Proof of Innocence?

[Abby Normal]

just to jump on the backs of other people who have mentioned similar things-when I was young and wild i used to take all kind of risky (and many with short time frame) trips into the big city, and yes some of them involving illegal activity, nothing violent or that bad, just involving partying, girls and drugs. And ive never been addicted to any of it, just the good times, totally unlike the urges of a serial killer, who we now know will go to incredible lengths to fulfill those urges. plus druit had the means/money, an office there, and may have been thinking of the alibi aspect as well. As I said before they dont think like normal people anyway.

oh and were talking about cricket matches here that bookended the trip, so if he ended up missing one I dont think it would have been a big deal.

[Steve Blomer]

Erroneous is your opinion. 41 year old doctor as compared to a 31 year old son of a doctor is hardly a million miles away considering events were 6 years before. People make errors but we shouldn’t assume that they are lies.

No conjecture ok…….The Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police names Montague John Druitt, along with 2 other men, as people likelier than Cutbush to have been the ripper. Even with errors there can be absolutely no doubt that he was talking about Druitt and not some 41 year old Doctor.

He says that the information that has come his way showed him that Druitt’s own family believed him to have been the killer. We have no way of knowing what that information was and therefore have no way of judging it’s validity or strength.

So there are 3 possibilities:

1. Macnaughten simply made this up.
2. Macnaughten was telling the truth but the person who informed him was lying.
3. Macnaughten was telling the truth but misjudged the importance/validity of the evidence.
4. Macnaughten was telling the truth and Druitt was guilty.

We have absolutely no way, beyond opinion and speculation, on which of the above might have been correct because we have no information about the info.

So my first question for anyone would be why assume number 1 or 2 or 3? I certainly don’t assume number 4 to be true so why is all of the certainty and unwillingness to explore possibilities all on the one side. Roger Palmer once said to me on the subject of Druitt, something like, “I don’t understand why some people are so incurious about the possibility of Druitt.” I agree. Why are some so resolute, so intransigent that they insist (not suspect or favour or tend to assume but absolutely insist) that they know for whatever reason that Druitt couldn’t have been guilty?

Id also ask why my own personal opinion, which shouldn’t bother anyone anyway, bothers people so much that I even have someone over on Casebook who follows me around making silly Druitt-related comments even on threads unrelated to Druitt no matter how many 100’s of times I’ve repeated that I’ve never claimed that Druitt was the ripper (it’s all silly Druittist this, and Druittist that) If I’d said “Druitt was definitely the ripper and you’re all fools for not agreeing,” then I’d understand it but all that I’ve ever said is that I find Druitt an interesting suspect and have done for years and that I tend to favour him of the named suspect (which when considering that I only consider 5 or 6 suspects worth discussing is hardly hardline)

Whatever anyone chooses to believe, Macnaughten put Druitt on the table and there isn’t a single solitary scintilla of evidence that dismisses him. Not a speck. And yet people know that he wasn’t the ripper. Is that a balanced approach? I don’t for a minute believe that Lechmere was the ripper but I’ll 100% accept that we definitely have no evidence to categorically eliminate him. I recall that for years people were asking how Mac could have had private info? You’ll disagree no doubt but I find it intriguing that we now know that one of Macnaughten's best friends was related by marriage to the Druitt’s. So there’s a plausible source and if that was the case (and I’m not stating a fact put a reasonable possibility) then would a man like him have been likely to have made up a story about Druitt being Jack the Ripper? There’s much about the story that intrigues me and even if someone doesn’t accept Jon Hainsworth’s theory we still have numerous incidents, occurrences curiosities and possible hints. No smoking guns of course but for me an accumulation of interesting points which could be of significance. So if it’s a crime to remain open-minded and intrigued by Druitt then I’m guilty and I don’t care.

Of the 4 points above the only one I’d tend to eliminate with confidence is the on that you go for…number 1. No way imo. I posted my reasons yesterday and got a dismissive response from Simon which is not something that worries me. But I certainly accept 2, 3 and 4 as possibles.

Mike there is another alternative, one i have been working on for a long time now.
it revolves around the purpose of the memorandum, the true purpose that is.
this is out of the box . and i an not ready to go public with it at this point.
so for me its not as simple as Mac lied or he told the truth. i believe he did both. all for a reason, and hopefully never to be made public..

