Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oh, Dear Boss: Druitt's on a Sticky Wicket

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

  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    Hello Simon and Ally.

    I'm curious about something. Feel free to enlighten me if either of you so choose.

    In the wildly unlikely event that someone could prove that Druitt did indeed travel from Blandford Forum to London's Waterloo Station on the night of August 30th, how would you react?


    Would you admit that Druitt's behavior was exceedingly weird and would this raise suspicions against him in your mind?

    Or would you concede that he could have gone to London for some other reason?

    Cheers.
    No, I wouldn't concede that Druitt's behavior was weird, unless you could show me irrefutable proof that he then WALKED the six miles from Blackheath to Whitechapel just to kill a prostitute when there were numerous others readily available. But you know... a late night hours long walk after a late night train journey just to pick up a prostitute WOULD be weird. And that's what you aren't going to convince me of.

    Someone on here is now suggesting Druitt was regularly in the habit of walking for hours to visit Whitechapel as that was the only place he was accustomed to picking up prostitutes. They are equating this to visiting their favorite fishing spot, which they can drive to in the comfort of their own car. But yes, I am sure a gentleman of Druitt's class had no other option but to walk, for hours, and hours and hours of a night to visit these prostitutes and only these prostitutes. Because... you know... people have a favorite fishing hole.

    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post



    I also think that Ally might be misstating the actual scenario that we are up against. I made this same observation to others on Howard's site, but evidently to no avail.



    Ally can correct me if I'm wrong, but she seems to be suggesting with the phrase 'that he'd already traveled to' that Druitt had traveled from London to play cricket in Blanford Forum.



    Looking at it in this light, a sudden return to London might strike many as still being unlikely, but is far less ridiculous than the scenario of a man yo-yoing back and forth and wasting his time and money on train fares.

    All the best.
    And yet this yo-yoing is exactly what people would have us believe Druitt did. Play Cricket, on the 30, back to London for "whatever" reason on the 31, after being up all night hunting for a prostitute and walking aimlessly around for hours then back to Blackheath, and then back to Dorset for another cricket match, the next day, all to return back to London the next week either for the start of term or eventually to kill Chapman.

    How precisely does that NOT count as yo-yoing?

    Sorry for the delayed response. Have not been able to check in regularly, but I will get around to it eventually.

    Let all Oz be agreed;
    I need a better class of flying monkeys.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GUT View Post
      Abby

      hi trevor whats the "positive proof that he was in London on one of those ships on the date of mckenzies murder"? do you have a ships manifest or something with his name?

      Trevor

      Yes the crew list for the vessel in question


      Abby

      could you please produce this list? im assuming its got the name of the ship, tje date it was docked, tje location it was docked and fegeinbaums name??

      Trevor

      If and when I find it I will post it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



      So, what is proven???
      What is proven is that from all the evidence and facts gathered is that Carl Feigenbaum aka Carl Zahn/Anton Zahn/Carl Strohand is a viable suspect for being concerned in one,some or all of the Whitechapel Murders.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Ally View Post

        No, I wouldn't concede that Druitt's behavior was weird, unless you could show me irrefutable proof that he then WALKED the six miles from Blackheath to Whitechapel just to kill a prostitute when there were numerous others readily available. But you know... a late night hours long walk after a late night train journey just to pick up a prostitute WOULD be weird. And that's what you aren't going to convince me of.

        Someone on here is now suggesting Druitt was regularly in the habit of walking for hours to visit Whitechapel as that was the only place he was accustomed to picking up prostitutes. They are equating this to visiting their favorite fishing spot, which they can drive to in the comfort of their own car. But yes, I am sure a gentleman of Druitt's class had no other option but to walk, for hours, and hours and hours of a night to visit these prostitutes and only these prostitutes. Because... you know... people have a favorite fishing hole.



        And yet this yo-yoing is exactly what people would have us believe Druitt did. Play Cricket, on the 30, back to London for "whatever" reason on the 31, after being up all night hunting for a prostitute and walking aimlessly around for hours then back to Blackheath, and then back to Dorset for another cricket match, the next day, all to return back to London the next week either for the start of term or eventually to kill Chapman.

        How precisely does that NOT count as yo-yoing?

