Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Basis OF Druitt's Candidacy

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

  • Christer Holmgren
    replied
    Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post

    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
    I don’ t have to, you seem hellbent on injecting him in every thread I comment on, Caz.

    Leave a comment:


  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    Id Druitt had been the killer, he would have had the exact same option to stay at the scene as Lechmere had. He would not have the excuse of walking Bucks Row to work, but it is not as if anybody who does not ahve that excuse must be the killer on account of it. As I am so often told, somebody had to find the body.
    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?

    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.

    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.

    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. 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?

    Anyway, back to the basis of Druitt's candidacy - unless you wish to start a dedicated Lechmere thread?

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Christer Holmgren
    replied
    Caroline Brown:

    I beg to differ, Christer. In any of those other circumstances, that man would not have had the ideal excuse for being precisely where he was when Robert Paul came along.

    That is true - but what I am saying is that regardless of who it was that made a claim to be a witness only, if he was found at the site at a time that was consistent with being the killer, if the clothes were pulled over the wounds, if he disagreed with Mizen the way the carman did and so on, he would be a very good suspect regardless of his identity.

    Druitt couldn't have hung around at the scene, could he? Anyone other than your suspect obviously didn't hang around, waiting for the next man to arrive.

    Id Druitt had been the killer, he would have had the exact same option to stay at the scene as Lechmere had. He would not have the excuse of walking Bucks Row to work, but it is not as if anybody who does not ahve that excuse must be the killer on account of it. As I am so often told, somebody had to find the body.

    Your suspect couldn't afford to hang around at any future crime scenes, even if he had a closer call with an approaching witness. He only had the one joker, and his use of it in Buck's Row was all down to Robert Paul.

    That is correct. It would have been a one-off.

    Isn't it more likely that a murder victim will be discovered by some poor sod going about his normal business?

    Yes, infinitely more so. And that boils down to how a very minuscule fraction of us are serial killers. However, it would be stupid to say that it rules out Lechmere in any way. The theatre where Lincoln was shot was not likely to have murderous people in it, theatre enthusiasts were what to expect. And when Denise Naslund accepted Ted Bundys requst to help him out, there was a one in a zillion chance that he was a serial killer. When little old elderly ladies needed a doctor, how big were the chances that Harold Shipman would not be just that? And only that? When Dorothe Puente opened her doors for the needy, what were the odds that she was going t kill them and bury them in her back yard?
    The "point" that Lechmere was likelier to be a poor sod going about his normal business than a serial killer is not a point that should be used at all. It is very, very misleading becasue it works from the assumption that we can feel safe on statistical grounds. Ask Bundys, Ridgways and Gacys victims what they think of that.


    How many serial killers have been in a position where they were able to double up as the finder of one of their outdoor victims, and go on to present themselves at the inquest, due to the fact that they'd have been there anyway at that hour?

    Has this ever happened to your knowledge, or would this be a one-off?

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Very few, very obviously. Do you want me to name other matters where serial killers have done things that only they did, been in situations that only they were in and so on? Each serial killer is unique in at least some sense. If you feel that this detracts from the chances that they are serial killers, then say so. Ed Kemper could not have been the killer, because it is so rare that serial killers kill their mothers as well as strangers. Robert Hansen could not have been a serial killer, becasue serial killers are not known to freight victims out into the wilderness and arrange hunts for them, and so on.
    To me, this is just another example of what I have already pointed out as useless argumentation. Either he was the killer and chose to stay put, or he was not the killer. And none of us will ever be able to weigh the likelihood of the two options against each other since it is a case-specific.
    Again the best the anti-brigade seems to be able to do is to parrot these two matters, over and over again:

    He would not have stayed put.

    He would not kill en route to work.

    It´s A or B, and neither option can be given a specific weight. When will that sink in?

    Yu are of course perfectly welcome to entertain these kinds of ideas yourself. But it takes proving them as being ever applicable universal truths before they have any impact on a sound debate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christer Holmgren
    replied
    I am moving the discussion about whether or not Montague Druitt is serial killer material here, moving it from the Proof of Innocence thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Thanks for the replies..

    In order to squeeze as much as we can out of the issues at hand,I only posed these questions to elicit responses to the best of our ability at this point.

    Leave a comment:


  • dougie
    Guest replied
    It has been suggested a few times that the evidence at the Druitt Inquest might have been manipulated.......

    Leave a comment:


  • dougie
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by How Brown View Post
    Doug:

    If Druitt was sexually insane, what prevented him from acting out during his time at Valentine's school?

    Why did he recieve what amounts to a severance check from the institution ?

    Wouldn't Valentine have been heard from at least in some minor way over the last 121 years if Druitt displayed behavior in a way remotely close to the East End killer?
    How,
    He didnt necessarilly have to be "sexually insane" in an overt way......
    Why would Valentine have necessarillyhad to know about Druitts "sexual insanity"?Druitts dismissal could have been for any number of reasons totally unconnected with any sexual issues.Depends how you look at things,as regards "hearing from Valentine in some minor way over the last 121 years".....sometimes silence speaks louder.
    Id ask the question,how much influence or "clout" would the Druitt family have been likely to have had in higher circles? Enough to hush things up? Especially as after Druitts death it wouldnt really matter anyway.Which could explain a number of things.In that possible scenario,one wouldnt expect to find any reference in the official files

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Dear Pilgrim:

    Thanks for the post and for underlining the sentence, " I incline to the belief". Its intention was understood.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Poster
    replied
    I give up. Macnaghten is a raving looney.

    If not the ripper.

    Its getting hard to take him seriously.

    p

    Leave a comment:


  • Pilgrim
    replied
    .....

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Poster
    replied
    Hi ho

    As I vainly try and extricate my welly from the Druitt quagmire......is it not entirely possible that during the sequence of murders at some point the family or someone else had approached the police with information that led them to be suspicious and been dismissed as part of the enquiry, much in the same way that I am sure lots of people were dismissed with their suspicions.

    If they had only said that they were worried because Montague had verbalised, for example, a desire to hurt women or that he felt he was losing control of his mind or they had witnessed Monty previously struggle with a situation or context where it seemed he might hurt a woman....one could see the police not even filling out a report as they were busy and then when Monty turns up dead, th epolice start remembering the family haveing surfaced earlier to express their concern?

    p

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
    replied
    Didn't McNaughten say that they were looking for Druitt at the time but he turned up dead?

    The obvious implication from that is that the police were in possession of private information from the family before Druitt died

    Druitt may have been aware of that and the knowledge accelerated his suicide

    Would the "private information" have come from someone who claimed a pardon after the Kelly murder?

    Leave a comment:


  • Stan Russo
    Guest replied
    How,

    I meant on your last post - there is only the insistence of non-information in that well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Stosh:

    You mean this one?

    "Wouldn't Valentine have been heard from at least in some minor way over the last 121 years if Druitt displayed behavior in a way remotely close to the East End killer?"

    Give me your views,please.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stan Russo
    Guest replied
    How,

    you are barking up an empty tree on that last one my friend.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X