A fascinating case

[Belloc]

Until recently I hadn’t taken much interest in the 1888 murders attributed to Jack the Ripper. Although I’m not a big fan of true crime, over the years I’d borrowed a few library books and seen maybe 4 or 5 movies and TV shows on the subject. As a mystery aficionado, I’d even read a couple of stories and novels inspired by the case. But since stumbling across this website last month, I’ve learned much more than I knew previously, and must admit I’m hooked.
I can see there are some challenges for a tyro like me. For example, some of the jargon is imprecise. I see references to “the Whitechapel murders”, although Annie Chapman and Mary Kelly were killed in Spitalfields. The phrase “autumn of terror” is sometimes used, although Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman were killed in the summer (as well as Martha Tabram, if you think she’s a Ripper victim). Which parenthesis leads to the observation that, despite talk of “five canonical victims”, there seems to be some disagreement as to whether Martha and Elisabeth Stride were among them.
Another challenge is the sheer volume of missing investigatory, inquest and medical documentation. The shortage of definitive information is compounded by contradictory and flat-out erroneous contemporary media reports.
Of course, these challenges, and others, are also part of what makes the case so fascinating, and why there are still people like you and I who, long after it’s past making any difference to anything, are drawn to try resolving the puzzle.

[MrBarnett]

Until recently I hadn’t taken much interest in the 1888 murders attributed to Jack the Ripper. Although I’m not a big fan of true crime, over the years I’d borrowed a few library books and seen maybe 4 or 5 movies and TV shows on the subject. As a mystery aficionado, I’d even read a couple of stories and novels inspired by the case. But since stumbling across this website last month, I’ve learned much more than I knew previously, and must admit I’m hooked.
I can see there are some challenges for a tyro like me. For example, some of the jargon is imprecise. I see references to “the Whitechapel murders”, although Annie Chapman and Mary Kelly were killed in Spitalfields. The phrase “autumn of terror” is sometimes used, although Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman were killed in the summer (as well as Martha Tabram, if you think she’s a Ripper victim). Which parenthesis leads to the observation that, despite talk of “five canonical victims”, there seems to be some disagreement as to whether Martha and Elisabeth Stride were among them.
Another challenge is the sheer volume of missing investigatory, inquest and medical documentation. The shortage of definitive information is compounded by contradictory and flat-out erroneous contemporary media reports.
Of course, these challenges, and others, are also part of what makes the case so fascinating, and why there are still people like you and I who, long after it’s past making any difference to anything, are drawn to try resolving the puzzle.

Martha Tabram has never been considered one of tbe C5.

Do you know how booksellers describe the collected works of Hilaire? A load of old Bellocs.

His Cautionary Verses is one of my bedside companions.

[Fiver]

Over 500 people have been accused of being the Ripper. Accusations vary from the possible to the ridiculous.

A lot of posters subconsciously treat the case as a whodunnit, which is a problem. In a whodunnit you are given all the clues and can solve the case if you are clever enough. Barring deliberate deception, all information is accurate. This includes times, especially times of death. There is a direct link between the killer and the victims. There is a clear list of suspects. Alibis are either rock solid or further deceptions by the killer. Anything found is a clue or deliberate red herring.

None of this is true in a real case. We don't even have a clear list of victims, let alone a clear list of suspects. Human perception and memory are fallible. Eyewitnesses can contradict each other and not be lying. Objects found may just be random objects that have nothing to do with the case. Alibis are often soft and generally can't be proven or disproven this long after the events. Times given are usually estimates by people who didn't own a pocket watch. Estimated times of death are little more than guesswork, based on variables we are still trying to understand in the 21st century.

Another problem is the subconscious effect of media portrayals of serial killers. Most serial killers are not clever chaps who engage in a battle of wits with the police. Available data shows the average serial killer is slightly below average intelligence, with a handful of notable exceptions. Was the Whitechapel murderer the rare clever serial killer or was he just lucky?

