Druitt.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

"Yes," said Mr. Abberline, "I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is ''absolutely nothing'' beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him.


ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Macnaghten wrote this:

his whereabouts at the time of the murders could never be ascertained

about Ostrog, not Druitt.

[FISHY1118]

Macnaghten wrote this:

his whereabouts at the time of the murders could never be ascertained

about Ostrog, not Druitt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im convinced you have no idea how to responsed to a simply ''fact'' but to go round in circles as to avoid a direct answer to a simple question , which is plainly obvious for all to see . Goodness me your hard work .

I’m hard work?!

I’m up against people claiming non-existent alibi’s. And you claiming that Druitt should be dismissed simply because a retired detective officer didn’t think that he was the killer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Macnaghten wrote this:

his whereabouts at the time of the murders could never be ascertained

about Ostrog, not Druitt.

Possibly the least relevant point ever made.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I’m up against people claiming non-existent alibi’s. And you claiming that Druitt should be dismissed simply because a retired detective officer didn’t think that he was the killer.

I will take your first line as a compliment - an acknowledgement that I am not alone in my view that Druitt had an alibi.

As for your second line, it is about rather more than that Abberline 'did not think he was the killer'.

It was his assertion that there was absolutely no evidence against Druitt.

That is something you ought to bear in mind when you talk about 'non existent alibis'.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In reply to # 265: by 'grades of alibi', I meant the strength of the alibi.

And the ‘alibi’ that you claim is weak.

Druitt was in Dorset on a cricketing trip at the time of the Nichols murder.

This is factually incorrect. The time of the Nichols murder was around 3.40 am on the morning of the 31st. We cannot prove that Druitt was in Dorset at that time.

Every time I point out this fact, you object that we do not know exactly where he was at the exact time of the murder.

Because it’s an assumption and not a fact. You treat it as a fact.

If Druitt spent the whole duration of that three-day match with his teammates, then he had a cast-iron alibi.

And we haven’t a jot of evidence to claim that as a fact. But, true to form, this is exactly what you do.

If he absented himself on the evening of the 30th, then he might not have, but he might still have spent the evening somewhere where he could be identified.

And he could have done thousands of other things. He could have gone to Weymouth and joined a clog dancing troupe but we have no evidence for it. Feel free to assume it as usual though PI.

I would like to know why this consideration - that we do not know exactly where a suspect was - seems always to work against him.

This is an invention. I have never once, at any time, said that it works against him. I’ll repeat it for you PI in case you missed it that last dozen or so times that I’ve said it. We cannot prove or disprove an alibi. I’m happy to admit to the possibility of his complete innocence because I’m approaching the subject fairly and with an open mind. You and Fishy on the other hand are positively attempted to dismiss him simply because you want to and to try and do this you are trying to invent alibi’s that we have no evidence for where you appear to deny the existence of trains or the possibility of a man travelling from one town to another.

We know that he was in the West Country on the day following the double murder.

A day later. Whoopie.

How do we know that he was not in the West Country for the duration of the weekend immediately preceding those murders, thereby providing himself with an unshakeable alibi?

How do we know that he want really a woman called Beryl? Please, please stop saying “what if he had an alibi PI” Surely you can see how desperate it sounds? Do you really need to resort to that?

It is not true, as you have claimed, that Druitt 'had no alibi'.

When have no evidence to show that he couldn’t have gone to London. This is a 100% unshakeable fact. This is more than enough.

You ask for proof that he had an alibi.

The record of the match proves that he was in Dorset.

I won’t keep explaining the obvious to you PI. I’m genuinely getting a little embarrassed at being required to do it. The match in now way, by no stretch of the imagination, in any version of reality, indicates that Druitt was in Dorset at the time of the murder. You are moving the goalposts to encompass an unnecessarily wide time frame. The only relevant time is 3.40 am on the 31st. If we can’t prove that he couldn’t have been there it’s game over for your argument.

That is the alibi.

Then it’s not an alibi. It’s a work of fiction.

The full details of his whereabouts would have been provided had he been challenged.

But he wasn’t and so the point is moot. And yet you keep making it.

We have no reason to think that they would not have been satisfactory.

No one could take the above sentence seriously. Read it back to yourself PI. You’re talking about what someone might have said had they been interviewed. Can I borrow your crystal ball when you’ve finished with it PI please?

Where is your proof that the police had any evidence that he was in Whitechapel on the morning of the 31st of August?

He was not investigated at the time as far as we know. Another thing that I’ve told you numerous times.

