Was Jack or (were Jack’s) schizophrenic?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Peter Sutcliffe likely had some form of Necrophilic deviancy . Its likely that he masturbated over his victims when he could. I can't help but think that when he was a gravedigger he possibly did the same over female graves/corpses [ if given the chance ] before his killing spree .

A couple of points , Excessive masturbation does seem to be a trait shared by serial killers [ I am sure I have read somewhere ] .It would be interesting to know more about Kosminski's vices. Secondly Sutcliffe does seem to have sought out employment which would help him in his homicidal fantasies . As a lorry driver were he could troll the red light districts and possibly as a gravedigger he could have mutilated dead bodies [ again if he had the chance ] . Perhaps Jack sought out occupations in a similar vein. Butcher, gravedigger etc

Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

Disorganised/organised I take some of the points raised about him being organised but Martha was killed on a stairwell were people were sleeping nearby and perhaps fortunate that he wasn't caught in a cul de sac, considering the amount of times Martha was stabbed, its almost as if he didn't care. The one stab to the heart would have sufficed

Polly was killed in, yes a darkened street but a street a policeman patrolled every few minutes. I doubt he staked it out as a possible murder site , more likely Polly led him there only to find the gates locked to the yard but he attacked Polly anyway instead of seeking out another victim in a more secluded spot.

Annie in a certain cul de sac which was overlooked plus it was coming dawn, and he may have even heard Cadoche in the adjoining yard.

We know he was almost caught with Liz but that didn't deter him . Yes he put some distance between him and Kate's murder but again a nightwatchmen was nearby and the yard was patrolled every few minutes. Plus he may have even noticed Lawende and co looking at him . Not only that but he seems to have headed back into the very district were police could nave been on the lookout for him. Especially since he would have known Liz's body would be discovered.

To me it is only with Mary's murder that a degree of safety is established . And even then the court was one way in and out . And if Jack was Blotchy [ I know that is an if ] he would know he had been seen .

Organised ? Maybe in some aspects, his ability to work quickly etc But to me Jack was more lucky than anything . I doubt he was a complete idiot walking round the streets drooling at the mouth etc But I feel more disorganised than organised, possibly someone like Robert Napper with some form of schizophrenia .
Just my two pennies worth

Regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

Since, as Inspector Abberline noted, there was nothing to connect Druitt with the murders, nor any reason to suspect him of having been the kind of person who could have done anything like that, it is a reasonable deduction that he was not a psychopath nor a schizophrenic.

Its not in any way reasonable to base this deduction purely on the opinion of one man. If you think he was correct then shouldn’t you assume that Chapman was the killer? It also has to be remembered that Abberline had been taken off the investigation in 1889 and had retired from the force in 1892. Why should he know anything about Druitt?

I would humbly suggest that you, for example, would not like to have the same said about you as you have just written about Druitt, unless there were some evidence of psychopathy or schizophrenia.

How is that relevant when we are endlessly debating the likelihood of various people being a killer and mutilator of women. I’m sure that your ‘sailor’ wouldn’t have liked being accused of a series of murders if he was innocent?

Its a simple statement of fact that we cannot state that Druitt wasn’t a psychopath. Likewise we can’t state that he was. Likewise the vast majority of suspects.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Peter Sutcliffe likely had some form of Necrophilic deviancy . Its likely that he masturbated over his victims when he could. I can't help but think that when he was a gravedigger he possibly did the same over female graves/corpses [ if given the chance ] before his killing spree .

A couple of points , Excessive masturbation does seem to be a trait shared by serial killers [ I am sure I have read somewhere ] .It would be interesting to know more about Kosminski's vices. Secondly Sutcliffe does seem to have sought out employment which would help him in his homicidal fantasies . As a lorry driver were he could troll the red light districts and possibly as a gravedigger he could have mutilated dead bodies [ again if he had the chance ] . Perhaps Jack sought out occupations in a similar vein. Butcher, gravedigger etc

Regards Darryl

You speculate that Sutcliffe masturbated, but you know that Kosminski did.

How is that?

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.

And he wasn't a butcher or gravedigger, either.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

How is that relevant when we are endlessly debating the likelihood of various people being a killer and mutilator of women. I’m sure that your ‘sailor’ wouldn’t have liked being accused of a series of murders if he was innocent.

Its a simple statement of fact that we cannot state that Druitt wasn’t a psychopath. Likewise the vast majority of suspects.

The sailor is a suspect because he was seen with a prostitute, who had her hand on his chest, a few yards from where she was murdered about three minutes later.

Druitt is a suspect because when he was on a cricketing tour in Dorset, he could have made secret return trips to London to titillate ripperologists more than a century later.

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

The real murderer had fair hair, the appearance of a sailor, was about 5 ft 7 ins tall, couldn't spell the word 'Jews' correctly, and obviously resided locally.

Druitt had dark hair, did not have the appearance of a sailor, was a fast bowler, was a public school teacher and barrister, and lived about eight miles away.

And there is nothing to suggest that he was a psychopath.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The sailor is a suspect because he was seen with a prostitute, who had her hand on his chest, a few yards from where she was murdered about three minutes later.

The witness saw a man who may or may not have been the killer. The man wore a coat and a peaked cap. This vague description would have matched thousands of men in London. The fact that the witness, who saw the man so briefly that he couldn’t recognise him again even though they were only 10 feet or so apart, said that his appearance reminded him of a sailor. This is hardly evidence of anything. It certainly doesn’t mean that the man was a sailor.

Druitt is a suspect because when he was on a cricketing tour in Dorset, he could have made secret return trips to London to titillate ripperologists more than a century later.

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. The fact that the cricket match isn’t an alibi might annoy you but it doesn’t change the fact.

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.

The real murderer had fair hair, the appearance of a sailor, was about 5 ft 7 ins tall, couldn't spell the word 'Jews' correctly, and obviously resided locally.

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

Druitt had dark hair, did not have the appearance of a sailor, was a fast bowler, was a public school teacher and barrister, and lived about eight miles away.

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.

And there is nothing to suggest that he was a psychopath.

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? How do you know that Druitt didn’t torture animals when he was young for example? Or that he’d wet the bed? I’m not saying that he did, but the information on all named suspects is lacking in this area so the absence of it means nothing. Do you have evidence that your ‘sailor’ was a psychopath? Or do you just assume it?

[Darryl Kenyon]

You speculate that Sutcliffe masturbated, but you know that Kosminski did.

How is that?

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.

And he wasn't a butcher or gravedigger, either.

Hold on a minute I never said Kosminski was a gravedigger nor a butcher I just speculated that the killer may have held an occupation were he could indulge in his homicidal fantasies of cutting into bodies when he wasn't killing .
I thought it was well known that Kosminski indulged in solitary vices IE Victorian euphemism for masturbation.
Sutcliffe wore special open crotch pants which he fashioned himself almost certainly to masturbate after he killed.

[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 .

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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.

[mpriestnall]

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

[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.