Druitt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

From PI on the Lechmere thread:

“I am saying that Druitt did have an alibi, that I believe it was cast-iron, but because he was never accused, it appears to be impossible to prove it.”

So he’s clearly saying that he thinks Druitt has a cast-iron alibi though we have no evidence to prove it.

So it’s nothing more that intuition or speculation and with no basis in fact whatsoever.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So we all agree that there’s an alibi.
Graat. Let’s please move on in peace.

JM

I’m saying categorically that we have no reason to claim an alibi for Druitt.

But I’m happy to move on.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The statement that he would have been with his companions “…during the day - as well as the night,” is about as blatant an invention as could possibly exist.

At the risk of delaying the hoped-for outbreak of peace, may I point out yet again that I have not invented anything.

Druitt 'was with a large number of companions and would have been with them during the day - as well as night'.

It was you who pointed out that my statement that it was a three-day trip was an incorrect assumption because the trip could have lasted for much longer.

I am wondering whether you think the trip did not include accommodation.

I wonder whether you think that after having dinner with his colleagues on the 30th, he may have announced that he was leaving for London, and returned the following day.

I wonder why, if his excuse for leaving was that he had an appointment the following day, he could not have caught a train in the morning and kept the appointment in the late morning or afternoon, thereby missing the murder.

[jmenges]

An author has theorized that Cream used a body double, escaped from prison, committed the WM and returned to prison. There's no evidence he didn't do that, so it has been proposed. The same for Sickert in France. Ostrog, could have escaped from prison too. There's no evidence he didn't. But we scoff at these theories because while possible, its highly improbable. We tend to at the very least require evidence that a suspect was in London, or evidence they traveled there. I view Dorset and Druitt much the same way. Unless evidence exists that he left Dorset, Ripperologists cannot be blamed for believing that, based on the existing evidence, he stayed in Dorset.

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

But we can’t suggest or even assume that he was with his friends at night. Im at a loss as to how I can respond to “after having dinner with his colleagues?” It’s an assumption and therefore an invention. There’s simply no other ‘politer’ way of putting it I’m afraid. We have no evidence that he had dinner with his colleagues or with anyone so we can’t assume it because it’s convenient.

His accommodation wasn’t an issue because his family home was in Wimborne and we can’t assume that he’d have invited friends over as the majority were local men.

Why didn’t he catch a train early the next day? How can any of us know the answer to that? But one possibility would be that he’d intended to do just that because he’d assumed that he’d be playing a full game of cricket. As the match clearly finished early he might have decided to travel that evening so that he didn’t have to get up at the crack of dawn to catch his train.. Or he might have seen an opportunity to commit murder. Serial killers don’t think as we do.

If Druitt left for London after explaining to his friends earlier of his plans we can’t expect them to have considered this suspicious. If someone at the time had suggested that their friend Monty was the ripper they would no doubt have called it preposterous. He was a respectable man after all. And we certainly can’t assume that they would have given him an alibi. They might have done but they might not have. We can’t say either way so we can’t use it to exonerate him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

An author has theorized that Cream used a body double, escaped from prison, committed the WM and returned to prison. There's no evidence he didn't do that, so it has been proposed. The same for Sickert in France. Ostrog, could have escaped from prison too. There's no evidence he didn't. But we scoff at these theories because while possible, its highly improbable. We tend to at the very least require evidence that a suspect was in London, or evidence they traveled there. I view Dorset and Druitt much the same way. Unless evidence exists that he left Dorset, Ripperologists cannot be blamed for believing that, based on the existing evidence, he stayed in Dorset.

JM

They can believe it Jon but they can’t state it as a fact as long as it’s possible that he could have returned.

[jmenges]

It’s opinion. I think that saying he stayed in Dorset is not as great of an assumption as saying he didn’t. But ultimately we just don’t know what he did. So, it’s up to us as individuals to decide how we rate the existing evidence. Some of us would need proof he left since we think it’s more probable that he stayed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s opinion. I think that saying he stayed in Dorset is not as great of an assumption as saying he didn’t. But ultimately we just don’t know what he did. So, it’s up to us as individuals to decide how we rate the existing evidence. Some of us would need proof he left since we think it’s more probable that he stayed.

I have no problem with that Jon. We all interpret stuff differently at times.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

But we can’t suggest or even assume that he was with his friends at night. Im at a loss as to how I can respond to “after having dinner with his colleagues?” It’s an assumption and therefore an invention.


An invented dinner?

If Druitt did not even dine with his colleagues, nor share accommodation with them, I'm left wondering why he needed to provide any excuse at all to go back to London.



Why didn’t he catch a train early the next day? How can any of us know the answer to that? But one possibility would be that he’d intended to do just that because he’d assumed that he’d be playing a full game of cricket.