        Sorry for the delayed response. Have not been able to check in regularly, but I will get around to it eventually.
        Ive noticed that the most ardent supporters of Druitt remaining a viable suspect for the ripper murders never seems to debate this topic with you . I wonder why that is .
        'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

          Ive noticed that the most ardent supporters of Druitt remaining a viable suspect for the ripper murders never seems to debate this topic with you . I wonder why that is .
          Pleas name an ‘ardent’ Druitt supporter on here? I’m unaware of even one.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

          Comment


          • I’d also ask “show me a serial killer’” who behaves ‘normally.’ A modicum of walking is hardly bizarre. Who knows why a serial killer might decide on one area? How can we know?
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

            “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              Phillip’s didn’t think that she was killed by the same man. He was a Doctor too. Is Phillips to be taken seriously Harry? Or do we pick and choose Doctors too?
              Hi Sherlock,

              Phillip's may not be the best doctor to select to support your case. He had doubts about Eddowes being a JtR victim as well.

              Cheers, George
              Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.​ - LOTR

              All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

              ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                Hi Sherlock,

                Phillip's may not be the best doctor to select to support your case. He had doubts about Eddowes being a JtR victim as well.

                Cheers, George
                Hi George,

                The main point though is that for Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly there is a very strong consensus of opinion that these were all committed by the same man. Far fewer consider Mackenzie a certain victim though. As I’ve said before, she might well have been, but what Trevor is basically attempting to say (and he’s not the first to try this tactic) is that he himself thinks that she’s a victim therefore she should definitely be considered a victim therefore Druitt should be eliminated. There’s just no merit in that kind of thinking.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                Comment


                • If we speculate on anyone being JTR then we speculate that they are a serial killer.

                  Serial killers don’t always kill on their own doorsteps - in fact there are very good reasons for not doing so.

                  We cannot assume to know a serial killers thinking - therefore we cannot know the exact motivation to kill a certain kind of person.

                  We also cannot know why they selected certain locations to operate within.

                  That a killers motive for operating in a certain area remains known only to him is obvious.

                  Can we prove that Druitt went to Whitechapel - no.

                  Can we prove that Druitt didn’t go to Whitechapel - no.

                  Are there any physical reasons that place any doubts on his ability to do this - no.

                  Is travelling short distances across London strange or unlikely? - no.

                  Going somewhere and then returning is not yo-yoing. We you go on holiday and then return no one would describe you as yo-yoing between your house and your holiday destination. Going to London, then returning to Blandford, then returning to London then returning to Blandford might be considered as yo-yoing.

                  Therefore, if guilty and serial killer, there is nothing remotely unlikely about him going to Whitechapel.
                  Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 06-21-2022, 03:36 PM.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                  “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Hi George,

                    The main point though is that for Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly there is a very strong consensus of opinion that these were all committed by the same man. Far fewer consider Mackenzie a certain victim though. As I’ve said before, she might well have been, but what Trevor is basically attempting to say (and he’s not the first to try this tactic) is that he himself thinks that she’s a victim therefore she should definitely be considered a victim therefore Druitt should be eliminated. There’s just no merit in that kind of thinking.
                    bingo herlock. I think mckenzie was probably a ripper victim. however, I cant rule out druitt because I might be wrong. maybe she wasnt. no one knows for sure, therfore druitt cant be eliminated based on Mkenzie. Im not sure why some are struggling with this.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                      bingo herlock. I think mckenzie was probably a ripper victim. however, I cant rule out druitt because I might be wrong. maybe she wasnt. no one knows for sure, therfore druitt cant be eliminated based on Mkenzie. Im not sure why some are struggling with this.
                      Neither do I Abby. It can’t be much simpler. And the lack of comprehension is coming from the same person that keeps trying to suggest that I don’t understand that man can’t be guilty of a murder if he was dead at the time it occurred.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Hi George,

                        The main point though is that for Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly there is a very strong consensus of opinion that these were all committed by the same man. Far fewer consider Mackenzie a certain victim though. As I’ve said before, she might well have been, but what Trevor is basically attempting to say (and he’s not the first to try this tactic) is that he himself thinks that she’s a victim therefore she should definitely be considered a victim therefore Druitt should be eliminated. There’s just no merit in that kind of thinking.
                        Absolutely!
                        What is also surprising, almost shocking to me is, that an ex-policeman would use that kind of logic.
                        He chooses to dismiss the culpability of a suspect by accepting a victim the suspect couldn't possibly have murdered!
                        In the real world, if the inclusion of one particular victim would prove the innocence of a suspect, then the police would have to prove McKenzie was one of the Ripper's victims.
                        I can't imagine how they would do that, which is why the police cannot entertain such logic.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                          Absolutely!
                          What is also surprising, almost shocking to me is, that an ex-policeman would use that kind of logic.
                          He chooses to dismiss the culpability of a suspect by accepting a victim the suspect couldn't possibly have murdered!
                          In the real world, if the inclusion of one particular victim would prove the innocence of a suspect, then the police would have to prove McKenzie was one of the Ripper's victims.
                          I can't imagine how they would do that, which is why the police cannot entertain such logic.
                          There are always things for us to quibble over course Wick and I hope we’ll all be doing it for years to come but some things are so jaw-dropping obvious that you sometimes feel like you’ve been punched in the stomach when you read them because it takes you breath away.

