Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proof of Innocence?

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

  • Originally posted by J.W. Sage View Post
    Not sure if this bears any relevance to anything, but it appears MJD was appearing in court in Bournemouth Tuesday 30th November representing James Druitt.
    He wasn't in Bournemouth.

    It was an appeals case held in London. It began as an election dispute down south, but MJD ended up handling the "London end" for his brother and cousin.

    He won the case and should have been delighted.

    Instead, he ended up in The Thames.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

      Hi Steve,

      No, it was on Saturday, 15th September.

      Gary
      This match was reported on in the Blandford Weekly Press on the 22nd Sept. It began at 1.30 and the weather was fine but play was stopped (presumably because of light conditions?) part way through the 2nd innings of one of the teams, a total of
      290 runs having been scored by both teams.

      One for our cricket experts to pick apart, perhaps, to see what it might tell us about the match we are interested in.


      Attached Files

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Phil Kellingley View Post
        I know I'm late to this party and, firstly, I'd like to say that I think Joanna's find is significant. The same cannot be said for some of the comments...



        And what evidence is there for that? None. Could rain have interrupted play? There are reports of a lot of rain at that particular time of year (it's quoted here somewhere). Or, perhaps, many of the batsmen were fairly inept and low scorers. (By the way there's a double negative in the original post which I'm assuming was unintentional).

        Like so many discussions about any suspect theories are advanced to 'prove' points when they do no such thing. This is one such. All we have is the proof that Druitt was there on one day and there two days later. The balance of probability is that, as both matches were close to the family home, he stayed there in the interim. The probability (not possibility) that he returned to London specifically to commit a random murder is round about zero.

        The only actual fact there is to suspect Druitt is that MacNaghten mentions him amongst his 3 suspects. (That someone commits suicide doesn't, on its own, implicate them in anything other than the fact they committed suicide). There appears to be no police record which mentions him. Hainsworth's ludicrous suggestions that other writers disguised him in their works deliberately is the stuff of fairy tales.

        I find it difficult to understand why anyone can seriously consider Druitt as a suspect at all. From Howells and Skinner's book through others to Hainsworth's two volumes there is nothing but a trail of disinformation and conjecture without a shred of evidence that Druitt had ever been in the East End, never mind being a murderer.
        The point Mike was making was that the game could easily have been played in a short enough time to allow Druitt to get to London by train that same afternoon.




        Comment


        • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

          At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I would say again that there are two aspects to this.

          One is the question of whether Druitt would have had time to get back to London that day. In the absence of information about when the game ended, there's no difficulty about that.

          The other is simply the fact that this tells us Druitt was in Dorset on 30 August as well as 1 September. Regardless of any issues of timing, to my mind that certainly makes it less likely that he was in London on 31 August. I think that is just common sense.

          And while I agree this doesn't eliminate Druitt as a suspect, I think it makes him very improbable. So I'd say that whether it approaches eliminating him is a question of degree and a matter of opinion.
          And I’d say that serial killers do continue with their lives. If you don’t think it strange (and you clearly don’t) that Lechmere murdered Nichols then strolled on to do a days work 15 minutes or so later, why is it so unlikely that Druitt caught a train 12 hours or more after a murder? Surely we should apply the same yardsticks to all suspects?
          Regards

          Michael🔎


          " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post

            And I’d say that serial killers do continue with their lives. If you don’t think it strange (and you clearly don’t) that Lechmere murdered Nichols then strolled on to work 15 minutes or so later, why is it so unlikely that Druitt caught a train 12 hours or more after a murder? Surely we should apply the same yardsticks to all suspects.
            Is Chris a Lechmerian?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

              Is Chris a Lechmerian?
              I'm with whoever it was who said when Ripperologists find out who the Ripper was on the Day of Judgment their response will be "Who?"

              [Edit: It was Martin Fido.]

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

                This match was reported on in the Blandford Weekly Press on the 22nd Sept. It began at 1.30 and the weather was fine but play was stopped (presumably because of light conditions?) part way through the 2nd innings of one of the teams, a total of
                290 runs having been scored by both teams.

