Was Jack or (were Jack’s) schizophrenic?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Also, as PI1 seems unwilling to believe fair does not necessarily mean blond and you can have dark hair and have fair facial hair:

William Bury had a dark complexion (39) and dark brown hair (40), but he had a “fair moustache” (41), his facial hair being described as “light sandy-coloured” (42).

Taken from Earp's site - refs 40-42 are there.

I don't see the relevance of what you've written.

First, H.S. says the moustache may have looked lighter than it was because of the lighting.

Then he says Lawende's description cannot be treated as reliable because there wasn't enough light!

You wouldn't call that making 'assumptions'?

Now, you say the man's head hair may have been of a different colour from that of his moustache!

Of course, neither of you are making 'assumptions'.

What about the evidence?

The evidence is that the suspect had fair hair and a fair complexion.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There’s no evidence that Druitt liked cheese either so would you say that he couldn’t have eaten cheese. When will you get this? Just because we have no evidence of him being a psychopath doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have been one. Look at Bundy as an example. You’re asking the impossible. If Druitt was guilty and he’d been caught and then interviewed how do you know what they would or wouldn’t have discovered?

Bundy occasionally exhibited disturbing behavior at an early age. Louise's younger sister Julia recalled awakening from a nap to find herself surrounded by knives from the kitchen, and three-year-old Ted standing by the bed, smiling.^[22] Bundy's childhood neighbor Sandi Holt described him as a bully, saying, "He liked to terrify people... He liked to be in charge. He liked to inflict pain and suffering and fear."^[23]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy

Now take a look at Druitt's Wikipedia entry.

Apart from the unfortunate mental illness, it is a biography any of us would be proud of if it were ours.

It is quite obvious that he didn't torture animals as a child nor murder women in adulthood.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If you really cannot comprehend why I have taken offence at the tone of your comments to me, then I'll send you a list of them.

If you don't like slanging matches, then I suggest you don't start them.

You repeatedly charge that I am making assumptions about Druitt.

I'm not.

I'm making reasonable deductions from everything we know about him and his family.

A history of depression and suicide in a family does not correspond to a history of psychopathy and torturing animals in childhood.

It is quite obvious that Druitt was with his cricket-playing colleagues in Dorset at the time of the first murder.

Suggesting that he may have committed the first murder during that trip to Dorset is fanciful.


Ive made no comment about Kelly not being the last victim so I can’t see where your comment comes from.


You complained - as has become customary here - that I made an invalid 'assumption' that Nichols' was the first murder.

That is nonsense.

Most researchers share my opinion.

As I pointed out, you don't confront them with their invalid 'assumptions', and neither does anyone else here.

And then, you have the nerve to say that I'm hypersensitive.

You have said I'm making an assumption that Nichols' was the first murder and Elamarna complained that I made an assumption that Kelly's was the last murder.

I suppose I could find the comment, but you may have noticed that he hasn't denied it.

What's going on here?

It's somehow controversial when I - but no-one else - adheres to convention and the canonical five?


As for Lawende's evidence: I consider that to be the key to solving the case, or getting as close to it as is possible.

You don't like that.

I didn't notice your shooting down fanciful suggestions about Kosminski directing an anti-Jewish insult at a fellow Jew or dressing in religious garb for a police identification.

That's not provocative in your view.

But when I say Lawende's evidence is reliable, you can't stomach that!

[Aethelwulf]

For some reason you are unwilling to accept the possibility that lighting affects the identification of colour - which is simply a scientific fact.

Also, as PI1 seems unwilling to believe fair does not necessarily mean blond and you can have dark hair and have fair facial hair:

William Bury had a dark complexion (39) and dark brown hair (40), but he had a “fair moustache” (41), his facial hair being described as “light sandy-coloured” (42).

Taken from Earp's site - refs 40-42 are there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We know that there was much mental illness in Druitt's family and that a number of relatives committed suicide.

Show me the evidence that any of those relatives were psychopaths!

Show me the evidence that they tortured animals!

That isn't 'nothing', either.