The monograph booklet is still some years off.

always happy to debate with friends in private. Even been known to change my view on occasions.


steve

[Michael Banks]

Mike there is another alterntive, one i have been working on for a long time now.
it revolves around the purpose of the memodrandum, the true purpose that is.
this is out of the box . and i an not ready to go public with it at this point.
so for me its not as simple as Mac lied or he told the truth. i believe he did both. all for a reason, and hopefully never to be made public..

The monograph,booklet is stil some years off.

always happy to debate with friends in.private. even been known to change my view on ooccassions.


steve

Steve, whatever your suggestion/idea I know that it will be fairly arrived at.

[R. J. Palmer]

The time Druitt arrived in Blandford for the match is of much less significance as the murder happened afterwards not before. I hope this is clear.
For all I know Druitt stayed in Blandford overnight on 29th to the 30th in a hotel. There were hotels in Blandford. I checked this even though his time of arrival of of little to no importance whatsoever.

A key point is going to be whether there are any trains other than the Bristol to Bournemouth Line passing through Blandford.

He needs to get to Wimborne, or, in a pinch, to Bournemouth. But on the Bristol to Bournemouth line it looks like the only option is 4.55 p.m. if he wants to take the train from Wimborne to Salisbury to Waterloo. Because the next train to stop in Wimborne after that doesn't get there until 9.30 p.m. and then he is stranded.

He can take a later train from Blandford (7.35 pm and 8.58 pm) to Bournemouth but I'm reasonably certain that that's too late to get him to London. The train from Bournemouth to Waterloo Station left at 7.30 pm until November 1888, when it was discontinued.

As I say, all of this is just provisional and could change, but if the cricket match lasted much longer than 4 or 4.30 p.m., the Druittists might have a problem

Right now, I miss my copy of Bradshaw's more than I miss my long-lost brother.

[Steve Blomer]

A key point is going to be whether there are any trains other than the Bristol to Bournemouth Line passing through Blandford.

He needs to get to Wimborne, or, in a pinch, to Bournemouth. But on the Bristol to Bournemouth line it looks like the only option is 4.55 p.m. if he wants to take the train from Wimborne to Salisbury to Waterloo. Because the next train to stop in Wimborne after that doesn't get there until 9.30 p.m. and then he is stranded.

He can take a later train from Blandford (7.35 pm and 8.58 pm) to Bournemouth but I'm reasonably certain that that's too late to get him to London. The train from Bournemouth to Waterloo Station left at 7.30 pm until November 1888, when it was discontinued.

As I say, all of this is just provisional and could change, but if the cricket match lasted much longer than 4 or 4.30 p.m., the Druittists might have a problem

Right now, I miss my copy of Bradshaw's more than I miss my long-lost brother.

Hi RJ,
I am normally greatly swayed by hard facts.
In this case, the only reasonable hard facts are the train times.
I have seen you mention several.different times for last trains into.London, of course it does not help that there several possible departure points and connections.

Would it be possible to.bring all this togeather in a single Post?

I suspect this will show either it's very possible, or almost impossible.

Thanks

Steve

[Christer Holmgren]

Excuse me, Ed, but by whom? You and Christer and Mark have injected Lechmere into this thread, and somehow it is "telling" that Lechmere's name keeps being brought up? That's rather self-fulfilling, isn't it?

So lets look at this claim of yours, R J; that I would have "injected" Lechmere into this thread.

I made the posts:

97
107
120
122
123
137
139
142
143
148
156
168
170
172
173

...about Druitt and Druitt only. I did no mention Lechmere in any shape or form. Then, in post 174, Caz answered my post 173, that said:

"Joannas find has not made me change my mind either when it comes to the possibility that Druitt was the Ripper. I could not conclusively rule him out before, and I cannot conclusively rule him out now."

by writing:

"That is good to know, Christer, because it implies you are not certain about Lechmere's guilt, or that in itself would rule out Druitt as far as you were concerned."

so THIS is where Lechmere was "injected" into this thread, R J, and it was NOT by me!

