Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proof of Innocence?

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Steve Blomer View Post
    A little late to the debate, sorry.

    Not being a Druitt person by any stretch of the imagination(Although I was back in the very early 70s) the research is very good.
    The type of dry data I really enjoy.

    Now having read the various arguments given I on the whole find I am closest to those of Gary.

    While this on the surface, appears to make the case against Druitt weaker, I am not sure it really does. It's certainly not the knockout blow.

    I base that view on.

    1. No.time for close of play.
    Therefore attempting to saying he couldn't possibly travel to London in the time is really a bit silly, given we Don't know how much time there was.

    2. RJ showed that there were trains which would allow it, even if the day did not finish early.

    3. Ed's points about having to travel home are at first glance very good, however as Michael pointed out , he could have passed his kit to a friend. And as Michael says getting changed does not take long. Having played for over 30 years myself, it never took me longer than 10 minutes.
    Ed's argument is very logical, but it's based on assumption, even if that assumption is very, very reasonable.

    Finally as for why would he travel to London, well one might as well argue why would anyone kill?
    We don't know the killers thinking, motivation. For me therefore such arguments do not really advance the debate.

    I don't really understand the response from JH, it seems very personal.

    Conclusion, overall a great bit of research, which strengthens, if only slightly, the case for rejecting Druitt.
    I don't see it as the knockout blow some seem to see it as.
    Jonathan's reaction would certainly suggest people have been interpreting it as a knockout blow, but with one exception I really don't think they have.

    Nonetheless, to my mind, taking into account what else we know about his situation, if Druitt was in Dorset on 30 August and 1 September, I think it's very unlikely he was in London on 31 August.

    Comment


    • #77
      One other point, while I am prepared to accept JH's comment that he was aware of this, but it missed publication; I see no reason why an UPDATE was not made to the Kindle version, even now.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

        Jonathan's reaction would certainly suggest people have been interpreting it as a knockout blow, but with one exception I really don't think they have.

        Nonetheless, to my mind, taking into account what else we know about his situation, if Druitt was in Dorset on 30 August and 1 September, I think it's very unlikely he was in London on 31 August.
        Unlikely, certainly if he was innocent( and I think he was, probably) but if he was a serial killer, I am not sure that holds.
        We don't know, why they do what they do., other than they don't think, or behave the same as most.

        Overall, unlikely and great research.
        But not conclusive.

        Comment


        • #79
          I genuinely have no issue with anyone saying that they believe that Joanna’s discovery weakens the case against Druitt. Absolutely fair enough. I’m certainly not someone who claims that Druitt must have been the ripper. But, as Steve says, I just can’t see how this can be claimed as a knockout blow. Doubts, possibly, but knockout blow, no. That’s the only point that I’m making.

          He plays a match on the 30th which couldn’t have taken no more than 3 hours and very possibly less. We can’t be certain of the start time without confirming evidence but 11am is a very usual, likely time (indeed I’ve played matches that begun at 10 or 10.30. So he could easily have got to London by early or even late evening of the 30th. The murder occurred at say 3.40am of the 31st. This would have given Druitt a whole day to journey back for the game on the 1st. Obviously it’s down to the individual to judge how likely or unlikely this would have been.
          Regards

          Michael🔎


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

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
            I don't think anyone else here has said it makes it impossible for Druitt to have murdered Polly Nichols.

            But I do think that knowing he was in Dorset both the day before and the day after makes it very unlikely. Of course, everyone will have their own opinion about that.
            And that’s absolutely fair enough Chris.
            Regards

            Michael🔎


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

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post
              I genuinely have no issue with anyone saying that they believe that Joanna’s discovery weakens the case against Druitt. Absolutely fair enough. I’m certainly not someone who claims that Druitt must have been the ripper. But, as Steve says, I just can’t see how this can be claimed as a knockout blow. Doubts, possibly, but knockout blow, no. That’s the only point that I’m making.
              Well, just to repeat - with one exception, no one has said it's a knockout blow.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                Well, just to repeat - with one exception, no one has said it's a knockout blow.
                Accepted Chris.
                Regards

                Michael🔎


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

                Comment


                • #83
                  I know virtually nothing about Druitt. Is he considered a suspect in the Tabram case?

