Druitt.

[rjpalmer]

Likewise Tumblety being in France “most likely” and Druitt being in Dorset “most likely”.

Now Tumblety is in France?

Yes, you are repeating misinformation.

But people tend to operate on emotion and desire rather than on cold, hard analysis, so this is hardly surprising.

[erobitha]

You can always rely on RJ to pop up when you clearly make an innocent mistake, like some chuckling schoolboy pointing his finger.

You know full well I wrote Sickert was most likely in France in the post prior to the one I made the simple Sickert / Tumblety error.

If this is your idea of fun RJ you might want to get out a little more.

[Herlock Sholmes]

According to RJ apparently I am giving people misinformation by claiming “most likely” that Tumblety was in police custody for Kelly’s murder.

I believe he was. Orsam may feel he made a brilliant point and observation, but he did not conclusively prove Tumblety wasn’t in custody, just made a case that might not have been. Doesn’t change my view.

Likewise Tumblety being in France “most likely” and Druitt being in Dorset “most likely”.

That’s how this forum works.

I haven’t accused you of that though. I just said that I disagree.

[rjpalmer]

You can always rely on RJ to pop up when you clearly make an innocent mistake, like some chuckling schoolboy pointing his finger.

Now, now, Jay.

I sent you a private message which you then chose to take into the public arena, so feel free to take your lumps without whining about it.

For those not privy to the conversation, which Jay has now taken public, I merely pointed him in the direction of a series of articles written some years ago by David Barrat in The Ripperologist and at his website, which demonstrated, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the tabulated court calendars do not supply enough information to state whether the defendant was or was not given bail.

That's simply the reality of it. The calendar doesn't supply the information we want.

Thus, anyone who claims that Tumblety was 'likely' to have been in jail, or 'unlikely' to have been in jail, is operating on personal desire. In reality, there is not enough information to determine this.

But people generally like to go further than what the evidence actually allows them to go. Such is life.

[erobitha]

Now, now, Jay.

I sent you a private message which you then chose to take into the public arena, so feel free to take your lumps without whining about it.

For those not privy to the conversation, which Jay has now taken public, I merely pointed him in the direction of a series of articles written some years ago by David Barrat in The Ripperologist and at his website, which demonstrated, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the tabulated court calendars do not supply enough information to state whether the defendant was or was not given bail.

That's simply the reality of it. The calendar doesn't supply the information we want.

Thus, anyone who claims that Tumblety was 'likely' to have been in jail, or 'unlikely' to have been in jail, is operating on personal desire. In reality, there is not enough information to determine this.

But people generally like to go further than what the evidence actually allows them to go. Such is life.

I didn’t invite a private conversation RJ, but you felt compelled to start one.

I do not mind talking publicly as I have nothing to hide. Nothing to do with emotions, I just prefer transparency.

The precursor word “most” before the word “likely” has apparently been overlooked by RJ as he accuses me of misinformation. I can only assume in a attempt to get me to try and publicly stand down from my viewpoint. Or at least try to be lured back onto the drainpipe of despair. Not sure which. I think RJ is an agitator and likes to shake the cages now and then, even if he knows he has not much to shake the cage with.

Orsam’s evidence makes a case that Tumblety “might” not have been in police custody. It does not confirm he wasn’t. Evidence means confirmation RJ. Orsam only has evidence there could be some doubt and that was acknowledged in the phrasing as “most likely”. It accepts elements of doubt.

You want to throw around accusations of inaccuracy and misinformation based on…you guessed it.

[erobitha]

I haven’t accused you of that though. I just said that I disagree.

I wasn’t aiming anything at you Herlock. Apologies for any confusion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wasn’t aiming anything at you Herlock. Apologies for any confusion.

No problem.

[rjpalmer]

Orsam’s evidence makes a case that Tumblety “might” not have been in police custody. It does not confirm he wasn’t. Evidence means confirmation RJ. Orsam only has evidence there could be some doubt and that was acknowledged in the phrasing as “most likely”. It accepts elements of doubt.

Good grief. There is an old adage about not arguing with the irrational. I should have heeded that warning years ago.

What part of 'there is not enough information' is so difficult to comprehend?

Think of it this way. Someone claims, based on his blood pressure reading, that he is 'likely' to have brain cancer.

Along comes a physician (we'll call him Dr. Orsam) who proves beyond all reasonable doubt that a blood pressure monitor cannot detect brain cancer.

Nonetheless, you still claim it is 'likely' that the man has brain cancer, because the physician only demonstrated that he might not have brain cancer.

But that's not what he showed.

He showed that the blood pressure monitor (ie., the tabulated court calendar) does not contain enough information to say whether it is 'likely' or 'unlikely.'

And that, Jay, terminates this discussion. Either you'll get it, or you won't.

[Ms Diddles]

Fair and reasonable response.

I have no horse in the Druitt debate but posters claiming he can be 100% eliminated are simply wrong.

Unless there is an absolute alibi (e.g. beyond mathematical possibility) then all discussed candidates remain on the list until such evidence is proved otherwise.

Based on evidence we can say that Druitt ranks “highly unlikely” due to a reasonable alibi. It’s not absolute, but it is reasonable.

You can apply the same logic to Sickert who was most likely in France for most of the murders and Tumblety who most likely was in police custody on the night of Kelly’s murder. Doesn’t make them impossible suspects as we don’t have absolute mathematical proof any of them could not have made the journey into Whitechapel for the murders.

People like to scoff at my candidate but guess who has zero alibi.

Hi Ero,

I agree that unless an alibi is watertight, it doesn't really constitute an alibi at all.

For me, Druitt remains a suspect as the cricketing info does not categorically rule him out.

That said, I have always casually dismissed Sickert on the basis that he was in Dieppe at the time of some of the murders (I guess my own biases are very much in evidence here!).

I suppose it's logical to say that if I don't dismiss Druitt then I shouldn't dismiss Sickert, so he remains on the suspect list.

I'll eat my hat if he dunnit though!

[Ms Diddles]

I don’t think being in Dorset makes him any less likely than he was (or wasn’t) before we knew of the cricket game. I don’t even consider it an alibi at all but others might disagree of course.

Hi Herlock,

I'm inclined to agree that the Dorset trip doesn't constitute an alibi in these circumstances, but don't you think that on balance, it makes him a bit less likely / more unlikely.

It's kind of a black mark against his candidacy for me, but not one that rules him out.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I'm inclined to agree that the Dorset trip doesn't constitute an alibi in these circumstances, but don't you think that on balance, it makes him a bit less likely / more unlikely.

It's kind of a black mark against his candidacy for me, but not one that rules him out.

Hi Ms D,

I’ve got no problem at all accepting that it can be stated as a negative point. My only issue would be if someone said that this particular point made him particularly ‘unlikely.’ Mainly because the simple act of catching a train back to London isn’t unusual or difficult (apologies for stating the obvious here) and that we can’t know what his plans were at the time (for eg. if he had a pre-arranged meeting in London) or what his thinking was (especially if he was a serial killer)

For me Druitt is the most intriguing candidate but he’s also the most frustrating candidate because of the ‘private info.’

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Ms D,

I’ve got no problem at all accepting that it can be stated as a negative point. My only issue would be if someone said that this particular point made him particularly ‘unlikely.’ Mainly because the simple act of catching a train back to London isn’t unusual or difficult (apologies for stating the obvious here) and that we can’t know what his plans were at the time (for eg. if he had a pre-arranged meeting in London) or what his thinking was (especially if he was a serial killer)

For me Druitt is the most intriguing candidate but he’s also the most frustrating candidate because of the ‘private info.’

But why would he rush back to London simply to kill there was nothing stopping him from staying down after the cricket and then going and finding a victim after dark there. I am sure there were ladies of the night in Dorset as well as London, and it was an area he was familiar with.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But why would he rush back to London simply to kill there was nothing stopping him from staying down after the cricket and then going and finding a victim after dark there. I am sure there were ladies of the night in Dorset as well as London, and it was an area he was familiar with.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

He might not have done Trevor. He could have had some kind of (perhaps work related) meeting in London and as he’d planned an extended break in Dorset with his family he didn’t cancel or delay it because it was no problem to travel back by train?

Alternatively, if he was a serial killer (a yes it’s a big ‘if’ but it still has to be factored into considerations) then he wouldn’t think as we do. He might have decided on Whitechapel as his ‘venue.’ Who knows, but if we confuse a serial killers thinking by our own then we could end up dismissing all kinds of possibilities because we ourselves wouldn’t have done that or acted in a certain way.

[FISHY1118]

You're already repeating yourself.

You aren't repeating answers to Herlock's questions.

Fiver, please pay attention to the topic and the thread as a whole , its been discussed so many times before .

[Fiver]

Fiver, please pay attention to the topic and the thread as a whole , its been discussed so many times before .

This is another time you could have linked or restated your answers.