Originally posted by Trevor Marriott
View Post
B) Macnaghten never claimed to have evidence strong enough to convict.
C) So what would be the point of proceeding with an investigation where the evidence was possibly nowhere near strong enough to convict into a that the culprit was dead. Come on Trevor!
…….
Your Druitt obsession is now wearing thin Trevor. You are increasingly sounding like a petulant schoolgirl stamping her feet and repeating “he’s not a suspect, he’s not a suspect!” It’s laughable. But as we can prove that he was in England at the time unlike your comedy suspect he remains in a different league to Feigenbaum, the compulsive liar that you believe when it suits you. He’s not even a person of interest. His name shouldn’t even be mentioned in connection with this case.
Druitt remains a suspect and one of the very few worthy of further research.
Comment