There’s no evidence that Druitt liked cheese either so would you say that he couldn’t have eaten cheese. When will you get this? Just because we have no evidence of him being a psychopath doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have been one. Look at Bundy as an example. You’re asking the impossible. If Druitt was guilty and he’d been caught and then interviewed how do you know what they would or wouldn’t have discovered?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Just a reminder that while we do not as yet know whether Druitt was normal or a psychopath or a schizophrenic or something else, we do know that he was not in perfect mental health in 1888.

How do we know this? Because he wrote it himself in his suicide note. While it is not a direct indication of anything, it's not nothing either.

We know that there was much mental illness in Druitt's family and that a number of relatives committed suicide.

Show me the evidence that any of those relatives were psychopaths!

Show me the evidence that they tortured animals!

That isn't 'nothing', either.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He was wearing a loose jacket and he mentions the colour. How do you deduce from that that it was a kind worn by sailors?


I didn't deduce it.

It's just a fact.

Could you at least produce the evidence that the coat that he wore was of a kind worn by sailors please. I’m not saying that it wasn’t because I don’t know, but I’ve seen no actual evidence that it was.

Serial killers aren’t on the look out for victims 24/7. And it’s just an assumption that he returned to London just to kill. He spent extended time in Dorset during the summers. If he’d had some kind of meeting on the 31st (work or cricket-related) that couldn’t be cancelled he’d hardly have cancelled his entire time in Dorset would he? Not when there was a perfectly good train service to get him back in a very few hours.


What you've written resembles a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

How is it like a conspiracy theory to suggest the possibility of the killer using a train?


A man killed five women in the space of ten weeks.

He was careful about when to strike - on average once every two weeks.

Again, how can you possibly know that he was ‘careful about when to strike?’ This is an assumption based on no evidence. You have no way of knowing that the killer was conscious of when to strike. There wasn’t a 2 week gap between Eddowes an Kelly.

More assumptions. How can you possibly know how the killer decided when to strike? Do you think that he compiled some kind of time table? You can’t know what triggered his murders, or how he was thinking, or what he was doing at the time.

What you've written is nonsense.

I didn't say the killer had a timetable.

I said he wandered the streets waiting for an opportunity.

But you said ‘he was careful about when to strike.’ There is no evidence that he was. You’re just assuming it.

He didn't commit a murder while on a trip to Dorset.

You lose credibility when you say things like this. It’s something that you can’t possibly know.



And again your making assumptions. How do you know that Nichols was the first victim? It’s not a proven fact.


I've had this before: Elamarna making the same point to me about Kelly.

As I pointed out before, I haven't noticed such a criticism being made of anyone else here and - before you allege that I'm thin-skinned or hypersensitive to criticism - can you give an example of that criticism being made of anyone else?

You really can’t be serious on this point. Have you read some of the other threads on here? Read the other Druitt threads, read the diary thread, read the Chapman TOD thread, read the Lechmere threads. Everything on here is subject to debate and criticism.

Its worth noting though that you complain about being criticised and yet just in this post you’ve accused me of writing something that sounds like a ‘ridiculous conspiracy theory’ and that I’ve written ‘nonsense.’ I haven’t used this kind of wording with you. I’ve simply said that you’re making assumptions and treating as facts things which are just your opinions. And I’m not complaining about those comments because they don’t bother me in the slightest and yet you get annoyed about criticism and have even talked about moderators stepping in (on another thread)

Now, Anderson and Swanson have been defended steadfastly here against my criticisms of them, and my insistence that they had no case against Kosminski rubbished, but if you think I'm making an assumption that Kelly was the last victim, can you explain why Swanson said no more murders took place after Kosminski was identified?

Why shouldn’t some posters ‘defend’ Anderson and Swanson PI? Those people simply have a different opinion to yourself. This is allowed but you pear to take exception to it.

Ive made no comment about Kelly not being the last victim so I can’t see where your comment comes from.

What about murders that took place after his identification?

What about them? Like everything else they are up for debate. Why is this an issue?

And while you're trying to think of an answer to that, what about Druitt?

How could he have been the murderer if Kelly wasn't the last victim?