I answered Caz in my post 175 writing:

"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."

... and I thought that was it. After this, I made the posts:

178
182
188
200
209

... speaking of Druitt only, not mentioning Lechmere in any shape or form, up until Caz could not help herself any longer, writing in her post 222, addressing my answer from post 175:

"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. "

So AGAIN, Caz injected Lechmere into this discussion, whereupon I answered her in my post 226:

"Is this your new hobby, Caz? Trying to trip me up about Lechmere? If so, isn’ t that more than a tad sad?

For your information, suspects can be convicted on circumstantial evidence. That means that they go down without conclusive proof, many times leaving other possible suspects in the clear although it is doubtful if they should have been.

What is it about Lechmere that makes people loose their wits? It must be something."

Now, R J, I am going to politely ask you how this adds up to ME "injecting" Lechmere into this thread?

It´s not that I could not have done it - I make my own calls about what to post and what not to post, and if I see it justified to speak of Lechmere, then I do not ask others whether they would like it or not before posting.

But the thing is, if we are going to have accusations flung about it from people who actually do not tell the truth about it, then it all becomes very misleading and wrong. I am sure that you may suffer from the impression that I am always to blame whenever somebody has blood pressure highs connected to the carman; it is not the first time I see that kind of conclusion drawn. But I would appreciate if you checked first and posted only after that check if you were going to throw accusations around yourself.

Now, R J, if it is not asking too much, can we please return to the REAL topic of this thread?

[Chris Phillips]

So lets look at this claim of yours, R J; that I would have "injected" Lechmere into this thread.

I made the posts:

97
107
120
122
123
137
139
142
143
148
156
168
170
172
173

...about Druitt and Druitt only. I did no mention Lechderme in any shape or form. Then, in post 174, Caz answered my post 173, that said:

"Joannas find has not made me change my mind either when it comes to the possibility that Druitt was the Ripper. I could not conclusively rule him out before, and I cannot conclusively rule him out now."

by writing:

"That is good to know, Christer, because it implies you are not certain about Lechmere's guilt, or that in itself would rule out Druitt as far as you were concerned."

so THIS is where Lechmere was "injected" into this thread, R J, and it was NOT by me!

I answered Caz in my post 175 writing:

"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."

... and I thought that was it. After this, I made the posts:

178
182
188
200
209

... speaking of Druitt only, not mentioning Lechmere in any shape or form, up until Caz could not help herself any longer, writing in her post 222, addressing my answer from post 175:

"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. "

So AGAIN, Caz injected Lechmere into this discussion, whereupon I answered her in my post 226:

"Is this your new hobby, Caz? Trying to trip me up about Lechmere? If so, isn’ t that more than a tad sad?

For your information, suspects can be convicted on circumstantial evidence. That means that they go down without conclusive proof, many times leaving other possible suspects in the clear although it is doubtful if they should have been.

What is it about Lechmere that makes people loose their wits? It must be something."

Now, R J, I am going to politely ask you how this adds up to ME "injecting" Lechmere into this thread?

It´s not that I could not have done it - I make my own calls about what to post and what not to post, and if I see it justified to speak of Lechmere, then I do not ask others whether they would like it or not before posting.

But the thing is, if we are going to have accusations flung about it from people who actually do not tell the truth about it, then it all becomes very misleading and wrong. I am sure that you may suffer from the impression that I am always to blame whenever somebody has blood pressure highs connected to the carman; it is not the first time I see this kind of thing. But I would appreciate if you checked frst and posted after it if you were going to thrwo accusations around yourself.

Now, R J, if it is not asking too much, can we please return to the REAL topic of this thread?

Can we please not have long, off-topic posts. discussing whether people have inserted off-topic posts in the thread?

It's ridiculous.

[Christer Holmgren]

Can we please not have long, off-topic posts. discussing whether people have inserted off-topic posts in the thread?

It's ridiculous.

There was one reason for my post and one reason only: R J Palmer unfairly accused me of having injected Charles Lechmere into the discussion about Druitt.

Had he not done so, there would have been no reason at all for me to react.

Nota bene that I finished my post by asking R J to return to the topic of the thread.

