Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proof of Innocence?

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

  • Hi Michael,

    You've obviously tried to over-think this.

    As I said in my post -

    You need help.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
      Hi Michael,

      You've obviously tried to over-think this.

      As I said in my post -

      You need help.

      Regards,

      Simon
      You’re the one overthinking it. You’re trying to make it appear somehow strange that he might have been aware of train times. Or that he’d have somehow struggled to have found a willing potential victim in Whitechapel in the early hours. Or that it would have been so difficult to find somewhere to put his cricket bag. Or that it would have been such a gargantuan task to have cleaned himself up (as whoever committed the murder would have had to have done) and then caught a train back within a period of what could have been a whole 12 hours or more!

      Im getting more than a little tired of your condescending responses. It’s nothing short of remarkable that you have no issue about high level plots or people assuming different identities or claiming that one of the victims didn’t actually exist and yet when someone suggests something as banal as the possibility someone could have had ample time to do something like catch a train (when all of the available evidence backs this possibility up) you imply that they require professional help.

      I don’t need help. I’d just prefer that you didn’t go to ridiculous lengths to try and eliminate Druitt. And I’d prefer it if you didn’t imply some kind of mental illness because I don’t agree with you! If the evidence is forthcoming I’ll be the first to acknowledge it.
      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

        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.

        MacNaghten was by then Chief Constable. He had access to every file held by Scotland Yard, yet we are to believe that he was so incompetent he couldn't check his facts?

        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.

        In which case why did he write about a 41 year old doctor? Why, if he knew the detail of the name, didn't he know Druitt was a 31 year old barrister. There MUST have been a police record from somewhere which would have given the inquest details - possibly eve a copy of the inquest report.

        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.

        Precisely. One of his cronies adept at fiction (Sims perhaps) could have suggested that it would be a tidy way to conclude the Ripper case by claiming that the Ripper was either dead or committed to an asylum. All MacN then has to do is get someone to look at the files and present a few names. Job done. And we do not know if that claim is true. It could just have been invention.

        So there are 3 possibilities:

        Just out of curiosity if there are 3 possibilities, why do you give 4? I can only imagine that your attention to detail is what causes your failure to prove anything other than MacNaghten named 3 people, all of which he described erroneously. That's not, by the way, my opinion. It's a black and white fact - read the memo and you can see it yourself.

        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.

        Or MacNaghten wrote the memo as a self-promoting exercise and made the statement about 3 men that he was 100% certain WERE NOT Jack the Ripper. He wrote: "I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders." As the purpose of the memo was obviously to exonerate Cutbush what better way to do so than identify 3 people that he knew could not have committed the crimes?


        Whatever anyone chooses to believe, Macnaughten put Druitt on the table and there isn’t a single solitary scintilla of evidence that dismisses him.

        Whoa. There were thousands of East End inhabitants against whom there is no evidence of innocence. Equally, as with Druitt there is not a single solitary scintilla of evidence that indicates any one of them.

        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 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.

        In the first place, the source is not 'plausible'. It's possible - but only by assuming someone told someone else who told MacN. There is very, very little reason to believe that anyone from Druitt's family would ever tell anyone that they 'suspected' one of their family was Jack the Ripper. Why on earth would they? This was Victorian England and even a suspicion would be the social kiss of death. It's a preposterous theory promulgated simply because MacN needed something to buoy up his story.

        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.
        And none of that adresses the question I posed, which was what, other than MacN's memo, points to Druit as Jack? What one fact? And the answer you refuse to give is that there isn't one. I'll repeat what I've said before because you obviously fail to understand, that it's not up to anyone to prove Druitt's innocence, but up to someone to prove his guilt. There is simply no factual evidence to support the Druitt theory (or the many other 'suspects'). There are made up stories, like those in the books of, say, David Anderson and J Hainsworth and partner, which cobble together a mixture of untruths and speculations but nowhere does anyone produce any evidence other than that a self-promoting, inept, Old Etonian, wrote a memo without mentioning who it was for and then made factual error after factual error in that memo.

