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 Trevor Marriott View Post

    Regarding Druitts family suspecting him, I wonder how this so called suspicion arose, bearing his family resided in Dorset and he was living in London so they would have had very little contact with him.


    And you know that they would have had very little contact with him how? For a start they had a better postal service than we did. They had telegrams and, if I recall correctly didn’t Montague and William do a legal case together? A colleague of Monty’s contacted William to say that he hadn’t been seen for a while so that’s one very obvious avenue. How do we know that Monty didn’t say something to William?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by harry View Post
      There comes a time surely,when it can be said that we have not and will not solve the Ripper killings,on the available information,and that applies to Druitt as much as any other person.By all means discuss possibilities if you believe it would help,but cases built on possibilities alone achieve little.If you want the truth,you will in time have to prove that what is or was possible actually happened.This isn't being done,is my point.
      All we have to support a case against Druitt is a comment by a former senior policeman,and when narrowed down all that can be deduced by that comment is that Druitt's family had suspicions.What those suspicions amounted to is anyone's guess.What the former policeman's suspicions were cannot be discussed,he didn't elaborate.You see i have not mentioned evidence,for the simple reason i cannot find any.
      If we dismissed every suspect with no solid evidence Harry there’d be no one to discuss. The problem is illustrated by the fact that casually move past MacNaghten. It’s not you alone Harry so I’m not having a dig at you but this should be treated as a major point. The Chief Constable Of The Met named him as a likely suspect. This alone raises Druitt’s interest value as a potential ripper above 99% of other suspects by a country mile. Yet what tends to happen, like in the case of the cricket match when it was proven that it didn’t exonerated Druitt, is the people then move over to an attempt to discredit MacNaghten on the basis of a couple of trivial biographical details. Mac was talking about Druitt, not a 41 year old Doctor. He wasn’t building a case for court. His age and profession were irrelevant.

      Comment


      • Dig away as much as possible Herlock.No matter how deep you dig,it doesn't alter the fact that criminal cases rely on what is known to be fact,irrespective of who the informants are.There were,it is claimed by MacNaghten,suspicions in Druit family.There may well have been,but without knownledge of what those suspicions were,and how it affected Druitt's standing or involvement in the Whitechapel murders,we today have no right to pass judgement.If MacNaghten knew, he appears to be the only one outside the family who did, and it is a surprise he still only considered Druitt as one of four who qualified to be considered.Nothing like the 99% you state.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by harry View Post
          Dig away as much as possible Herlock.No matter how deep you dig,it doesn't alter the fact that criminal cases rely on what is known to be fact,irrespective of who the informants are.There were,it is claimed by MacNaghten,suspicions in Druit family.There may well have been,but without knownledge of what those suspicions were,and how it affected Druitt's standing or involvement in the Whitechapel murders,we today have no right to pass judgement.If MacNaghten knew, he appears to be the only one outside the family who did, and it is a surprise he still only considered Druitt as one of four who qualified to be considered.Nothing like the 99% you state.
          But we’re not conducting a criminal investigation Harry so your point is misplaced. If we applied your criteria then it wouldn’t be worth discussing any suspect.

          You dismiss the m.p. Henry Farquharson then who was telling people that the ripper was the son of a surgeon who committed suicide on the night of the last murder. Yes you can nitpick that Druitt didn’t commit suicide on the night of Kelly’s murder but we still have a man, unconnected to MacNaghten, clearly talking about Druitt as the ripper, a full 3 years before the Memorandum. We have George Sims alluding to Druitt as the ripper. We have Sir Basil Thomson going for Druitt in 1936. We have Major Arthur Griffiths pointing at Druitt. So it’s hardly a case of MacNaghten alone. Not to mention The North Country Vicar. Then we can speculate about the Crawford letter. More than enough to make Druitt of interest unless minds aren’t so fixed against even the suggestion. If Druitt goes then all suspects should go.

          I stand by the 99% comment. In a field of weak suspects Druitt has more going for him than the vast majority.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            And you know that they would have had very little contact with him how? For a start they had a better postal service than we did. They had telegrams and, if I recall correctly didn’t Montague and William do a legal case together? A colleague of Monty’s contacted William to say that he hadn’t been seen for a while so that’s one very obvious avenue. How do we know that Monty didn’t say something to William?
            Your making excuses up to prop up Monty as JTR there is nothing to point to him being the killer, based on what is documented a person of interest at best

            The MM is littered with errors, not minor errors but major ones and as i keep saying it is unsafe to totally rely on. But I contiunally see the old chesnut appearing that because MM was in the position he was. there must be some credibilty to what he wrote.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 06-17-2022, 12:45 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              Your making excuses up to prop up Monty as JTR there is nothing to point to him being the kille, based on what is documented a person of interestr at best

              The MM is littered with errors not minor errors but major ones and as i keep saying it is unsafe to totally rely on. But I contiunally see the old chesnut appearing that because MM was in the position he was. there must be some credibilty to what he wrote.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              Minor, trivial errors. Easily explained.

              Why did he name Druitt?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                Hi RJ,

                Forgive me, but your chance of successfully promoting the idea of Druitt finishing a cricket match, travelling from Wimborne to Waterloo, crossing London to Whitechapel, identifying a likely dollymop, doing the deed, then returning to Waterloo for a return train to Wimborne before enjoying a cold supper and catching a good night's sleep prior the morrow's cricket match, is slightly less than your chance of getting a whale up your bum.