I don’t need to ‘think’ about it PI. If Kelly wasn’t the last victim then clearly he couldn’t have been the killer. It’s apparent that you’ve fallen in to this trap that there should be factions. Kosminski-supporters or Druitt-supporters. I’m not trying to prove that Druitt was the killer. I just think that he might have been. Others ‘might’ have been too. We don’t know who the killer was. Neither do you.

You say that no-one knew Sutcliffe was a psychopath and we don't know that Druitt didn't torture animals as a youngster.

That is nonsense.

Sutcliffe came from a terrible, violent background.

Yes but again PI, this wasn’t discovered until after he was caught. Why can’t you understand this point? During the murders no one thought “that Peter Sutcliffe showed signs of being a psychopath as a child so perhaps he’s the killer?”

I read his family history many years ago and it was horrifying.

Druitt came from a line of doctors and was himself a barrister who played cricket.


Of course he didn't torture animals and it's nonsense to suggest it even as a possibility.


Why are you obsessed with Druitt’s job and the utterly irrelevant fact that he played cricket? You sound like one of those at the time of the murders who said that the killer couldn’t possibly have been a respectable Englishman.

Please provide evidence that you have an intimate knowledge of Druitt’s childhood which allows you to categorically dismiss possibilities.


Lawende saw the man from 10 feet away and yet he couldn’t identify him. He didn’t look back after he’d passed either. This is evidence that he wasn’t paying that much attention to them. Everyone knows that street lighting can make darker colours seem lighter. Just ask someone. Ask a police officer. So the lighting could have made the killers hair look lighter than it actually was. You’re basing your whole claim for a suspect around a brief sighting, late at night, just after rain, by a bloke who was passing.



Lawende was considered to be a reliable witness and gave a detailed description.

You keep stressing how ‘reliable’ Lawende was. Yes, it was certainly assumed that he actually saw a man and a woman and that the woman was likely to have been Eddowes but what you pointedly avoid dealing with is the fact Lawende himself said that he wouldn’t have been able to identify the man. This either means that he was for some reason unwilling to get involved or that he didn’t pay much attention to what he looked like.

I said that the identification of Kosminski at the Seaside Home didn't take place and there was pandemonium, even when I pointed out that neither Schwarz nor Lawende had recognised a suspect as being Jewish and yet one of them is supposed to have 'realised' that the man they saw in the Seaside Home was Jewish.

You have a strange interpretation of what constitutes ‘pandemonium.’ Again, I’m sorry to say it but it does appear that you take exception to being disagreed with whilst being quite happy to call other posters comments ‘ridiculous’ or ‘nonsense.’ You shouldn’t take comment/disagreements as some kind of personal slur.

What I would like to know is how you think Lawende or Schwarz, who didn't see their suspects close up - Schwarz being even further away and in a hurry to get away - could identify Kosminski when they saw him in good lighting as the man they had seen in poor lighting.

Im making absolutely no claims about possible witnesses. They are all there to be assessed and individuals will come to their own conclusions. You can’t expect everyone to agree simply because you’ve arrived at your own conclusions.

According to you, Lawende's description is not to be trusted.

All witnesses need to be assessed and not simply accepted or rejected. As the police will tell you, eyewitnesses can be unreliable no matter how reliable they appear at the time.

You say he couldn't even judge the colour of hair.

It is simply a fact that lighting affects colour. You can deny this of course but it doesn’t stop it being a fact.

So how could he have identified Kosminski - or Schwarz, who was even further away in a poorly-lit street, have done so?

We don’t know who the witness was. Why was Schwartz even further away? He walked down Berner Street then crossed the road. How wide to you think that Berner Street was?

You don’t think that Kosminski or Druitt are valid suspects. That’s your opinion which is fine. Many experienced, knowledgeable researchers/ripperologists/writer’s disagree with you. I still can’t see why you get so outraged when people do disagree with you and yet your quite happy to use derogatory comments to others? As I’ve said previously, for all that we know the killer might have been a sailor but you appear to take this as a fact purely because one witness said that he had the appearance of a sailor. For some reason you are unwilling to accept the possibility that lighting affects the identification of colour - which is simply a scientific fact. Especially for a man who appeared to take so little notice of the man’s features that he stated that he would have been unable to identify him. Or that a hat and coat couldn’t have been purchased/acquired anywhere. I have some camouflage trousers, would that make it valid for someone to ID me as a soldier? How many men in Whitechapel would have worn a peaked cap? We should all be wary of overconfidence.