        Let me explain something. By profession I was a fraud investigator dealing specifically with questioned documents. Almost every fraudulent document which I've seen contains a succession of plausible statements. But 99% of fraudsters go one step further and embellish their stories by adding a lie. If I could identify a lie I then investigated further and eventually unmasked the fraud. MacN's memo is full of lies (which, of course, you dismiss as merely errors of memory). But MacN had access to any documentation he needed to be accurate. Yet he perpetuated the lies. If he did not know something, why make it up? As he lied about everything else why shouldn't he lie about receiving information that he was never going to produce? Why was the memo not addressed to someone? It was obviously intended to be used as a counter to the press claim about Cutbush - but was never used. Could it simply be that his superiors saw it for what it was - a piece of self-glorification? Don't forget that MacN originally wanted to be an actor so seeking the limelight was second nature, as is easily shown by his courting of favourable press mentions.

        The bald and simple fact is that the only case against Druitt is that manufactured by MacNaghten. All else is empty speculation.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post

          You’re the one overthinking it. You’re trying to make it appear somehow strange that he might have been aware of train times. Or that he’d have somehow struggled to have found a willing potential victim in Whitechapel in the early hours. Or that it would have been so difficult to find somewhere to put his cricket bag. Or that it would have been such a gargantuan task to have cleaned himself up (as whoever committed the murder would have had to have done) and then caught a train back within a period of what could have been a whole 12 hours or more!

          Im getting more than a little tired of your condescending responses. It’s nothing short of remarkable that you have no issue about high level plots or people assuming different identities or claiming that one of the victims didn’t actually exist and yet when someone suggests something as banal as the possibility someone could have had ample time to do something like catch a train (when all of the available evidence backs this possibility up) you imply that they require professional help.

          I don’t need help. I’d just prefer that you didn’t go to ridiculous lengths to try and eliminate Druitt. And I’d prefer it if you didn’t imply some kind of mental illness because I don’t agree with you! If the evidence is forthcoming I’ll be the first to acknowledge it.
          Do you not think that if he was the serial killer you believe that whilst down in Dorset he might have found himself a victim in that area instead of taking the time and trouble to travel back and forth to London just to kill? I am sure the towns in Dorset all had their own red light districts.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post

            Hi Steve -- If I ever get there, I surely will.

            In the meantime, these timetables are from Jan 1889, but my working assumption is that they would have been the same six months earlier.

            If Druitt can get to the Blandford train station by 4.55 p.m., he can be at his sex-shop in Aldgate by 10.30. Maybe earlier, depending on the times of the express train which are not easy to pin down.

            As Edward rightly notes, it all depends on the when the cricket match started and, of course, ended.

            Only eight minutes to spare at Bournemouth West Station.

            Click image for larger version

Name:	Blandford to B W.jpg
Views:	107
Size:	50.9 KB
ID:	588581



            Click image for larger version

Name:	B. W. to Waterloo.jpg
Views:	103
Size:	60.9 KB
ID:	588582
            Thanks

            Comment




            • Sadly, it seems the one thing which might give an indication of the match length, including exact start or end times is missing.
              The actual scorecard , not the truncated version found by Joanna, but the full version.
              Which would give the total number of overs bowled. From.which one could estimate duration.
              It would, by tradition give the start time, times of any breaks and even possibly an end of play time.
              Attempting to find the scorecard would I expect be a fruitless search.
              But in all honesty, it's the only way of resolving the question.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                Do you not think that if he was the serial killer you believe that whilst down in Dorset he might have found himself a victim in that area instead of taking the time and trouble to travel back and forth to London just to kill? I am sure the towns in Dorset all had their own red light districts.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                There must have been hundreds of unfortunates wandering the labyrinthine back streets of Blandford Forum and Wimborne in the early hours.


                Comment


                • Originally posted by Phil Kellingley View Post

                  And none of that adresses the question I posed, which was what, other than MacN's memo, points to Druit as Jack? What one fact? And the answer you refuse to give is that there isn't one. I'll repeat what I've said before because you obviously fail to understand, that it's not up to anyone to prove Druitt's innocence, but up to someone to prove his guilt. There is simply no factual evidence to support the Druitt theory (or the many other 'suspects'). There are made up stories, like those in the books of, say, David Anderson and J Hainsworth and partner, which cobble together a mixture of untruths and speculations but nowhere does anyone produce any evidence other than that a self-promoting, inept, Old Etonian, wrote a memo without mentioning who it was for and then made factual error after factual error in that memo.