                My apologies.

                Simon
                Hi Simon.

                Thanks for the humorous response, but you didn't actually address the question I asked.

                I never said anything about Druitt having been in Buck's Row. That is the scenario that you & Ally find so utterly ridiculous.

                Being a humble chap, I'm lowering the stakes considerably. I'm just wondering if would require an equally "insane trip" for Druitt to have gone back to London to merely visit King's Bench Walk or take part in a meeting in Peckham on August 31st.

                Being more of a baseball fan than a cricket enthusiast, I can appreciate that it is not always to one's benefit to waste one's three strikes by trying to hit the homerun ball.

                Sometimes a more statistically plausible blooper past the infield is sufficient.

                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.

                Originally posted by Ally View Post
                this convoluted idea that he would get on a train, travel 3 hours away from the city he was in, that he'd already traveled to, to then turn back around and travel back to that area the next day, just to .... what? Distance is irrelevant, traveling is irrelevant, he had no reason to travel 3 hours away to a city, walk for a mile, and pick Whitechapel as the ONLY PLACE he could kill a woman. It's absurd.
                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.

                The evidence suggests otherwise.

                Druitt had played in Salisbury a few days before Blandford Forum match. Before that he had played games in Bournemouth (twice).

                A close study of his life in the 1880s strongly suggests that Druitt spent his August holiday down in Dorset, probably stationed in Wimborne.

                I will be accused of nitpicking, but the true scenario is not of a man yo-yoing back and forth from London in a ridiculous manner.

                The true scenario is a man down in provincial Dorset for several weeks, who goes up to London on an overnighter, London being the city he has been living in for 8 years and would involve most of his business and social contacts.

                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.
                Last edited by rjpalmer; 06-17-2022, 03:00 PM.

                Comment


                • [QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n787798]

                  Because somebody fed him duff information. which he failed to assess and evaluate in a professional manner. That is borne out by him naming Ostrog as a likely suspect because if he had have assessed and evlauated all the "information" he sets out in the MM throughly, he would have known Ostrog was in jail in France at the time of the murders, and even in his second MM he still fails to disclose Ostrog being in jail in 1888.

                  So this a police official who according to researchers must have been in the know for him to mention the suspects in the MM and who researchers have put undying faith into what he wrote - unbelievable

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 06-17-2022, 03:32 PM.

                  Comment


                  • [QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n787802]
                    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Because somebody fed him duff information. which he failed to assess and evaluate in a professional manner. That is borne out by him naming Ostrog as a likely suspect because if he had have assessed and evlauated all the "information" he sets out in the MM throughly, he would have known Ostrog was in jail in France at the time of the murders, and even in his second MM he still fails to disclose Ostrog being in jail in 1888.

                    So this a police official who according to researchers must have been in the know for him to mention the suspects in the MM and who researchers have put undying faith into what he wrote - unbelievable

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    Absolute drivel. Prove to me, don’t give me your biased opinion, but prove to me that MacNaghten was given duff information.

                    Dont bother thinking about it Trevor because, as ever, you engage you ego before your brain. Anyone that claims to know that the information the MacNaghten received was false or that they know that he lied is nothing more than a fool whose opinion can be dismissed.

                    Comment


                    • Blandford Forum, Wimborne Minster, the Isle of Purbeck - hotbeds of destitution and vice. You couldn’t move in their High Streets at 2/3 in the morning for the crowds of ‘unfortunates’.
                      Last edited by MrBarnett; 06-17-2022, 04:01 PM.

                      Comment


                      • I just wonder - someone on here will know - has there ever been a case where a serial killer travelled some distance to an area where he knew he could find the particular type of victim he preferred?



                        Comment


                        • [QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n787804]
                          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          Absolute drivel. Prove to me, don’t give me your biased opinion, but prove to me that MacNaghten was given duff information.

                          Dont bother thinking about it Trevor because, as ever, you engage you ego before your brain. Anyone that claims to know that the information the MacNaghten received was false or that they know that he lied is nothing more than a fool whose opinion can be dismissed.
                          The MM itself is testimony to how unsafe it is, can you not see that? I dont have to prove anything to you.

                          I am not saying he lied, he clearly penned the MM in good faith based on what he was either told, or what he was able to gleam from records both ways were clearly unreliable sources.

                          Comment


                          • [QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n787808]
                            Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            The MM itself is testimony to how unsafe it is, can you not see that? I dont have to prove anything to you.

                            I am not saying he lied, he clearly penned the MM in good faith based on what he was either told, or what he was able to gleam from records both ways were clearly unreliable sources.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            So the MM are as reliable as Mac’s source?

                            Who was that then, Trevor?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                              I just wonder - someone on here will know - has there ever been a case where a serial killer travelled some distance to an area where he knew he could find the particular type of victim he preferred?


                              IIRC Colin Ireland was once mentioned on here in this context.

                              I believe he travelled from Southend on Sea to scope out the gay bars of Earl's Court.

                              Not a huge commute, but not exactly on his doorstep either.

                              Comment


                              • [QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n787808]
                                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                The MM itself is testimony to how unsafe it is, can you not see that? I dont have to prove anything to you.

                                I am not saying he lied, he clearly penned the MM in good faith based on what he was either told, or what he was able to gleam from records both ways were clearly unreliable sources.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                You cannot know that. Your simply making an assumption.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X