[Kattrup]

It's more likely Druitt was murdered that comitted suicide. I doubt a suicide note ever existed.

Complete nonsense. The suicide note was at the inquest and the coroner read it. But of course, we could speculate that both Druitt's brother AND the coroner as well as other administrative staff were all in on an elaborate conspiracy which has zero basis in any sources. But that would of course belong in Creative Writing and Expression, not in this reality-based part of the forum.

[mpriestnall]

It's more likely Druitt was murdered that comitted suicide. I doubt a suicide note ever existed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a reminder that while we do not as yet know whether Druitt was normal or a psychopath or a schizophrenic or something else, we do know that he was not in perfect mental health in 1888.

How do we know this? Because he wrote it himself in his suicide note. While it is not a direct indication of anything, it's not nothing either.

Good point Kattrup.

[Kattrup]

Druitt came from a line of doctors and was himself a barrister who played cricket.

Of course he didn't torture animals and it's nonsense to suggest it even as a possibility.

Just a reminder that while we do not as yet know whether Druitt was normal or a psychopath or a schizophrenic or something else, we do know that he was not in perfect mental health in 1888.

How do we know this? Because he wrote it himself in his suicide note. While it is not a direct indication of anything, it's not nothing either.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

He was wearing a loose jacket and he mentions the colour. How do you deduce from that that it was a kind worn by sailors?


I didn't deduce it.

It's just a fact.



Serial killers aren’t on the look out for victims 24/7. And it’s just an assumption that he returned to London just to kill. He spent extended time in Dorset during the summers. If he’d had some kind of meeting on the 31st (work or cricket-related) that couldn’t be cancelled he’d hardly have cancelled his entire time in Dorset would he? Not when there was a perfectly good train service to get him back in a very few hours.



What you've written resembles a ridiculous conspiracy theory.




A man killed five women in the space of ten weeks.

He was careful about when to strike - on average once every two weeks.


More assumptions. How can you possibly know how the killer decided when to strike? Do you think that he compiled some kind of time table? You can’t know what triggered his murders, or how he was thinking, or what he was doing at the time.



What you've written is nonsense.

I didn't say the killer had a timetable.

I said he wandered the streets waiting for an opportunity.

He didn't commit a murder while on a trip to Dorset.






And again your making assumptions. How do you know that Nichols was the first victim? It’s not a proven fact.



I've had this before: Elamarna making the same point to me about Kelly.

As I pointed out before, I haven't noticed such a criticism being made of anyone else here and - before you allege that I'm thin-skinned or hypersensitive to criticism - can you give an example of that criticism being made of anyone else?

Now, Anderson and Swanson have been defended steadfastly here against my criticisms of them, and my insistence that they had no case against Kosminski rubbished, but if you think I'm making an assumption that Kelly was the last victim, can you explain why Swanson said no more murders took place after Kosminski was identified?

What about murders that took place after his identification?

And while you're trying to think of an answer to that, what about Druitt?

How could he have been the murderer if Kelly wasn't the last victim?



You say that no-one knew Sutcliffe was a psychopath and we don't know that Druitt didn't torture animals as a youngster.

That is nonsense.

Sutcliffe came from a terrible, violent background.

I read his family history many years ago and it was horrifying.

Druitt came from a line of doctors and was himself a barrister who played cricket.

Of course he didn't torture animals and it's nonsense to suggest it even as a possibility.





Lawende saw the man from 10 feet away and yet he couldn’t identify him. He didn’t look back after he’d passed either. This is evidence that he wasn’t paying that much attention to them. Everyone knows that street lighting can make darker colours seem lighter. Just ask someone. Ask a police officer. So the lighting could have made the killers hair look lighter than it actually was. You’re basing your whole claim for a suspect around a brief sighting, late at night, just after rain, by a bloke who was passing.