                One for our cricket experts to pick apart, perhaps, to see what it might tell us about the match we are interested in.

                If Monty had played in this particular game Gary then he’d indeed have been eliminated with the amount of runs scored. I’d assume that the game that you found must have been planned at least as a 2 day game as they couldn’t have planned to complete 4 innings between 1.30 and the time that it went dark (which I believe was just before 8.00 at the time?) If Druitt’s game had started at 1.30 then my personal estimate would be that the game would have ended 3.30/4.00ish. I’m no expert on Victorian cricket but I’d expect to find that games began at varying times.
                Regards

                Michael🔎


                " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                  I'm with whoever it was who said when Ripperologists find out who the Ripper was on the Day of Judgment their response will be "Who?"
                  I think that’s the likeliest scenario Chris. I’m not sure who said it originally but I’d always felt that it was Rumbelow though might have been someone else.
                  Regards

                  Michael🔎


                  " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                    I'm with whoever it was who said when Ripperologists find out who the Ripper was on the Day of Judgment their response will be "Who?"

                    [Edit: It was Martin Fido.]
                    Actually, I don't think he got it quite right. There will be a minority arguing that the Angel Gabriel is only saying that because he's part of a conspiracy to conceal the truth.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                      At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I would say again that there are two aspects to this.

                      One is the question of whether Druitt would have had time to get back to London that day. In the absence of information about when the game ended, there's no difficulty about that.

                      The other is simply the fact that this tells us Druitt was in Dorset on 30 August as well as 1 September. Regardless of any issues of timing, to my mind that certainly makes it less likely that he was in London on 31 August. I think that is just common sense.

                      And while I agree this doesn't eliminate Druitt as a suspect, I think it makes him very improbable. So I'd say that whether it approaches eliminating him is a question of degree and a matter of opinion.
                      And I wouldn’t criticise that Chris. Personally I see no difficulty in the suggestion that Druitt travelled to London and then back. I just don’t think that we can assume that, if guilty, he returned to London just to kill. Now I’m the broken record but perhaps he had some kind of meeting or just something that he had to do. Perhaps he hadn’t originally intended to travel back to play in the second game but his circumstances changed so he changed his plans and returns. This is all speculation of course. We can’t know. And of course it’s possible that he didn’t return to London.
                      Regards

                      Michael🔎


                      " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                        Actually, I don't think he got it quite right. There will be a minority arguing that the Angel Gabriel is only saying that because he's part of a conspiracy to conceal the truth.
                        Fido nor Rumbelow.
                        Regards

                        Michael🔎


                        " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post

                          Yes, I always left a 0,0001 per cent chance that it was somebody else, so that people cannot accuse me of shutting doors. If it pleases you, I could not be more chuffed.
                          That's also good to know. It means that if Lechmere were in the dock today and you were on the jury, you would have to find him not guilty on the grounds of reasonable doubt, because you admit to being unable - or unwilling - to rule out other suspects, including Druitt.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                            I'm with whoever it was who said when Ripperologists find out who the Ripper was on the Day of Judgment their response will be "Who?"

                            [Edit: It was Martin Fido.]
                            I always thought it was Donald Rumbelow.

                            Martin was fairly confident that the Ripper was David Cohen, which I suppose amounts to the same things as "who?"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post

                              I always thought it was Donald Rumbelow.

                              Martin was fairly confident that the Ripper was David Cohen, which I suppose amounts to the same things as "who?"
                              You're right. It was Donald Rumbelow:
                              https://books.google.com/books?id=FJWGCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA151

                              I made the mistake of checking online and believing the first two answers I saw, which both attributed it to Fido.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
                                I made the mistake of checking online and believing the first two answers I saw, which both attributed it to Fido.
                                No problem, Chris. I think I can almost spot a quip about Martin "not being the man who will not be blamed for not knowing," but I can't quite work it out.






                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X