Druitt.

[FISHY1118]

A second tactical attempt.

At what ?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It would have been for a court to decide whether his alibi was good enough or not.

You cannot decide that, especially as you have no idea what Druitt was doing in Dorset on the day of the murder.

The above was my # 94, which, as Fishy pointed out in # 99, was simply ignored by HS in his # 97.

[FISHY1118]

The above was my # 94, which, as Fishy pointed out in # 99, was simply ignored by HS in his # 97.

As i pointed out id just like to see herlock respond to other posters the same way he responds to p.i and my self where druitt is concerned, then maybe we can discuss the topic at hand a little better .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whine , whine, whine , im not interested in your comments , Druitt has been shown to be a weak suspect by a lot more posters than just me , like maybrick to much importance is placed on him as a jtr legitimate suspect.

You do this to yourself, thats obvious
.

Your’e the one who is constantly complaining Fishy.

Ill repeat my open question.

Is there any poster on here who will stand up and say that Montague John Druitt is a weaker suspect than the 71 year old multiple stroke victim Sir William Gull?

Therefore if everyone agrees that Gull is as unlikely as suspects get then we have to ask why you don’t call for him to be eliminated as a suspect?

[Herlock Sholmes]

At what ?

Trying to get me banned. You’ve tried the same thing many times.

[FISHY1118]

Your’e the one who is constantly complaining Fishy.

Ill repeat my open question.

Is there any poster on here who will stand up and say that Montague John Druitt is a weaker suspect than the 71 year old multiple stroke victim Sir William Gull?

Therefore if everyone agrees that Gull is as unlikely as suspects get then we have to ask why you don’t call for him to be eliminated as a suspect?

But were not talking about gull tho are we ,whether gull is a weak suspect or not can be debated all posters want . But what we know about druitt makes him a very Very weak suspect, thats what were discussing so lets stick to that and the evidence that supports it .

[FISHY1118]

Trying to get me banned. You’ve tried the same thing many times.

Nonsense , ive done no such thing .

[Herlock Sholmes]

As i pointed out id just like to see herlock respond to other posters the same way he responds to p.i and my self where druitt is concerned, then maybe we can discuss the topic at hand a little better .

You should deduce something from that Fishy. Al thinks Druitt is a weak suspect as do many others but there is a difference with them and it’s why I react differently. They don’t call for discussion of him to be eliminated from the site. They don’t exhibit any anger or irritation. They don’t try to claim alibi’s that there is no evidence for. They just give their honest opinions with anger or a sense of anything personal.

If someone produces evidence that exonerates Druitt (and one day they might) I’ll be the first person to accept it. I won’t do what’s done on this thread and others by a very few…keep on desperately arguing because they have an agenda.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nonsense , ive done no such thing .

Everyone can see it Fishy. I have a page of cut and pasted examples (no I’m not going to get myself in trouble by posting them)

[Herlock Sholmes]

But were not talking about gull tho are we ,whether gull is a weak suspect or not can be debated all posters want . But what we know about druitt makes him a very Very weak suspect, thats what were discussing so lets stick to that and the evidence that supports it .

Nice try. I started the thread so it’s only right that I decide what’s discussed. I think that it’s absolutely relevant.

So why do you want to see Druitt eliminated and yet you give a free pass to a suspect who, as far as I’m aware, you are the only person to still support? Does your view exhibit balance? It’s a fair question Fishy.

[FISHY1118]

You should deduce something from that Fishy. Al thinks Druitt is a weak suspect as do many others but there is a difference with them and it’s why I react differently. They don’t call for discussion of him to be eliminated from the site. They don’t exhibit any anger or irritation. They don’t try to claim alibi’s that there is no evidence for. They just give their honest opinions with anger or a sense of anything personal.

If someone produces evidence that exonerates Druitt (and one day they might) I’ll be the first person to accept it. I won’t do what’s done on this thread and others by a very few…keep on desperately arguing because they have an agenda.

He doesnt need to be exonerated because he was never a suspect .

[FISHY1118]

Everyone can see it Fishy. I have a page of cut and pasted examples (no I’m not going to get myself in trouble by posting them)

Remember when we were all told told to pull our heads in Herlock ?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'm surprised to discover that I have an agenda.

Maybe someone can tell me what it is.

I've been accused of inventing alibis, falsely claiming that Druitt had an alibi, and falsely claiming that he has a cast iron alibi.

As I wrote to HS in # 94:

'It would have been for a court to decide whether his alibi was good enough or not.

You cannot decide that, especially as you have no idea what Druitt was doing in Dorset on the day of the murder.'

We do not know.

It is HS who has repeatedly, but obviously not obsessively, claimed that Druitt did not have an alibi.

He cannot possibly know that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It would have been for a court to decide whether his alibi was good enough or not.

You cannot decide that, especially as you have no idea what Druitt was doing in Dorset on the day of the murder.

Ive been accused of ignoring this post. I wasn’t aware that I hadn’t responded but even if I haven’t responded specifically it’s an old point which I’ve responded to previous but I’m happy to do so again.

I genuinely feel like I’m trying to explain that B comes after A in the alphabet to someone who is disputing it. I’ll have one final try because I’ve never been this bored on a thread.

Some very good research was done where a researcher called Joanna asked if it proved that Druitt couldn’t have been in Bucks Row at the time of the Nichols murder.

Various researchers (Roger Palmer, Steve Blomer, Chris Phillips, Gary Barnett etc - none of whom are ‘Druittist’ and so are impartial) looked into this in depth. We looked at the match in question plus others for context (I contacted a man who researched Victorian era cricket matches [i’m a lifelong cricket fan myself btw]) The train timetables were researched fully including the distance from the cricket ground to the local train station.

The clear conclusion of those researchers was that the cricket match (whilst a very good piece of research by Joanna) was that this match did not provide Druitt with an alibi.

An unexpected by-product of that research was that despite all of us believing for years that Druitt had a cricket-based alibi for the murder of Tabram (from DJ Leighton’s book) it turned out not to be the case (as shown in Roger’s earlier post)

……

So the inescapable conclusion is that Druitt currently has no alibi for any of the murders. Two points…

1. Of course this in absolutely no way points to guilt and clearly I have never claimed this.

2. What is being suggested by PI is that just because he has no proven alibi he might have had one that we aren’t aware of. Where does this get us? Nowhere. We could say this about any suspect. If an alibi can’t be verified then it isn’t an alibi….it’s a ‘maybe,’ a ‘what if,’ or a ‘you never know, he might have had one,’ which clearly serves no purpose.

……

I don’t understand, and have never understood, why certain people can’t just say “I think that Druitt is a weak suspect?” Others say the same and the evidence proves that I have no problem with this. But what we get are these desperate and pointless attempts to prove an unknown or to get Druitt (and me for that matter) eliminated from the site. Why should individuals feel such anger against a suspect in a 135 year old case? Why is it so important that whenever the name of Druitt gets mentioned we have to go through this prolonged rigmarole. The constant contortions and spurious claims.

I have no interest in Maybrick so I don’t discuss him. I have no interest in Mann as a suspect so I don’t discuss him. I have no interest in Chapman as a suspect so I don’t discus him. So why do people who clearly have no real interest in Druitt feel the need to argue black is white (whilst constantly playing the imaginary victim) in an attempt to silence discussion by people who are interested in him. I’ve wasted far too much time in a call for an open-minded approach on Druitt but I’m wasting my time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He doesnt need to be exonerated because he was never a suspect .

He was to the Assistant Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police. Which police officer suspected Gull?