Lawende was considered to be a reliable witness and gave a detailed description.

I said that the identification of Kosminski at the Seaside Home didn't take place and there was pandemonium, even when I pointed out that neither Schwarz nor Lawende had recognised a suspect as being Jewish and yet one of them is supposed to have 'realised' that the man they saw in the Seaside Home was Jewish.

What I would like to know is how you think Lawende or Schwarz, who didn't see their suspects close up - Schwarz being even further away and in a hurry to get away - could identify Kosminski when they saw him in good lighting as the man they had seen in poor lighting.

According to you, Lawende's description is not to be trusted.

You say he couldn't even judge the colour of hair.

So how could he have identified Kosminski - or Schwarz, who was even further away in a poorly-lit street, have done so?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The man wore a coat and a peaked cap. This vague description would have matched thousands of men in London


He didn't wear a coat.

He wore a pepper and salt coloured loose-fitting jacket.

It was like a blouson, was commonly worn by sailors, and did not resemble a coat at all.

Where does anyone say that the coat was ‘commonly worn by sailors?’ He said:

“age 30 ht 5 ft 7 or 8 in. Comp fair, fair moustache, medium build, dress pepper and salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, round neck, appearance of a sailor.“

He was wearing a loose jacket and he mentions the colour. How do you deduce from that that it was a kind worn by sailors? Additionally, the poor of Whitechapel wouldn’t usually have bought off-the-peg clothing. Pawn shops, market stalls, etc. Anyone could have worn one of those coats. It’s a step too far to assume that it was a sailor.


No, Druitt is a suspect because Sir Melville MacNaghten, Chief Constable of the Met,
felt that he was a suspect. And he wasn’t alone in that.


Abberline ridiculed the idea.

Why do you place so much store in the opinion of a man who was no longer a serving Police Officer?

Anderson and Swanson - whose ramblings are held in such high regard here - did not suspect Druitt.

Nice try with the of sleight-of-hand. You have no regard for their opinions but you don’t mind stating that it was important that they didn’t mention Druitt. Are they trustworthy or not or is it just a case of when it suits?

Henry Smith and Reid were definite that the police had no idea who the murderer was.

Many people had no idea who the killer was. Neither he nor Anderson or Swanson mentioned a sailor either.

I'm just wondering what makes you think MacNaghten wasn't alone.

Farquharsen for example. Griffiths for another. There’s another name which always slips my mind.


You really do appear to have an issue separating your opinion from fact. None of the above is a fact.


On the contrary, I go by the eyewitness evidence and the description of a man seen with a woman about three minutes before she was murdered, in such circumstances that suggest strongly that he was posing as a potential client and that he then went with her.

You’re basing a whole theory on a vague description.

There is nothing remotely comparable that can be said about Druitt.

Apart from a very senior Police Officer who said that he’d received information that led him to consider Druitt a likely suspect.


There isn't any evidence that Druitt was a psychopath or even a schizophrenic.

There is no evidence that he wasn’t. This proves nothing.



You are the one having an issue - an issue with the matter of evidence.

No, I just don’t read too much into it.


There doesn't need to be evidence that Druitt was not a psychopath nor a schizophrenic.
There needs to be evidence that he WAS, and that evidence - after the passage of 134 years - is still lacking.

Of course. But it’s lacking in all other suspects too. Why set the bar higher for Druitt? Is there evidence that your sailor was a psychopath?

I would remind you that the latest evidence to be uncovered about Druitt relates to his cricket-playing.

Which you clearly haven’t fully read or understood. How many times do you need to be told? Cricket does not provide Druitt with an alibi. The only thing that the recent cricket related research tells us is that Druitt didn’t have an alibi for Tabram as we had all believed for years. You are genuinely wasting time talking about Druitt’s cricket playing.

Everything we know about him suggests that there is no reason whatsoever to suspect him of having been a murderer, psychopath, or schizophrenic.

And everything that was known about Bundy and Sutcliffe before they were caught wouldn’t have pointed to them being a psychopath either. These things only come out when a suspect is interviewed in depth.