Where is the evidence that he bought a ticket from Dorset to London on 30th August or from London to Dorset on 31st of August?

He was not investigated at the time as far as we know. Another thing that I’ve told you numerous times plus one.

Where is the evidence that he separated himself from his team mates during the trip and that he absented himself?

He was not investigated at the time as far as we know. Another thing that I’ve told you numerous times plus two.

Where is the evidence that someone fitting his distinctive description was seen in Whitechapel at any time during the period in which the murders were committed, let alone at about the time that any murder was committed?

Druitt could have fitted various witness identifications.

An alibi for Druitt is a work of utter fiction. Unless you alter the requirements of an alibi to remove ‘time of the murder’ and replace it with ‘within a dozen or so hours either way.’ I’m not prepared to do that. Clearly some are.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So…….yet another potentially interesting discussion of Druitt has been hijacked by those who claim to know what they can’t possibly know. There is only one word for this I’m afraid and it’s bias. If only people that weren’t interested in Druitt would just take themselves off to another thread. It’s an agenda I and others interested in Druitt have been coming up against for quite a while.

What a complete waste of time.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In response to # 291:

You seem to be lashing out more than ever at anyone who disagrees with your point of view.

You make several allegations which are demonstrably untrue.

You describe as 'an assumption' my correct statement that Druitt 'was in Dorset on a cricketing trip at the time of the Nichols murder.'

This game, alleging that I am misrepresenting an assumption on my part as fact, has been going on almost since the moment I started posting on this forum.

You describe my statement as 'factually incorrect'.

What I wrote is correct and everyone here knows it.

You then make an obviously incorrect allegation, that I 'claimed as fact' that Druitt 'spent the whole duration of that three-day match with his teammates.'

I did not claim that.

I wrote: 'If Druitt spent the whole duration of that three-day match with his teammates, then...'

I was talking hypothetically and you have misrepresented what I wrote as a claim of fact.

You then accused me of 'invention' when I wrote: 'I would like to know why this consideration - that we do not know exactly where a suspect was - seems always to work against him.'

It is quite obvious to everyone that I was expressing an opinion and not inventing anything at all.

You then accuse me of 'moving the goal posts' in claiming that Druitt had an alibi.

You then describe the alibi as 'a work of fiction'.

Why don't you accuse everyone else who agrees with me on that point?

Why don't you accuse them of moving the goal posts?

Why don't you accuse them of creating a work of fiction?

Why don't you accuse them of invention?

Why don't you accuse them of misrepresenting an assumption as fact?

[Herlock Sholmes]

In response to # 291:

You seem to be lashing out more than ever at anyone who disagrees with your point of view.

Im not ‘lashing out’ I’m very calmly posting my responses. Try turning your questions around and back on yourself.

You make several allegations which are demonstrably untrue.

Not one.

You describe as 'an assumption' my correct statement that Druitt 'was in Dorset on a cricketing trip at the time of the Nichols murder.'

This game, alleging that I am misrepresenting an assumption on my part as fact, has been going on almost since the moment I started posting on this forum.

You are twisting the facts PI. The time of the Nichols murder was 3.40 and THAT is the time that you have to PROVE that Druitt was in Dorset and you can’t do it. Hours before and hours after isn’t even close to good enough and yet you persist.

You describe my statement as 'factually incorrect'.

What I wrote is correct and everyone here knows it.

It is factually incorrect and very obviously so.

You then make an obviously incorrect allegation, that I 'claimed as fact' that Druitt 'spent the whole duration of that three-day match with his teammates.'

I did not claim that.

I wrote: 'If Druitt spent the whole duration of that three-day match with his teammates, then...'

I was talking hypothetically and you have misrepresented what I wrote as a claim of fact.

You’re nitpicking again. What is the point of saying “if Druitt….” in an attempt to exonerate him. It’s pointless.

You then accused me of 'invention' when I wrote: 'I would like to know why this consideration - that we do not know exactly where a suspect was - seems always to work against him.'

It is quite obvious to everyone that I was expressing an opinion and not inventing anything at all.

Because it clearly doesn’t always work against him. Yet again PI you keep avoiding the evidence to focus on wording.

You then accuse me of 'moving the goal posts' in claiming that Druitt had an alibi.

You then describe the alibi as 'a work of fiction'.

Why don't you accuse everyone else who agrees with me on that point?

I do. Anyone who says that Druitt had an alibi for the time of the murder is wrong. Not in opinion or interpretation but factually wrong.