If you mean that he assumed he would be playing cricket on the 31st, I wonder how you expect him to have done that after a night out stalking prostitutes and committing murder.



As the match clearly finished early he might have decided to travel that evening so that he didn’t have to get up at the crack of dawn to catch his train.. Or he might have seen an opportunity to commit murder.


He has to go to Dorset to see an opportunity to commit murder in Whitechapel?!?



Serial killers don’t think as we do.


That reminds me of an exchange I had with Christer Holmgren, when he suggested that Lechmere lied about when he left for work.

When I questioned this, he replied that serial murderers are liars.



If Druitt left for London after explaining to his friends earlier of his plans we can’t expect them to have considered this suspicious.


I suppose that is not 'nothing more that intuition or speculation and with no basis in fact whatsoever'.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No one but you has mentioned an excuse to go back. It was you that floated the idea of Druitt using his trip to Dorset as an alibi. All that I’ve done is to suggest a possible alternative to the claim that he could only have returned to London purely to kill. He could have returned to London for another reason. We can’t know.

I didn’t mean that. I mean that he was playing cricket on the 31st and assumed that the game would have finished later in the day (possibly too late to get a train back to London) No one can assume how long a game of cricket can take and so a shorter game (with fewer runs scored) would have allowed him to avoid an early morning train by going to London that afternoon. As it turned out only one innings per side was played and a mere 87 runs was scored in total. (As a cricket fan you’ll know that 87 runs can easily be scored in two hours or less.) So the game would have finished even earlier than he could have expected. Giving him ample time to travel.

No, that’s not what I meant. I meant that if Druitt was a killer he might have seen an opportunity to kill when the game finished much earlier than expected and he had the opportunity of going back to London that evening instead of next morning.

Few have spent as much time disagreeing with Christer than I have but its simply a fact. Serial killers don’t think as we do. Surely you wouldn’t dispute that point too?

Yes it is ‘pure speculation and intuition’ PI because what you’re saying is that Druitt would have had an alibi had his friends been asked at the time. Hence you’re claim about a cast iron alibi. But you can’t know what his friends would or wouldn’t have said (and neither do I btw) so what else is a claim that you do know but an invention?

I can’t understand why you feel that it’s reasonable to try and exonerate someone on the basis that he ‘he might have had an alibi if only he’d been investigated at the time.’ Surely you can see that we could apply this to every single suspect but what would it achieve. It would be like someone saying “well Buy should be eliminated because for all that we know he was somewhere else at the time and I’m sure someone would have confirmed this had they been asked.” If that doesn’t make sense for Bury (or any suspect) why does it make sense for Druitt?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I can’t understand why you feel that it’s reasonable to try and exonerate someone on the basis that he might have had an alibi if only he’d been investigated at the time.

Druitt did have an alibi.

Had he been investigated at the time, it might have been proven to be a cast-iron alibi.

A person against whom no evidence has ever been produced, and against whom the detective investigating the case stated there was no evidence, does not need to be exonerated.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I suspected. There’s no point in continuing. If you think that being in Dorset on the day before the murder and in Dorset hours after the murder constitutes an alibi then there’s no hope for reason.

But to try and use ‘he might have had a cast iron alibi if…” is little short of jaw-dropping.

Alibi’s have to be proven not assumed or imagined or created from scratch.

You are the one ‘defending’ Druitt. The onus is on you to prove an alibi. You haven’t provided one iota of evidence despite being repeatedly asked.

Druitt has no alibi unless one is invented.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I’m aware of course that continuing this ‘alibi’ discussion is pointless. I’d suggest that everyone, no matter how they feel about Druitt as a suspect, can understand the point and it’s why not one single person has stepped up to say “yes I agree that Druitt had an alibi.”

Your statement appears to be out-of-date.

[jmenges]

Alibi’s do not have to be proven. Alibi’s are simply asserted. The burden is on the accuser to prove that there’s enough evidence to place him at the scene of the crime.

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m not claiming that he was the murderer though. I’m making no definite claim as to his guilt or innocence. I don’t know who the murderer was. I’m merely saying that he might have been the murderer. PI is the one that’s making the definite claim. He needs to prove the alibi.

“An alibi defense is showing evidence a defendant was not at the scene when the crime occurred. Simply put, under criminal law, an alibi is a legal defense strategy where a defendant provides evidence they couldn't have committed the crime because they were somewhere else when the crime occurred.”

This doesn’t mean proving that the defendant was elsewhere 8 or 10 or 12 hours either side of that murder unless you can prove that travel was impossible or else, at the very least, extremely unlikely. A man with ample time getting on a train that he’d used numerous times would not provide anything like sufficient doubt to be able to describe his time in Dorset as an alibi.