Please take a breath a rethink what you’re saying. We don’t know what the killer looked like, you’re reading far too much into this ‘appearance of a sailor’ business, Druitt’s profession and his sporting interests are irrelevant. Neither is his place of residence. You’re seeking to make things ‘fit’ your own suspect who you haven’t the confidence to name.


On the contrary!

It is not that I am reading too much into the description given by Lawende, but that not enough importance has been attached to it.

Druitt's profession and sporting interests are NOT irrelevant.

They would only be relevant if there was proper evidence which cast doubts and no such evidence exists.

The indications are that when he was not teaching, he was either representing clients or playing sport.

Surely you can see how weak this point is PI? You’re talking as if every minute of every day is accounted for in Druitt’s life. How can you possibly claim that he wouldn’t have had time to have been a killer. 5 murders (possibly) and hour or two of free time required. Come on.

You may be one of those who insist that Druitt could have interrupted his trip to Dorset to make a return trip to London, but common sense tells one that if he were interested in murdering prostitutes in Whitechapel, he would be walking the streets looking for opportunities, not playing cricket in Dorset.

Common sense doesn’t come into it. Serial killers don’t think like we do. You can’t assume to know how a killer would think.

Serial killers aren’t on the look out for victims 24/7. And it’s just an assumption that he returned to London just to kill. He spent extended time in Dorset during the summers. If he’d had some kind of meeting on the 31st (work or cricket-related) that couldn’t be cancelled he’d hardly have cancelled his entire time in Dorset would he? Not when there was a perfectly good train service to get him back in a very few hours.

Maybe it's time you took a breath to rethink what you're saying.

A man killed five women in the space of ten weeks.

He was careful about when to strike - on average once every two weeks.

More assumptions. How can you possibly know how the killer decided when to strike? Do you think that he compiled some kind of time table? You can’t know what triggered his murders, or how he was thinking, or what he was doing at the time.

Yet you think it's plausible that Druitt could have committed his very first murder during a trip to Dorset!

Firstly, I’m not claiming that Druitt was the ripper. He might have been but so might other suspects. And again your making assumptions. How do you know that Nichols was the first victim? It’s not a proven fact.

Do you not realise how ludicrous that is and how far removed it is from what the evidence suggests, namely that a man seen with one of the victims about three minutes before she was murdered makes a far more believable suspect.

There’s nothing ludicrous about it. Lawende saw the man from 10 feet away and yet he couldn’t identify him. He didn’t look back after he’d passed either. This is evidence that he wasn’t paying that much attention to them. Everyone knows that street lighting can make darker colours seem lighter. Just ask someone. Ask a police officer. So the lighting could have made the killers hair look lighter than it actually was. You’re basing your whole claim for a suspect around a brief sighting, late at night, just after rain, by a bloke who was passing.


Why would there be any evidence of the killer being a psychopath if he was never caught? Did those that knew Ted Bundy or Peter Sutcliffe think they were psychopaths before they were caught?


Do you realise how ridiculous what you have written is?

Of course there was evidence that Sutcliffe was a psychopath: he told his colleagues how much he enjoyed seeing dead bodies.

I once read the early parts of a book about him and he came from a terrible, violent family.

What are you talking about? None of his friends, his family or his wife had the slightest suspicion about him before he was caught. The information that you talk about came out after he was caught.

Are you saying Druitt could have come from a family like that?

De Angelo committed crimes and tortured animals as a youngster.

How can any of us know what Druitt did when he was alone as a child? Your reasoning really is very poor on this point PI. We know zero about his childhood.

Are you seriously suggesting that cricket-playing Druitt may have been doing the same before becoming a barrister?

Are you seriously suggesting that he couldn’t? Do you know something that the rest of us don’t? Do you have access to Druitt’s childhood diary? Nothing that you are using is evidence. It’s simply your opinion.

How do you know that Druitt didn’t torture animals when he was young for example?



That's ridiculous.

From everything we know about the kind of people who commit such cruelties and everything we know about Druitt's background, the idea is obviously far-fetched.

No it’s not PI because we have an absence of knowledge about that part of his life. You can’t just fill in the gaps because it suits you.

