Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    I've never heard that in order to avoid being gullible "you should become a policeman"!



    Yes Jon, only experienced policeman are capable of judgment.

    Remember John Plimmer?
    Regards

    Herlock






    "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

      hi wick
      one of the soldiers could have been the ripper. why does the two soldier theory exclude that possibility?
      You're quite right, he could have.
      It's just that there is no similarity between the wounds & mutilations on the rest of the victims, and those on Tabram. The weapon described in the subsequent cases bares no similarity with that (those) used on Tabram.
      None of the other cases involved the presence of a soldier at any time.

      If we are going to theorize that the subsequent Ripper murders were the work of a soldier, where would we begin?
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post

        Since coming to California I have rekindled my liking for British cop shows, as, with one or two notable exceptions, their American counterparts are too formulaic and cheesy. You can't beat Inspector Knacker of the Yard doing his stuff in a chocolate box English village.
        Midsomer Murders makes me laugh, that sleepy little English village must be the most violent place on the planet. After 20 seasons more victims have turned up dead than actually live there!

        Anyway, not to distract the debate.....

        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
          Hi Jon,

          I was establishing the fact that, in 1987, I held the Dear Boss letter in my hands prior to its arrival at Scotland Yard.

          What you make of Donner is up to you.

          Regards,

          Simon


          I read a story, I must've missed the "establishing the fact" bit, to your reader it was just a story.
          Much like what Mac. wrote....
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • From my understanding,a person becomes a suspect if one or more pieces of evidence connect that person to a crime. What singular or multiple pieces of evidence connect Druitt to any of the ripper murders.So far, all I've read is that infomation was given.Surely if we are to consider Druitt as suspect,it should be on the basis that evidence was presented.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by harry View Post
              From my understanding,a person becomes a suspect if one or more pieces of evidence connect that person to a crime. What singular or multiple pieces of evidence connect Druitt to any of the ripper murders.So far, all I've read is that infomation was given.Surely if we are to consider Druitt as suspect,it should be on the basis that evidence was presented.
              Just off the top of your head, can you think of anything that connects Isenschmid, Pizer, Tumblety, Kozminski, or Sadler to any one of the crimes?
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by harry View Post
                From my understanding,a person becomes a suspect if one or more pieces of evidence connect that person to a crime. What singular or multiple pieces of evidence connect Druitt to any of the ripper murders.So far, all I've read is that infomation was given.Surely if we are to consider Druitt as suspect,it should be on the basis that evidence was presented.
                Hello Harry,

                Well said.

                For as all here know.. There is NO evidence of his involvement at all.

                Rather like any claim any (ex) policeman makes. We've heard it or variations on it a thousand times..
                "I know but I'm not telling".

                Because that is what this all boils down to.
                Tap of the nose, nods as good as a wink to a blind bat.

                If pressed.. Like Donald McCormick et al..
                "I've destroyed my papers on the subject years ago"

                Easy comparison. MM would have done well on Jackanory telling stories as, well.


                Phil
                Last edited by Phil Carter; 04-30-2019, 01:52 AM.
                Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


                Justice for the 96 = achieved
                Accountability? ....

                Comment


                • Hi Jon,

                  I was stating a fact. Others were there at the time

                  If you want to call me a liar, that's your business.

                  Regards,

                  Simon
                  Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
                    Because that is what this all boils down to.
                    Tap of the nose, nods as good as a wink to a blind bat.
                    Could they not have provided further information on their suspicions about anybody because of a lack of hard evidence?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                      Just off the top of your head, can you think of anything that connects Isenschmid, Pizer, Tumblety, Kozminski, or Sadler to any one of the crimes?
                      There is nothing, that's why almost all of the suspects on the list should be referred to as simply persons of interest. This categorization of so called suspects over the years has become ridiculous. As to prime suspects the term did not evolve until the 1930`s.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        There is nothing, that's why almost all of the suspects on the list should be referred to as simply persons of interest. This categorization of so called suspects over the years has become ridiculous. As to prime suspects the term did not evolve until the 1930`s.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Why do you insist on relating police jargon to normal everyday definitions? Don't you understand that 'prime suspect' is used in the same way as a 'prime' cut of beef or plus services such as Amazon Prime? Nobody in everyday life uses the term 'person of interest' to describe someone on whom suspicion has fallen, they say suspect. Applying specialist language to everyday speech is pointless, proves nothing, and is misleading to the general person. All those named were suspects; that's how they were perceived in 1888 and that's how people perceive them today.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by harry View Post
                          From my understanding,a person becomes a suspect if one or more pieces of evidence connect that person to a crime. What singular or multiple pieces of evidence connect Druitt to any of the ripper murders.So far, all I've read is that infomation was given.Surely if we are to consider Druitt as suspect,it should be on the basis that evidence was presented.
                          Why do you need to see the evidence? What if the evidence no longer exists?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            There is nothing more to discuss the MM is unreliable, and unsafe to rely on, end of story

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            No, Trevor. You are talking irresponsible balderdash that you repeatedly demonstrate that you can't defend. Most people know that.

                            Comment


                            • I do,as so many others also do,wish to see evidence to better understand and evaluate claims made.If evidence no longer exists,then the need of proof that the evidence once did exist.Not much to ask. As to Druitt it seems a case of belief based on belief,surely not a sound base on which to label a person a murderer.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by harry View Post
                                I do,as so many others also do,wish to see evidence to better understand and evaluate claims made.If evidence no longer exists,then the need of proof that the evidence once did exist.Not much to ask. As to Druitt it seems a case of belief based on belief,surely not a sound base on which to label a person a murderer.
                                Actually, I suspect that it is a lot to ask. Not every piece of information received by the police was reported in or even known to the press, only a handful of policemen wrote memoirs or gave press interviews, and the official papers concerning a lot of crimes don't exist or, as in the Ripper case, are severely depleted, so the reality is that we're lucky to know that evidence even existed at all.

                                We're not labeling anyone a murderer, of course. Macnaghten is. And Macnaghten saw the evidence and evaluated it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X