Druitt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

I’ve said nothing wrong here. Despite you’re attempts. This is my last response to any discussion of anything apart from the evidence. Just leave it Fishy.

[FISHY1118]

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

This is a druitt topic nothing to do with gull, but go who named druitt as a suspect ?

[FISHY1118]

I’ve said nothing wrong here. Despite you’re attempts. This is my last response to any discussion of anything apart from the evidence. Just leave it Fishy.

Im not attempting anythng herlock just reminding you what we were all told ,thats all . Play nice i think was the jist of it

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is a druitt topic nothing to do with gull, but go who named druitt as a suspect ?

I’ve just told you….Macnaghten. Farquaharsen before him and others after (like Moylan at the Home Office)

Im making the thread to include Gull. It’s my topic.

Do you think that Gull should be eliminated from the site? A 71 year old multiple stroke victim who was never mentioned as a suspect. Do you think that he’s more valid than a man claimed as a likely suspect by the Chief Constable?

Its an easy question.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im not attempting anythng herlock just reminding you what we were all told ,thats all . Play nice i think was the jist of it

You should take your own advice Fishy

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my #94, HS.

I can assure you that I am not trying to, nor have I ever tried to, 'silence discussion'.

I refer you to the second line of my two-line #94:

'You cannot decide that [Druitt's alibi was not good enough] especially as you have no idea what Druitt was doing in Dorset on the day of the murder.'

We cannot say that he did not have an alibi until we find out what he was doing on the day of the murder.

You have repeatedly claimed that he 'had no alibi'.

I think I detect a slight shift with your comment above, 'Druitt currently has no alibi'.

That does not mean that he had no alibi.

[FISHY1118]

I’ve just told you….Macnaghten. Farquaharsen before him and others after (like Moylan at the Home Office)

Im making the thread to include Gull. It’s my topic.

Do you think that Gull should be eliminated from the site? A 71 year old multiple stroke victim who was never mentioned as a suspect. Do you think that he’s more valid than a man claimed as a likely suspect by the Chief Constable?

Its an easy question.

Macnaghten never named Druitt as a suspect tho ,only that he claimed he was more likely to have committed the crimes than Thomas Cutbush he was using him as an example not a suspect as such .

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

Over the years researchers have gotten carried away with defining and categorising suspects. The list of "suspects" now numbers in excess of 100, with only a handful being looked upon wrongly in my opinion as prime suspects, and from this select group the real evidence to support them being labelled prime suspects is contentious, to say the least.

I have said this before many times but many of those who have been labelled prime suspects should be downgraded to the category of "persons of interest" based on what evidence there is to elevate them to prime suspects, which in most cases is based on nothing more than opinions, inaccurate police reports and researchers believing what these reports and quotes from senior officers of the day say in later years.

A Person of interest

"A person who is believed to be possibly involved in a crime but has not been charged or arrested"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

You should take your own advice Fishy

I thought id share it with you as reminder 'hint hint'

[Trevor Marriott]

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

But where is the proof we can all say we know who committed a specific crime but could we produce evidence to support our statement that is where all of these quotes are unsafe there is no corroboration, and some of them have been proved to be just that.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Over the years researchers have gotten carried away with defining and categorising suspects. The list of "suspects" now numbers in excess of 100, with only a handful being looked upon wrongly in my opinion as prime suspects, and from this select group the real evidence to support them being labelled prime suspects is contentious, to say the least.

I have said this before many times but many of those who have been labelled prime suspects should be downgraded to the category of "persons of interest" based on what evidence there is to elevate them to prime suspects, which in most cases is based on nothing more than opinions, inaccurate police reports and researchers believing what these reports and quotes from senior officers of the day say in later years.

A Person of interest

"A person who is believed to be possibly involved in a crime but has not been charged or arrested"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So how should we treat one M.J Druitt then POI OR SUSPECT or should he be neither ? seeing how you posted here i think its fair you give us your opinion.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

... the murderer's brain gave way altogether after his awful glut in Miller's Court, and that he immediately committed suicide ... [Druitt] disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder ...


(MACNAGHTEN)


[the Ripper] escaped justice by committing suicide at the end of 1888


(MOYLAN)


The story that [Farquharson] was privately telling people in 1891 is that the surgeon's son suffered from a homicidal mania and was a killer of harlots, and that he had 'confessed' to the crimes by destroying himself the same night as his final victim.


(HAINSWORTH)

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/persons-of-interest-or-actual-suspects/m-j-druitt/19711-why-was-druitt-sacked/page6

It is obvious that none of these three men - Macnaghten, Moylan, and Farquharson - knew anything about the identity of the murderer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my #94, HS.

I can assure you that I am not trying to, nor have I ever tried to, 'silence discussion'.

I refer you to the second line of my two-line #94:

'You cannot decide that [Druitt's alibi was not good enough] especially as you have no idea what Druitt was doing in Dorset on the day of the murder.'

We cannot say that he did not have an alibi until we find out what he was doing on the day of the murder.

You have repeatedly claimed that he 'had no alibi'.

I think I detect a slight shift with your comment above, 'Druitt currently has no alibi'.

That does not mean that he had no alibi.

Ive always had the same opinion however the wording PI. Druitt has no alibi that we are aware of. Of course he ‘might’ have had one that we are as yet unaware of but that’s of no use in any assessment of him. If it was then we could use it to try and dismiss any suspect, but I don’t think that Wulf would be too impressed if I’d tried that argument: “we can dismiss Bury because for all that we know he might have had an alibi.”

So, as far as we are concerned, he has no alibi. If one is proven, as I’ve said, I’ll be the first to acknowledge it. So we are left with a simple, and rather pointless argument that could go on forever. You think that he’s a weak subject (and some people agree with you) but I don’t (and some agree with me) although of course I accept the fact that most are in the former category.

Im interested in Druitt, others aren’t.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Over the years researchers have gotten carried away with defining and categorising suspects. The list of "suspects" now numbers in excess of 100, with only a handful being looked upon wrongly in my opinion as prime suspects, and from this select group the real evidence to support them being labelled prime suspects is contentious, to say the least.

I have said this before many times but many of those who have been labelled prime suspects should be downgraded to the category of "persons of interest" based on what evidence there is to elevate them to prime suspects, which in most cases is based on nothing more than opinions, inaccurate police reports and researchers believing what these reports and quotes from senior officers of the day say in later years.

A Person of interest

"A person who is believed to be possibly involved in a crime but has not been charged or arrested"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We’ve had this argument too many times Trevor. However we name them, ‘suspects’ ‘prime suspects,’ ‘persons of interest,’ it has absolutely no effect on anything and certainly achieves no benefits.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But where is the proof we can all say we know who committed a specific crime but could we produce evidence to support our statement that is where all of these quotes are unsafe there is no corroboration, and some of them have been proved to be just that.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We have no evidence against any suspect Trevor. Why does Druitt alone merit this stridency?