He was a public school teacher and a practising barrister who spent his spare time playing cricket and, reportedly, hockey.

Don't know where you get hockey from? Serial killers have jobs. Serial killers have hobbies. You’re making non-points here.

You are writing as though identifying the murderer is like a lottery, with everyone having the same chance of being the murderer.

No, what I’m saying is that we don’t know who the murderer was. You don’t either.

You are so bent on making out that I'm talking nonsense that you can't see how ridiculous your own statements are!

I stand by everything that I’ve said. I have no issue in admitting when something is an unknown. You appear to want to fill in the gaps with anything.

You’re seeking to make things ‘fit’ your own suspect who you haven’t the confidence to name.

That's funny to read.

It is also quite untrue.

I am not trying to make the evidence fit my suspect!

Your claiming a suspect because of a hat and coat. And while we’re at it I’ll ask you again…..why don’t you have the courage of your convictions and name your suspect?

I will give you some examples of people trying to make the evidence fit their suspect:

(1) Druitt making return trips to London in between cricket matches during a trip to Dorset so he can be in Whitechapel at 3.30 a.m.

This is untrue. If Druitt did return to London we can’t assume that it was just to kill. You really love a convenient assumption don’t you?

(2) Lechmere visiting his mother's house - without his wife or any of his nine children - and leaving after midnight so he can be at the scenes of the double murder.

Im not interested in Lechmere as a suspect so I don’t see why you’re bringing him up?

(3) Sickert making two additional return trips to France so he can be indicted for the first four murders.

Ditto Sickert.

(4) Kosminski directing an anti-Semitic insult at a fellow Jew and then donning a Jewish skullcap and fringes to make himself look more Jewish at a police identification.

All Jews don’t dress like that. Surprise, surprise, another assumption.


All I have done is follow where the best evidence leads.

I haven't made it fit my suspect.

Again PI, a coat and a hat aren’t evidence to condemn a suspect.

You say I haven't the confidence to name my suspect.

That is just about the most ridiculous thing you have written.

Edward Stow has the confidence - doesn't he?

He names his suspect?

Patricia Cornwell has the confidence - doesn't she?

She names her suspect.

Unlike them, I am not in the business of making the evidence fit anyone.

Anyone who is familiar with my theory knows that my suspect does not have a name.

So you’re arguing this vociferously for a generic sailor figure based on a coat (which I’ve seen no evidence of being connected to a sailor) and a peaked cap (which god knows how many men would have worn.)

The killer could have been a sailor, or a carpenter or a butcher or anything. But you seem far too confident based on the flimsiest of evidence. And you appear to want to dismiss some suspects at all costs. And you appear hyper-sensitive to criticism. Do you accept that you might be wrong or is that something that you haven’t considered?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The man wore a coat and a peaked cap. This vague description would have matched thousands of men in London


He didn't wear a coat.

He wore a pepper and salt coloured loose-fitting jacket.

It was like a blouson, was commonly worn by sailors, and did not resemble a coat at all.


No, Druitt is a suspect because Sir Melville MacNaghten, Chief Constable of the Met,
felt that he was a suspect. And he wasn’t alone in that.


Abberline ridiculed the idea.

Anderson and Swanson - whose ramblings are held in such high regard here - did not suspect Druitt.

Henry Smith and Reid were definite that the police had no idea who the murderer was.

I'm just wondering what makes you think MacNaghten wasn't alone.



You really do appear to have an issue separating your opinion from fact. None of the above is a fact.


On the contrary, I go by the eyewitness evidence and the description of a man seen with a woman about three minutes before she was murdered, in such circumstances that suggest strongly that he was posing as a potential client and that he then went with her.

There is nothing remotely comparable that can be said about Druitt.




There isn't any evidence that Druitt was a psychopath or even a schizophrenic.

There is no evidence that he wasn’t. This proves nothing.



You are the one having an issue - an issue with the matter of evidence.


There doesn't need to be evidence that Druitt was not a psychopath nor a schizophrenic.
There needs to be evidence that he WAS, and that evidence - after the passage of 134 years - is still lacking.

