That's ridiculous, Christer. We know for a fact that if Druitt did it, he didn't stay at the scene, and for bleedin' obvious reasons. For one thing, how would it look when he had to admit he had been playing cricket in Dorset the previous afternoon?
You seem to be forgetting that serial killers are not wired the way we are. Well, me at least, I really would not aspire to know how you are wired… Anyway, lets keep in mind that we are dealing with a theoretical scenario. In such a scenario, I would not rule out Druitt staying put and bluffing. If one man can do it, then so could another, even if he worked from less advantageous circumstances. Of course, since you think that not even Lechmere would bluff his way out, it is understandable that you would be even less inclined to think that Druitt would. Before we understand A, B seems even harder to fathom. But in the scenario we have at hand, we are looking at Druitt as the killer, so that part is set in stone. You then think that Druitt would never bluff, but the thing is, since Paul hurried, Druitt would have been reasonably certain that he was not a P C. And so he may have reasoned, just like Lechmere would if I am right, that it would contain massive risks to scarper (or walk away), and so he could have chosen to fool Paul - with the intent not to give up his name and the aim not to approach the police afterwards. I think that was the exact aim that Lechmere had too, only to be caught in a situation where he had to accept contacting the police. It was a situation that evolved into something he could not have foreseen. Therefore, when you ask how it would look WHEN he had to admit about Dorset and the cricket as if it WOULD happen, why would Druitt have worked from that idea if he planned to bluff Paul and get away scot free?
Yes, of course somebody had to find the body, but if that person knew he had no business being there, or looked like a fish out of water, with no good reason for walking along Buck's Row in the early hours, they would have made themselves scarce, rather than having to face the inevitable questions about their own movements.
Inevitable? Really? How does that work?
The rest of your post has nothing to do with Druitt, but to put it in a nutshell, your suspect only had a 100% provable and legitimate reason for being 'found' with one victim - and by pure chance, it was the one he was found with. That's why I asked about any case where this has actually happened, because with every other ripper murder this would not have applied to your suspect.
'Found' on the landing with Tabram's body?
In the backyard with Chapman's?
In Dutfield's Yard with Stride's?
In Mitre Square with Eddowes's?
In Miller's Court with Kelly's?
In all those cases, it would have been curtains for the ripper, whoever he was, if he had tried to bluff his way out, either because escape was too risky or he considered himself invincible.
By pure chance? Why would Lechmere not be aware of what was offered by the circumstances? Why are you inventing theoretical problems, linked to how other sites offered other circumstances? It is very disingenous, is it not? But of course, if we cannot level useful criticism but feel an urge to say at least something …
It's not that serial killers do strange and unlikely things; it's the coincidence involved in your man only being able to do what you believe he did, thanks to the very specific circumstances in which he found himself, in Buck's Row, which could not be predicted or planned for in advance.
But who in the whole wide world has suggested that it was planned in advance? What a very curious thing to say!
I very much doubt he chose Buck's Row as a murder location, just so he'd have the perfect excuse when a second carman came along on his way to work. Did he also have in mind the inspired "tarpaulin" description, to trot out when asked for his initial thoughts on seeing the woman?
Again, you seem to be totally lost here. Are you arguing that anybody would have claimed that Lechmeres plan to get away with murder hinged on how he would have known that Paul would emerge at 3.45, providing him with the opportunity to bluff it out?
I have seen many barmy, lame, dumb, malicious, hapless or outright stupid attempts to undermine the Lechmere theory, but this one takes the bisquit. I don’ t even know what adjective to apply. It is so outlandish that I ask myself if I am missing something, if your point is perhaps sheer genius - but if it is, you are going to have to explain it in a manner that a less genius man like me can understand.
Alternatively, you have perhaps misunderstood the theory in a truly epic manner.
Anyway, back to the basis of Druitt's candidacy - unless you wish to start a dedicated Lechmere thread?
Love,
Caz
X
Leave a comment: