Druitt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can tell you that some people are close to ignoring your posts, due to your constant personal attacks on them.

Your statement, 'Therefore you are accusing me of making an untrue statement' obviously does not follow from what you wrote in the preceding two sentences.

I would be surprised if you could find anyone who genuinely agrees with you on that point.

It is true, however, that you have frequently made untrue statements about me, and I have given plenty of examples of your doing that.

Unfortunately, you have shown time and again that you are not prepared to discuss any case without making personal attacks on me.

I haven’t made one single personal attack on you PI. Not one. You are employing exactly the same tactic that Fishy used but constantly using phrases like that in the hope of inducing a ban. It’s so transparent as to be more than a little embarrassing. Please stick to discussing the case.

As I said earlier PI. Try harder to remove the personal from your posting and if you do want people to engage with you then you should be aware that they are less likely to do so with your constant complaining. If they feel that you’re going to keep going on about ‘personal attacks’ every time someone says that something that you’ve said isn’t true. It’s the nature of debate that we will all be accused of making untrue claims.

I’ll end this point by using Trevor as an example. Trevor and I have had many, what might be term ‘heated’ exchanges, where we’ve become exasperated with each others argument but I can’t recall a single example (in around 5 years) of Trevor whining about ‘attacks.’ If I recall correctly (and I apologise to him in advance if I’m wrong) he once called me a ‘muppet.’ I didn’t complain about a personal attack. We just continued to debate. Debate can get heated and yes, I can certainly get irritated and use sarcasm and mockery, but it would be good if others acknowledged their own faults too.

So let’s stick to the topic at hand shall we?

[Trevor Marriott]

And you are twisting language. Hearsay is something that isn’t corroborated. So whatever facts were placed fore Macnaghten might have been corroborated by a family member for all that we know. So it might not have been hearsay to Macnaghten….and that fact that he clearly took it seriously makes it likely. It doesn’t mean that Druitt was guilty of course but it could have been the case the the evidence that he was given was proven genuine.

But he couldn't have taken it that seriously because he got so many facts about Druitt wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Druitt is nothing more than a person of interest

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You clearly do not know how to reply to another poster without being gratuitously condescending.

I started watching Test cricket before my teens.

Druitt is known to have been a fast bowler.

The scorecards show him taking the wickets of opening batsmen, which is entirely consistent with his having been a fast bowler.

Jmmy Anderson and Stuart Broad have both consistently taken the wickets of opening batsman. Neither are considered fast bowlers. Ditto Glenn McGrath. Ditto a long list that I could provide if that’s what you wanted.

I do not need to ask the opinion of 'someone else who is also a cricket fan'.

I am a lifelong cricket fan.

Then you should have known that someone consider ‘fast’ at amateur level isn’t considered ‘fast’ when compared with genuine fast bowlers like Jeff Thomson or Michael Holding.

None of this is relevant by the way. We don’t know how tall Druitt was. And his cricket playing doesn’t tell us either.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've got to jump in here. Firstly I do NOT think Druitt was JtR. Certainly height is a big advantage for a fast bowler. However, Harold Larwood who was without doubt express pace was of average height at 5ft 8 ins or 1.73 m. Herlock is correct in saying a score card gives no indication of what a bowler's pace is. Perhaps the only clue can be gained from the fall of wickets column where an early dismissal MAY indicate a fast bowler in action at the beginning of the innings.

I was thinking of shorter fast bowlers but forgot about Larwood.

Cheers

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I've got to jump in here. Firstly I do NOT think Druitt was JtR. Certainly height is a big advantage for a fast bowler. However, Harold Larwood who was without doubt express pace was of average height at 5ft 8 ins or 1.73 m. Herlock is correct in saying a score card gives no indication of what a bowler's pace is. Perhaps the only clue can be gained from the fall of wickets column where an early dismissal MAY indicate a fast bowler in action at the beginning of the innings.

In his final year at Winchester, 1875–76, Druitt was Prefect of Chapel, treasurer of the debating society, school fives champion, and opening bowler for the cricket team.^[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montague_Druitt

By the end of his time at school he was heavily involved in school life as Prefect of the Chapel and treasurer of the debating society, and in athletic life as opening bowler of the school cricket team. In 1876 he was given a scholarship to attend New College, Oxford.

https://comicvine.gamespot.com/john-druitt/4005-30938/

December 1, 1888. Most probably the day on which Montague John Druitt, anopening bowler of considerable talent, drowned himself in the Thames.

