get applied to Druitt. I wonder why? Where are the threads where people rant against Mann or Bachert or Gull or Sickert or Hardiman or Endacott or any number of other joke suspects? Where are the threads of posters angrily dismissing Kelly or Chapman or Thompson? They don’t exist these days. Mention Druitt though and they all come out of the woodwork with the same tired old tirades. Constructive discussion on this subject is always impossible because Druitt and Macnaghten are red rags.
That Kosminski and Druitt were mentioned by senior police officers must raise them onto any lists unless people aren’t really interested in the case in an unbiased way and their whole purpose is simply to dismiss one suspect over all others. If someone seeks to dismiss Druitt out of hand then they are hopelessly biased. There is no other explanation. I’m bored of listening to it. The subject as a whole suffers.
If we look at each suspect in regard to evidence, looking at various criteria, then one suspect is head and shoulders above the rest……William Henry Bury. I can say this because I’m not biased. I don’t bend over backwards to support or dismiss any suspects. There are many others on here who are also unbiased and keep an open mind. Many who believe Druitt a poor suspect but they don’t foam at the mouth about him and lose all sense of proportion. Sadly there are some who appear to think that they know some things as a fact which the rest of us don’t. Their assumptions become facts in their own minds. There’s much that we don’t know and if we don’t know something which shouldn’t try and parachute in an opinion disguised as an proven answer.
We don’t know what Macnaghten’s information was. That’s it. There should be no “yes but it must have been a lie,” or “yes but it must have been wrong.” No one knows. But we do know that he called him a likely suspect. This is enough in a case riddled with non-suspects like Mann and ridiculous ones like Gull. If some people aren’t interested in Druitt that’s perfectly fine but they shouldn’t stoop to making things up just to try and dismiss him. It won’t work.
That Kosminski and Druitt were mentioned by senior police officers must raise them onto any lists unless people aren’t really interested in the case in an unbiased way and their whole purpose is simply to dismiss one suspect over all others. If someone seeks to dismiss Druitt out of hand then they are hopelessly biased. There is no other explanation. I’m bored of listening to it. The subject as a whole suffers.
If we look at each suspect in regard to evidence, looking at various criteria, then one suspect is head and shoulders above the rest……William Henry Bury. I can say this because I’m not biased. I don’t bend over backwards to support or dismiss any suspects. There are many others on here who are also unbiased and keep an open mind. Many who believe Druitt a poor suspect but they don’t foam at the mouth about him and lose all sense of proportion. Sadly there are some who appear to think that they know some things as a fact which the rest of us don’t. Their assumptions become facts in their own minds. There’s much that we don’t know and if we don’t know something which shouldn’t try and parachute in an opinion disguised as an proven answer.
We don’t know what Macnaghten’s information was. That’s it. There should be no “yes but it must have been a lie,” or “yes but it must have been wrong.” No one knows. But we do know that he called him a likely suspect. This is enough in a case riddled with non-suspects like Mann and ridiculous ones like Gull. If some people aren’t interested in Druitt that’s perfectly fine but they shouldn’t stoop to making things up just to try and dismiss him. It won’t work.
Comment