I think the most likely candidate is Mr U N Owen. I think the Ripper persona was created by newpapermen to make more sales. I think there were 6 victims (Tabram plus the C5), but could see a credible theory based on anywhere from 3 to 7 victims. I don't think he was also the Torso Killer - the MOs are completely different.

[MrBarnett]

Over 500 people have been accused of being the Ripper. Accusations vary from the possible to the ridiculous.

A lot of posters subconsciously treat the case as a whodunnit, which is a problem. In a whodunnit you are given all the clues and can solve the case if you are clever enough. Barring deliberate deception, all information is accurate. This includes times, especially times of death. There is a direct link between the killer and the victims. There is a clear list of suspects. Alibis are either rock solid or further deceptions by the killer. Anything found is a clue or deliberate red herring.

None of this is true in a real case. We don't even have a clear list of victims, let alone a clear list of suspects. Human perception and memory are fallible. Eyewitnesses can contradict each other and not be lying. Objects found may just be random objects that have nothing to do with the case. Alibis are often soft and generally can't be proven or disproven this long after the events. Times given are usually estimates by people who didn't own a pocket watch. Estimated times of death are little more than guesswork, based on variables we are still trying to understand in the 21st century.

Another problem is the subconscious effect of media portrayals of serial killers. Most serial killers are not clever chaps who engage in a battle of wits with the police. Available data shows the average serial killer is slightly below average intelligence, with a handful of notable exceptions. Was the Whitechapel murderer the rare clever serial killer or was he just lucky?

I think the most likely candidate is Mr U N Owen. I think the Ripper persona was created by newpapermen to make more sales. I think there were 6 victims (Tabram plus the C5), but could see a credible theory based on anywhere from 3 to 7 victims. I don't think he was also the Torso Killer - the MOs are completely different.

I thought CAL had an ‘alibi’ for Chapman. At least that’s what you told us. He started work at 4.00, so couldn’t have been in Hanbury Street for 14/18 hours. Was that a ‘soft’ alibi?

Welcome to the boards, Belloc. You’ll find quite a few Matildas on here - dreadful!

[MrBarnett]

‘Whitechapel’ meant different things, a parish, a Metropolitan Police division, a registration district etc., which didn’t precisely overlap. Spitalfields was a separate parish but it fell into the Whitechapel registration district and was policed by the H (Whitechapel) division of the Metropolitan Police.

The geographical outliers in the so-called ‘Whitechapel murders’ were those of Liz Stride, the Pinchin Street victim and Rose Mylett.

Having just opened my bedside Cautionary Verses I came across Maria Who made Faces and a Deplorable Marriage.

Just the one marriage I hope.

[Enigma]

Welcome to the boards Belloc.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Over 500 people have been accused of being the Ripper. Accusations vary from the possible to the ridiculous.

A lot of posters subconsciously treat the case as a whodunnit, which is a problem. In a whodunnit you are given all the clues and can solve the case if you are clever enough. Barring deliberate deception, all information is accurate. This includes times, especially times of death. There is a direct link between the killer and the victims. There is a clear list of suspects. Alibis are either rock solid or further deceptions by the killer. Anything found is a clue or deliberate red herring.

None of this is true in a real case. We don't even have a clear list of victims, let alone a clear list of suspects. Human perception and memory are fallible. Eyewitnesses can contradict each other and not be lying. Objects found may just be random objects that have nothing to do with the case. Alibis are often soft and generally can't be proven or disproven this long after the events. Times given are usually estimates by people who didn't own a pocket watch. Estimated times of death are little more than guesswork, based on variables we are still trying to understand in the 21st century.

Another problem is the subconscious effect of media portrayals of serial killers. Most serial killers are not clever chaps who engage in a battle of wits with the police. Available data shows the average serial killer is slightly below average intelligence, with a handful of notable exceptions. Was the Whitechapel murderer the rare clever serial killer or was he just lucky?