For Winchester, he had played against Marylebone Cricket Club in 1876 as a nippy opening bowler. He continued to play the game during his days in Oxford, although not quite making it to the University team.

https://www.cricketcountry.com/articles/the-death-of-montague-john-druitt-the-cricketer-suspected-of-being-jack-the-ripper-71074

[Herlock Sholmes]

I could not care less whether you think what I wrote is 'good enough'.

I made two points.

They stand on their merits.

You can quibble about alibis if you wish, but I did not make any statement about an alibi.

I would just add that I do not know how you yourself could claim to be impartial when you are prepared to accept hearsay against a so-called suspect.

If you don’t care why are you getting so annoyed PI?

As I said earlier. You should remove the personal and approach the case considering just the topic without focusing on the person that you’re debating with.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If you don’t care why are you getting so annoyed PI?

As I said earlier. You should remove the personal and approach the case considering just the topic without focusing on the person that you’re debating with.

It is about time you started taking your own advice on that point.

[FISHY1118]

I haven’t made one single personal attack on you PI. Not one. You are employing exactly the same tactic that Fishy used but constantly using phrases like that in the hope of inducing a ban. It’s so transparent as to be more than a little embarrassing. Please stick to discussing the case.

As I said earlier PI. Try harder to remove the personal from your posting and if you do want people to engage with you then you should be aware that they are less likely to do so with your constant complaining. If they feel that you’re going to keep going on about ‘personal attacks’ every time someone says that something that you’ve said isn’t true. It’s the nature of debate that we will all be accused of making untrue claims.

I’ll end this point by using Trevor as an example. Trevor and I have had many, what might be term ‘heated’ exchanges, where we’ve become exasperated with each others argument but I can’t recall a single example (in around 5 years) of Trevor whining about ‘attacks.’ If I recall correctly (and I apologise to him in advance if I’m wrong) he once called me a ‘muppet.’ I didn’t complain about a personal attack. We just continued to debate. Debate can get heated and yes, I can certainly get irritated and use sarcasm and mockery, but it would be good if others acknowledged their own faults too.

So let’s stick to the topic at hand shall we?

Dont invent stuff about me herlock just to make a point to another poster ,your paranoia is rearing its ugly head againnnnnn. So stick to the topic at hand indeed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dont invent stuff about me herlock just to make a point to another poster ,your paranoia is rearing its ugly head againnnnnn. So stick to the topic at hand indeed.

More anger.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Then you should have known that someone consider ‘fast’ at amateur level isn’t considered ‘fast’ when compared with genuine fast bowlers like Jeff Thomson or Michael Holding.

None of this is relevant by the way. We don’t know how tall Druitt was. And his cricket playing doesn’t tell us either.

Druitt played twice for MCC, which suggests that he was genuinely fast.

But this isn't about whether he was a 'genuine' fast bowler.

He was considered to be a fast bowler.

This is not about 'knowing' how tall he was.

He was a fast bowler and fast bowlers usually were and are tall.

People who have studied the photograph of him at his desk have estimated his height to be much greater than that of the supposed suspects described by witnesses.

[FISHY1118]

More anger.

No just a fact you need to be made aware of , thats all .

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I haven’t made one single personal attack on you PI. Not one.

You have made personal attacks on me dozens of times.

I do not propose to quote them but if you choose to continue to deny this, I may change my mind.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Druitt played twice for MCC, which suggests that he was genuinely fast.

But this isn't about whether he was a 'genuine' fast bowler.

He was considered to be a fast bowler.

This is not about 'knowing' how tall he was.

He was a fast bowler and fast bowlers usually were and are tall.

People who have studied the photograph of him at his desk have estimated his height to be much greater than that of the supposed suspects described by witnesses.

But this proves nothing PI as we know from the many studies done on witness identification how they can err. Jeff produced at least some of this research which I thought you’d have read. Unless you dispute the experts findings?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have made personal attacks on me dozens of times.

I do not propose to quote them but if you choose to continue to deny this, I may change my mind.

I’m no longer going to respond to personal stuff.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Druitt played twice for MCC, which suggests that he was genuinely fast.

But this isn't about whether he was a 'genuine' fast bowler.

He was considered to be a fast bowler.

This is not about 'knowing' how tall he was.

He was a fast bowler and fast bowlers usually were and are tall.

People who have studied the photograph of him at his desk have estimated his height to be much greater than that of the supposed suspects described by witnesses.

I wasn’t aware of the MCC rule which only allowed fast bowlers to play?

Will you respond to the point that I made? I’ve heard Anderson and Broad called ‘fast bowlers’ numerous time. Neither are fast bowlers.