                  Let me explain something. By profession I was a fraud investigator dealing specifically with questioned documents. Almost every fraudulent document which I've seen contains a succession of plausible statements. But 99% of fraudsters go one step further and embellish their stories by adding a lie. If I could identify a lie I then investigated further and eventually unmasked the fraud. MacN's memo is full of lies (which, of course, you dismiss as merely errors of memory). But MacN had access to any documentation he needed to be accurate. Yet he perpetuated the lies. If he did not know something, why make it up? As he lied about everything else why shouldn't he lie about receiving information that he was never going to produce? Why was the memo not addressed to someone? It was obviously intended to be used as a counter to the press claim about Cutbush - but was never used. Could it simply be that his superiors saw it for what it was - a piece of self-glorification? Don't forget that MacN originally wanted to be an actor so seeking the limelight was second nature, as is easily shown by his courting of favourable press mentions.

                  The bald and simple fact is that the only case against Druitt is that manufactured by MacNaghten. All else is empty speculation.
                  And the point that you intentionally and repeatedly ignore is that I’ve never once claimed or implied that there was proof of Druitt’s guilt.

                  You’re claim that Macnaughten lied is an assumption on your part based on conspiracist thinking. That errors are always deliberate lies even when the person they originated from usually be fitted in no way. The obsession that Macnaughten was a self publicist is without foundation but overloaded with agenda. You are very obvious free to persuade whatever belief that you want but the suggestion that he lied is nonsense imo. This so-called liar could easily have come up with a more convincing less potentially disproving and potentially less damaging to a friend. Unless you make another assumption….that Macnaughten was a halfwit and I see no evidence for that. You clearly have a bit of a Macnaughten obsession. Did he wrong one of your ancestors in some way?

                  To claim as a fact that Macnaughten made up the story is, yet again, opinion stated as fact. I state no opinions as fact. I simply remain open to possibilities until such time as evidence disproves them. You should try it.
                  Regards

                  Michael🔎


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

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

                    There must have been hundreds of unfortunates wandering the labyrinthine back streets of Blandford Forum and Wimborne in the early hours.

                    Yes Gary. It was a known hotbed of sin and debauchery. Dickens based the location for Oliver Twist on Blandford. Didn’t you know that?
                    Regards

                    Michael🔎


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

                    Comment


                    • But there were unfortunates aplenty around Waterloo, where his train supposedly pulled into. And in Bournemouth and Salisbury I don't doubt.

                      Druitt bowled 10 overs.
                      It occured to me that the Blandford batting collapse could have been caused by rain affecting the wicket.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post

                        So far Roger it looks more like a team of ‘gentlemen.’ We know that there were many gentleman’s teams in those days and that at a higher level there were Gentleman vs Players matches were the two teams emerged onto the field of play via separate gates. This continued well into the 20th century. I don’t know this for anything like a fact but it’s probable that at some point Druitt might have played for a gentleman’s team. You wouldn’t have found the local refuse collector playing for the Blackheath Cub for example.
                        There were some highfliers, but the most likely identity of 'G. Smart' and 'R. Smart' on the Blandford team would be George Smart, the station master, and his son, the telegraph operator.

                        Which is interesting.

                        Comment


                        • Has anyone here ever walked into a railway station and enquired at the ticket office about the next/fastest/etc train to somewhere? Even today when I can look stuff up Trainline etc on my phone I still find myself occasionally doing it. It’s easy, folks. I imagine back in the day every station had its copy of Bradshaw and the local staff would have known their local services intimately. So there would have been no need for Druitt to have committed Bradshaw’s to memory.

                          Commuting on and off between London and Dorset as he did, he would have been familiar with the broad outline of the available services, and for precise details of times and connections all he had to do was ask at the station.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                            But there were unfortunates aplenty around Waterloo, where his train supposedly pulled into. And in Bournemouth and Salisbury I don't doubt.

                            Druitt bowled 10 overs.
                            It occured to me that the Blandford batting collapse could have been caused by rain affecting the wicket.
                            What do you mean by ‘unfortunates’?


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post

                              There were some highfliers, but the most likely identity of 'G. Smart' and 'R. Smart' on the Blandford team would be George Smart, the station master, and his son, the telegraph operator.

                              Which is interesting.
                              That is interesting, RJ. Great research on the teams BTW.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Phil Kellingley View Post
                                In order ot address the diatribe of Michael Banks I'm simply quoting his posting and putting my observations within that post.


                                This is what you call a lie:

                                Lie 2: Quote: "Louise Masset, a governess, who murdered her illegitimate child at Dalston Railway Station, and was hung at the end of 1899" - In fact Masset was famous for being the first woman hanged in the 20th Century on 9th January 1900.

                                I suspect most people would call it an insignificant failure of memory.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X