I could of course have written a short post only saying "That is not true". I however think it is always important to be able to bolster your claims with facts. Which I did.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

[Chris Phillips]

There was one reason for my post and one reason only: R J Palmer unfairly accused me of having injected Charles Lechmere into the discussion about Druitt.

Had he not done so, there would have been no reason at all for me to react.

Nota bene that I finished my post by asking R J to return to the topic of the thread.

I could of course have written a short post only saying "That is not true". I however think it is always important to be able to bolster your claims with facts. Which I did.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Will you please stop?

[Christer Holmgren]

Will you please stop?

I already did, Chris.

[Michael Banks]

A key point is going to be whether there are any trains other than the Bristol to Bournemouth Line passing through Blandford.

He needs to get to Wimborne, or, in a pinch, to Bournemouth. But on the Bristol to Bournemouth line it looks like the only option is 4.55 p.m. if he wants to take the train from Wimborne to Salisbury to Waterloo. Because the next train to stop in Wimborne after that doesn't get there until 9.30 p.m. and then he is stranded.

He can take a later train from Blandford (7.35 pm and 8.58 pm) to Bournemouth but I'm reasonably certain that that's too late to get him to London. The train from Bournemouth to Waterloo Station left at 7.30 pm until November 1888, when it was discontinued.

As I say, all of this is just provisional and could change, but if the cricket match lasted much longer than 4 or 4.30 p.m., the Druittists might have a problem

Right now, I miss my copy of Bradshaw's more than I miss my long-lost brother.

Roger are you eliminating the possibility that he might have taken the 2.29 train? To be honest I can’t recall how long it would have taken him to get from the cricket ground to Blandford station? I’d say that out most significant ‘unknown’ is what time this game started. I can only speak from modern day experience that 11.00 is a reasonable estimate but it’s not one that we could come close to stating as a fact or even a ‘likely’ in a game that occurred 134 years ago, so my 11.00 estimate is of little or no use of course. I don’t know how many cricket fans there are on here as the game isn’t everyone’s cup of tea (and a less likely interest for someone from the USA) but I do know that, like myself Steve Blomer is a lifelong enthusiast so we have his opinion to compare against mine if it’s believed by some that I’m desperate to bend the evidence in favour of a guilty Druitt. (Then again Steve might be considered a Kosminskiist and so equally untrustworthy. ) But I don’t see how anyone could deny that, in the absence of any evidence of delays for rain, that this was a very, very short game. This is just a fact. Cricket can be a long game of course (it’s one of the reasons why people are put off) but this game wasn’t one. It’s not impossible by any means that this game could have been done and dusted in 2 hours or so. It’s really difficult to imagine a game like this getting over the 3 hour mark. I once played in a league game for my works team where we were bowled out for 34 and lost. The game took under 2 hours with a total of 69 runs being scored. I mention it simply as a point of comparison for any non-cricket enthusiast who might be under the misapprehension that this game could have taken 5 or 6 hours. Unless they had around 30 drinks breaks it couldn’t.

[Michael Banks]

Just to add that the gap between 2 innings is usually no more than 15 minutes although in the circumstances it’s not impossible that they might have decided on a lunch break between innings of 30 minutes or even an hour. We have no way of knowing of course.

[Edward Stow]

From what we can tell so far
The match on 30^th was unlikely to start before 1pm
Rain may well have delayed play.
It was about half a mile from the Recreation Ground to the Station – maybe 10 minute’s walk.
The only realistic train he could have got is
Blandford to Wimborne
4.55-5.52

This would possibly allow Druitt time to get home and dump his bag and get back to Wimborne station. It was a mile each way from the station to his house.

Wimborne to Salisbury
6.43 – 8.24

Salisbury to Waterloo
8.34 – 11.41

The whole thing is incredibly tight. Even for an unpredictable serial killer. The match could very easily have gone on longer than 4.55 --and before hand he would surely not have known it would be over that early.
And did he know all these train times in his head?

Is it a knock out blow?
Its certainly a standing count.
Young Hainsworth seems to have thrown in the towel to stop further punishment.

[Gary Barnett]

Thanks for the clarification, Mr Stow.

[Edward Stow]

Who? Oh me.
I think that is a fair summary.