Why don't you accuse them of moving the goal posts?

Why don't you accuse them of creating a work of fiction?

I just have. The alibi is fiction.

Why don't you accuse them of invention?

Why don't you accuse them of misrepresenting an assumption as fact?

Because only you have used the ‘well he might have had a cast-iron alibi’ argument.

If you can’t either place Druitt in Dorset at 3.40 am with solid, specific evidence, or you can prove that he physically couldn’t have got from Dorset to London by 3.40 am or you could prove that he couldn’t have got from London back to Dorset then Druitt categorically has no alibi that can be used to exonerated. This is so obvious that I really don’t want to waste any more time on it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One final point for today.


PI claims that it’s valid to say that if Druitt’s friends had been questioned they would have given him a cast-iron alibi and that this can be used against him. So if it’s reasonable for PI to make this assumption….

To Fishy - I think that if Sickert’s family had been asked they would have given him a cast-iron alibi.

To PI - I think that if Lawende had been questioned closely he’d have said that the only reason that he felt that the man had the appearance of a sailor because of the cap that he was wearing and that it certainly didn’t mean that the man was actually a sailor.

To Fishy - I think that if Gull’s Doctor had been questioned he would have to,d us that Gull was physically incapable of being the ripper.

To PI - I think that if we could get Macnaghten to explain the contents of his private information we would find that he had very valid reasons for calling Druitt a possible ripper.




If it’s valid to make assumptions like the one employed to try and dismiss Druitt why isn’t it valid to make assumptions above? Or does Druitt call for a different set of standards….. which appears to be the case?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There are two reasons we are 'wasting time' on this: first, you continue your personal attacks on me, in particular by alleging that I 'make up' things, that I have 'invented' an alibi, and secondly, you continue to deny the right of others to hold the view that Druitt did have an alibi.

You cannot dis-invent Druitt's trip to Dorset.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m not willing to engage with you anymore on this topic. To say that someone is inventing something when they are claiming something that isn’t true is not a personal attack. It’s a statement of fact. It’s just something you constantly resort to repeating when you’re disagreed with. And few, if any, posters get disagreed with as often as you do. Maybe you haven’t noticed?

I might comment if someone else makes a sensible Druitt-related point but until that time I’m done.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

One final point for today.


To PI - I think that if Lawende had been questioned closely he’d have said that the only reason that he felt that the man had the appearance of a sailor because of the cap that he was wearing and that it certainly didn’t mean that the man was actually a sailor.

I think you are quite wrong about that.

It seems to have been very common for men at that time to have worn that kind of cap.

None of the other witnesses who mentioned a man wearing a similar cap described him as having the appearance of a sailor.

There was obviously something else about the man seen by Lawende that made him think he looked like a sailor.

The man wore a pepper-and-salt loose-fitting jacket.

Such jackets were, like sailors' jackets, of waist length.

The man also wore a neckerchief tied in a knot.

Sailors commonly wore neckerchiefs tied in a knot.

Lawende must, presumably, have been familiar with the appearance of sailors and must have known how to recognise them.

There may have been something about the man's stance - perhaps the way he held himself - that suggested to Lawende, in addition to his clothing, that he was a sailor.

He never said that the man was a sailor and there would therefore have been no reason to question him on that point.

His evidence does, however, suggest that the man was a sailor.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I’m not willing to engage with you anymore on this topic. To say that someone is inventing something when they are claiming something that isn’t true is not a personal attack. It’s a statement of fact. It’s just something you constantly resort to repeating when you’re disagreed with. And few, if any, posters get disagreed with as often as you do. Maybe you haven’t noticed?

I might comment if someone else makes a sensible Druitt-related point but until that time I’m done.

Constantly to accuse me of making things up, of inventing things, and of claiming that something that is obviously not true is true, obviously does constitute a personal attack.

Having denied making any personal attack on me, you then make comments of a personal nature, implying that there is something wrong in general with my posts.

What is wrong is that some other posters, like you, have made personal attacks on me and have, without any foundation, accused me of making assumptions and misrepresenting them as fact.

That does not, as you make out, reflect badly on me.

It reflects badly on them.

[jmenges]

Admin and I decide what constitutes a personal attack. If you feel that a post might qualify, then you should report it. I’ve given out warnings, some subtle, some not, some public, some private, based on what I have seen. We can’t be everywhere reading every post on every thread. It’s interesting with all this talk about “personal attacks” that not a single post has been reported.

JM