I would remind you that the latest evidence to be uncovered about Druitt relates to his cricket-playing.

Everything we know about him suggests that there is no reason whatsoever to suspect him of having been a murderer, psychopath, or schizophrenic.



Please take a breath a rethink what you’re saying. We don’t know what the killer looked like, you’re reading far too much into this ‘appearance of a sailor’ business, Druitt’s profession and his sporting interests are irrelevant. Neither is his place of residence. You’re seeking to make things ‘fit’ your own suspect who you haven’t the confidence to name.


On the contrary!

It is not that I am reading too much into the description given by Lawende, but that not enough importance has been attached to it.

Druitt's profession and sporting interests are NOT irrelevant.

The indications are that when he was not teaching, he was either representing clients or playing sport.

You may be one of those who insist that Druitt could have interrupted his trip to Dorset to make a return trip to London, but common sense tells one that if he were interested in murdering prostitutes in Whitechapel, he would be walking the streets looking for opportunities, not playing cricket in Dorset.

Maybe it's time you took a breath to rethink what you're saying.

A man killed five women in the space of ten weeks.

He was careful about when to strike - on average once every two weeks.

Yet you think it's plausible that Druitt could have committed his very first murder during a trip to Dorset!

Do you not realise how ludicrous that is and how far removed it is from what the evidence suggests, namely that a man seen with one of the victims about three minutes before she was murdered makes a far more believable suspect.


Why would there be any evidence of the killer being a psychopath if he was never caught? Did those that knew Ted Bundy or Peter Sutcliffe think they were psychopaths before they were caught?


Do you realise how ridiculous what you have written is?

Of course there was evidence that Sutcliffe was a psychopath: he told his colleagues how much he enjoyed seeing dead bodies.

I once read the early parts of a book about him and he came from a terrible, violent family.

Are you saying Druitt could have come from a family like that?

De Angelo committed crimes and tortured animals as a youngster.

Are you seriously suggesting that cricket-playing Druitt may have been doing the same before becoming a barrister?



How do you know that Druitt didn’t torture animals when he was young for example?



That's ridiculous.

From everything we know about the kind of people who commit such cruelties and everything we know about Druitt's background, the idea is obviously far-fetched.

He was a public school teacher and a practising barrister who spent his spare time playing cricket and, reportedly, hockey.

You are writing as though identifying the murderer is like a lottery, with everyone having the same chance of being the murderer.

You are so bent on making out that I'm talking nonsense that you can't see how ridiculous your own statements are!



You’re seeking to make things ‘fit’ your own suspect who you haven’t the confidence to name.

That's funny to read.

It is also quite untrue.

I am not trying to make the evidence fit my suspect!

I will give you some examples of people trying to make the evidence fit their suspect:

(1) Druitt making return trips to London in between cricket matches during a trip to Dorset so he can be in Whitechapel at 3.30 a.m.

(2) Lechmere visiting his mother's house - without his wife or any of his nine children - and leaving after midnight so he can be at the scenes of the double murder.

(3) Sickert making two additional return trips to France so he can be indicted for the first four murders.

(4) Kosminski directing an anti-Semitic insult at a fellow Jew and then donning a Jewish skullcap and fringes to make himself look more Jewish at a police identification.


All I have done is follow where the best evidence leads.

I haven't made it fit my suspect.

You say I haven't the confidence to name my suspect.

That is just about the most ridiculous thing you have written.

Edward Stow has the confidence - doesn't he?

Patricia Cornwell has the confidence - doesn't she?

Unlike them, I am not in the business of making the evidence fit anyone.

Anyone who is familiar with my theory knows that my suspect does not have a name.

[Darryl Kenyon]

The fact that Kosminski made no secret of his habit is not consistent with his having had the organisation or cunning of the Whitechapel Murderer or Yorkshire Ripper.

.

Again, we simply do not know Kosminski's state of mind in the autumn of 1888 .

How do you know that he was masturbating in public or picking up food from the gutter three years before he was first incarcerated. Three years seems a long time to me before his family decide that it wasn't normal behavior and have him put in an asylum or workhouse if you like.

Regards Darryl .