I think the most likely candidate is Mr U N Owen. I think the Ripper persona was created by newpapermen to make more sales. I think there were 6 victims (Tabram plus the C5), but could see a credible theory based on anywhere from 3 to 7 victims. I don't think he was also the Torso Killer - the MOs are completely different.

I disagree that Tabram was part of this series.

I agree with you that there is no connection with the Torso murders.

I think there are plenty of solid alibis for 'suspects'.

I agree with your comments about this case being treated as a Whodunnit.

Many years ago, there was a seminar attended by police officers and the majority decided that Druitt was the suspect most likely to have been the murderer.

They actually decided that a public school teacher, who was practising as a barrister during the period in which the murders were committed and regularly played cricket and hockey in his spare time, and lived about eight miles from the nearest murder sites, could have been the murderer.

It seems that Druitt was very tall, possibly about six feet.

I suppose they didn't think about that.

I don't know whether there were aware that Abberline dismissed the idea of Druitt even being considered a suspect.

Presumably, they were unaware of his Dorset alibi.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I disagree that Tabram was part of this series.

I agree with you that there is no connection with the Torso murders.

I think there are plenty of solid alibis for 'suspects'.

I agree with your comments about this case being treated as a Whodunnit.

Many years ago, there was a seminar attended by police officers and the majority decided that Druitt was the suspect most likely to have been the murderer.

They actually decided that a public school teacher, who was practising as a barrister during the period in which the murders were committed and regularly played cricket and hockey in his spare time, and lived about eight miles from the nearest murder sites, could have been the murderer.

It seems that Druitt was very tall, possibly about six feet.

I suppose they didn't think about that.

I don't know whether there were aware that Abberline dismissed the idea of Druitt even being considered a suspect.

Presumably, they were unaware of his Dorset alibi.

Do you know what the word ‘alibi’ means? Clearly not because you keep talking about his Dorset alibi. Druitt has no ‘alibi’ for any of the murders. This is just a fact and your repeated quoting of an obvious falsehood will not change that fact.

More nonsense gets talked about Druitt than about any other suspect. It’s bizarre.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Do you know what the word ‘alibi’ means? Clearly not because you keep talking about his Dorset alibi. Druitt has no ‘alibi’ for any of the murders. This is just a fact and your repeated quoting of an obvious falsehood will not change that fact.

More nonsense gets talked about Druitt than about any other suspect. It’s bizarre.

I would say the only nonsense talked about Druitt is the idea that he could have been the murderer.

He was too tall, lived too far away, and was too busy.

He had a full-time teaching job, was practising as a barrister, and playing cricket and hockey regularly, which included trips to other parts of the country.

It is not just a question of whether he had time to commit the murders, but whether he was familiar with the streets of the East End and whether he had the time to wander its streets looking for victims.

Your comment on the alibi is another variation on the well-worn insult to which I have become accustomed, namely that I am allegedly ignorant.

I am confident that my command of English, educational qualifications, and knowledge of foreign languages are a match for those of any man here - and that includes you.

I quote from Richard Shone's excellent article about Walter Sickert:


The second murder (31 August, Mary Ann Nichols) and the third (8 September, Annie Chapman) took place when Sickert, his mother and his brother Bernhard were at St ValZry-en-Caux along the coast west of Dieppe.


According to your reasoning, Richard Shone, like me, doesn't know the meaning of the word 'alibi'.

I am happy to be in his company rather than in yours.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would say the only nonsense talked about Druitt is the idea that he could have been the murderer.

He was too tall, lived too far away, and was too busy.

Druitt was of average height. Jon Hainsworth who along with Christine Ward-Aguis who have research Druitt extensively have him at around 5’7”. His description is not an issue although we couldn’t honestly match him up with BS Man or Blotchy Man.

Any suggestion that we somehow know where the ripper lived is just a fantasy. We don’t. This is a fact not an opinion.