                          One of those is being asked if I accept that if Druitt was dead at the time of a ripper murder that he couldn’t have been the ripper?!

                          Another is, after telling people a thousand times that I think that the ripper more than likely hasn’t been named yet and that i slightly favour Druitt of the so far named suspects. And that I find him intriguing and that I think that he tends to be too easily dismissed……I still get people trying to label me some kind of rabid Druittist willing to do anything to keep him in the game! I explain this, then two posts later the same accusation comes up! Bizarre.

                          Then there’s the fact that every piece of evidence that points away from a certain persons viewpoint is labelled unsafe.

                          And then there are rigid criteria’s applied to certain people and events which other people and events appear to be free from.

                          Then we have opinions constantly stated as if they should be accepted as facts.

                          And it’s always the same minority that’s guilty of the above. Again and again. Then they flip when you point out something that’s in front of them in black and white.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                            If we speculate on anyone being JTR then we speculate that they are a serial killer.

                            Serial killers don’t always kill on their own doorsteps - in fact there are very good reasons for not doing so.

                            We cannot assume to know a serial killers thinking - therefore we cannot know the exact motivation to kill a certain kind of person.

                            We also cannot know why they selected certain locations to operate within.

                            That a killers motive for operating in a certain area remains known only to him is obvious.

                            Can we prove that Druitt went to Whitechapel - no.

                            Can we prove that Druitt didn’t go to Whitechapel - no.

                            Are there any physical reasons that place any doubts on his ability to do this - no.

                            Is travelling short distances across London strange or unlikely? - no.

                            Going somewhere and then returning is not yo-yoing. We you go on holiday and then return no one would describe you as yo-yoing between your house and your holiday destination. Going to London, then returning to Blandford, then returning to London then returning to Blandford might be considered as yo-yoing.

                            Therefore, if guilty and serial killer, there is nothing remotely unlikely about him going to Whitechapel.
                            Quite right. As a very amateur ripperologist, I must admit that my basis for ruling out Druitt was 100% based on the impossible which has now, thanks to the podcast content, become a possibility. There was time for his crime and to return to London. The probability factors are of course highly debatable but I would not rule out a homicidal opportunist using the trips back and forth to Whitechapel for crime. I did have some difficulty understanding the logistics explaining how it might have been carried out and will have to think on this some more. Good information tho.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              Pleas name an ‘ardent’ Druitt supporter on here? I’m unaware of even one.
                              They know who they are.
                              'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Hi George,

                                The main point though is that for Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly there is a very strong consensus of opinion that these were all committed by the same man. Far fewer consider Mackenzie a certain victim though. As I’ve said before, she might well have been, but what Trevor is basically attempting to say (and he’s not the first to try this tactic) is that he himself thinks that she’s a victim therefore she should definitely be considered a victim therefore Druitt should be eliminated. There’s just no merit in that kind of thinking.
                                Hi Herlock,

                                While I am not, at this time, persuaded that MJD was JtR, I do find him to be one of the most interesting of suspects, and agree that, at this time, there is absolutely nothing to exclude him. I still entertain the notion that he may have been murdered rather than have committed suicide.

                                While there is strong contemporary consensus that Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were by the same hand, Phillips and Wynne Baxter thought that Eddowes was a copycat. There were 11 Whitechapel murders and 4 Thames Torso murders. There are at least 2 contemporary posters who think that they were all committed by 1 person, and at least 1 contemporary poster who thinks they were committed by almost as many individual murderers. The truth is probably between those extremes.

                                It is highly unlikely that the mystery will be solved with the information presently available. Attempts have been made to localise the home of JtR, if he was a Marauder, or his bolthole if he was a Commuter, using Geoprofiling of the murder locations. I wonder if anything could be learned about distribution of victim to killer by using the same Geoprofiling techniques on the locations in which the victims were living? Jeff may have a comment of this possibility?

                                Cheers, George
                                Last edited by GBinOz; 06-22-2022, 12:52 AM.
                                Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.​ - LOTR

                                All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                                ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X