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Full disclosure-I have no dog in this fight, but it is a great and significant find, so Kudos.

                    But Murderers and serial killers have been known to travel far distances to make kills and then immediately travel back, or somewhere else. for one thing it gives them an alibi. secondly they have there own twisted reasons why they do things. They are not normal people and we cant judge them as if they are.

                    He had an office in London, no? so he has a reason (or excuse) and a place to go.

                    And According to MM, his family suspected him. If they suspected him, its a big deal, I would think they would look into dates, his alibi etc. to try and clear him. I know I would for a family member if there was suspicion of being a notorious killer! wouldnt they know if it was impossible for him to be the killer, or at least highly improbable, thus ending any suspicion?

                    Does this find hurt his candidacy? yes. knockout blow. not by any means.
                    Serial killers are weird, were not dealing with normal people and actions here.

                    and if lech can find, kill and mutilate a victim on his way to work and that tight time frame, MJD can travel to london(where he also has an office) in between cricket matches. (and I think both are valid suspects).

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                      Full disclosure-I have no dog in this fight, but it is a great and significant find, so Kudos.

                      But Murderers and serial killers have been known to travel far distances to make kills and then immediately travel back, or somewhere else. for one thing it gives them an alibi. secondly they have there own twisted reasons why they do things. They are not normal people and we cant judge them as if they are.

                      He had an office in London, no? so he has a reason (or excuse) and a place to go.

                      And According to MM, his family suspected him. If they suspected him, its a big deal, I would think they would look into dates, his alibi etc. to try and clear him. I know I would for a family member if there was suspicion of being a notorious killer! wouldnt they know if it was impossible for him to be the killer, or at least highly improbable, thus ending any suspicion?

                      Does this find hurt his candidacy? yes. knockout blow. not by any means.
                      Serial killers are weird, were not dealing with normal people and actions here.

                      and if lech can find, kill and mutilate a victim on his way to work and that tight time frame, MJD can travel to london(where he also has an office) in between cricket matches. (and I think both are valid suspects).
                      Completely agree, Abby (except for lechmere being a valid suspect)

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        His office - Barrister's Chambers- are not really of any use to him here.
                        There is no real similarity between hurriedly travelling back like to London to commit a first murder in an unfamiliar part of town, to killing while walking across streets regularly traversed, with familiarity and the comfort and planning that brings or allows.

                        Regarding the suspicions of Druitt's family - I would suggest that only occured after his dismissal, suicide and letter. Which in my view was all about his homosexuality bring exposed
                        But I any case the timing of the family suspicion must date from then, and the correlation between his cricket matches and the murders wouldn't have probably been readily apparent.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          So Druitt having pretty much a whole day to catch a train is unlikely? Ok.
                          Regards

                          Michael🔎


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

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Time to turn this Druitt page off for ever.

                            great research!


                            Tammy

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              A great approach. A suspect can be placed away from the murder scene the day before and the day after the murder in an era of train travel. Remind me to pantic if you’re ever on a jury at my trial Tammy.
                              Regards

                              Michael🔎


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

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Michael

                                I think perhaps you're misunderstanding what I mean when I say that if Druitt was in Dorset on 30 August and 1 September, then he's very unlikely to have been in London on 31 August.

                                Obviously I'm not saying that there would be any chronological difficulty in getting there and back in the time. That's clear from the discussion above (I mean in the absence of more information about when the game on 30 August ended).

                                I'm pretty much thinking about it in purely arithmetical terms. If Druitt was the sort of man who made that kind of round trip so many times a year, it's easy to work out the probability of his doing it on any particular day of the year. For example, if he generally did it 10 times a year, the probability of his doing it on any particular day is about 3%. Meaning that the probability of his not doing it on any particular day is 97%.

                                Exactly the same calculation applies if he's a serial killer. Of course the calculation changes if you start from the assumption that he committed a murder in London on that day, but that's too circular a piece of reasoning even for Ripperology!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X