‘Too busy’ is just meaningless. Murderers can’t have jobs then?

He had a full-time teaching job, was practising as a barrister, and playing cricket and hockey regularly, which included trips to other parts of the country.

Where do you get that he played Hockey regularly? Yes, he was a Barrister, so what? He wasn’t working as a Barrister all of the time. And if you’d read the thread on JTR Forums you would have known about the school being closed for lengthy periods at terms end. It’s why he spent summers in Dorset.

It is not just a question of whether he had time to commit the murders, but whether he was familiar with the streets of the East End and whether he had the time to wander its streets looking for victims.

Prove to me that he wasn’t familiar with the streets then. Show me how you can say with absolute certainty that Druitt never spent any time in the East End. Again, you are giving your opinion as if it’s a fact. It’s not.

Your comment on the alibi is another variation on the well-worn insult to which I have become accustomed, namely that I am allegedly ignorant.

Victimhood yet again. Break out the tissues. To have an alibi is have it proven that you were elsewhere. When you prove that Druitt was in Dorset at the time of Nichols murder then he will have an alibi. Until then, he doesn’t. It’s very simple.

I am confident that my command of English, educational qualifications, and knowledge of foreign languages are a match for those of any man here - and that includes you.

Possibly, you still don’t appear to know what constitutes an alibi though. Druitt has no alibi. This is not my opinion. It’s a fact.

I quote from Richard Shone's excellent article about Walter Sickert:


The second murder (31 August, Mary Ann Nichols) and the third (8 September, Annie Chapman) took place when Sickert, his mother and his brother Bernhard were at St ValZry-en-Caux along the coast west of Dieppe.


According to your reasoning, Richard Shone, like me, doesn't know the meaning of the word 'alibi'.

Irrelevant. I don’t think for a second that Sickert was involved but if there is even a possibility, however difficult or unlikely, that he could have returned to England, committed the murder and then returned to France then he doesn’t have an alibi. An alibi isn’t an opinion. It has to be a proven fact. I think it likely that he was in France but can it be proven? If not, then he has no alibi.

I am happy to be in his company rather than in yours.

You can be in anyone’s company. It still doesn’t change the 100% fact that Montague John Druitt (like numerous other suspects) has no alibi for the murders. Inconvenient it may be, but it’s the truth and that’s what we should all be aiming for.

Lewis Carroll is a rubbish suspect but, as far as I know, he has no alibi. Ditto Maybrick, ditto Chapman, ditto Lechmere, ditto Hutchinson etc, etc.

If you or anyone else can prove with absolute certainty that Druitt couldn’t have committed any of the murders I’ll be the very first to accept it and say ‘well done’ and move on, but please don’t ask me to accept your own opinion as if it’s a fact. That won’t be happening no matter how many tantrums you throw.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You can be in anyone’s company. It still doesn’t change the 100% fact that Montague John Druitt (like numerous other suspects) has no alibi for the murders. Inconvenient it may be, but it’s the truth and that’s what we should all be aiming for.

Lewis Carroll is a rubbish suspect but, as far as I know, he has no alibi. Ditto Maybrick, ditto Chapman, ditto Lechmere, ditto Hutchinson etc, etc.

If you or anyone else can prove with absolute certainty that Druitt couldn’t have committed any of the murders I’ll be the very first to accept it and say ‘well done’ and move on, but please don’t ask me to accept your own opinion as if it’s a fact. That won’t be happening no matter how many tantrums you throw.

please don’t ask me to accept your own opinion as if it’s a fact


I'm not asking you to accept my opinion.

I think anyone reading your last post will agree with me that it's 'over the top'.

You're alleging that I'm playing the victim and throwing tantrums.

All I did was respond to your post in which regrettably you implied that I'm ignorant and accused me of repeating falsehoods.




Druitt was of average height. Jon Hainsworth who along with Christine Ward-Aguis who have research Druitt extensively have him at around 5’7”.



I would be interested to see how they arrived at that estimate.

He is reputed to have been a fearsome fast bowler and, as far as I can remember, fast bowlers are tallish.

Ainsworth claims that Druitt's appearance matches the description of the man seen by Lawende.

That makes me sceptical about anything he says about Druitt, because Druitt had dark hair whereas the suspect had a fair moustache.

To put it another way, as someone here said, Druitt wasn't 'blond enough'.



It is not just a question of whether he had time to commit the murders, but whether he was familiar with the streets of the East End and whether he had the time to wander its streets looking for victims.

(My comment)

Prove to me that he wasn’t familiar with the streets then. Show me how you can say with absolute certainty that Druitt never spent any time in the East End. Again, you are giving your opinion as if it’s a fact. It’s not.


(Your comment on my comment)


That is a completely unfounded criticism on your part.

What you write isn't even logical.

I raised some questions: 'It is not just a question of whether ... but whether .. and whether.'

I didn't mention the word fact.
I didn't imply that I was talking about facts.
I merely raised questions, which I believe tend towards certain conclusions.



Again, you are giving your opinion as if it’s a fact.



That's a ridiculous comment to make .

I didn't mention facts. I gave an opinion. You say I gave my opinion as if it's a fact.

That's just a gratuitous criticism.



Prove to me that he wasn’t familiar with the streets then. Show me how you can say with absolute certainty that Druitt never spent any time in the East End. Again, you are giving your opinion as if it’s a fact. It’s not.


I don't have to prove any of that, and nor would he - had he been accused at the time.

What you're saying smacks of 'anyone selected as a suspect is guilty until proven innocent'.

I could say to you: prove that Druitt was familiar with the streets of the East End; prove that he frequented the East End.

You can't.

And there isn't any case against Druitt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It would be easier to respond if you used the quote function and emboldened your answers. Without doing this it’s difficult for anyone reading (if anyone is reading of course) to work out which are your comments and which are mine.

So I’ll leave my original comments as they are, I’ll embolden your responses, and make my responses in blue.

please don’t ask me to accept your own opinion as if it’s a fact


I'm not asking you to accept my opinion.

I think anyone reading your last post will agree with me that it's 'over the top'.

You're alleging that I'm playing the victim and throwing tantrums.

All I did was respond to your post in which regrettably you implied that I'm ignorant and accused me of repeating falsrhoods.

There’s nothing over the top about it. All that I’ve said is that for someone to have an alibi it has to be proven that they were elsewhere. It cannot be proven that Druitt was elsewhere when Nichols was being killed. There’s nothing controversial about this. I’m simply stating a fact so I can’t see why this annoys you.


Druitt was of average height. Jon Hainsworth who along with Christine Ward-Aguis who have research Druitt extensively have him at around 5’7”.


I would be interested to see how they arrived at that estimate.

He is reputed to have been a fearsome fast bowler and, as far as I can remember, fast bowlers are tallish.

Most tend to be tall but there’s no rule on this and people in general were shorter in those days and a Victorian’s idea of ‘fearsomely fast’ would be different compared to today. Malcolm Marshall was one of the quickest bowlers ever and he was under 6 foot. Fidel Edwards is around 5’6” I believe. The legendary Harold Larwood was 5’8.”


Ainsworth claims that Druitt's appearance matches the description of the man seen by Lawende.

That makes me sceptical about anything he says about Druitt, because Druitt had dark hair whereas the suspect had a fair moustache.

To put it another way, as someone here said, Druitt wasn't 'blond enough'.

Druitt was a fairly average looking person. Most of the descriptions are fairly generic. And as the police will tell you, it can be difficult to judge colour/shading under street lighting. And how could Lawende judge hair colour with the man wearing a cap? Lawende also said that he wouldn’t be have been able to identify the man so he hardly had a close look.

It is not just a question of whether he had time to commit the murders, but whether he was familiar with the streets of the East End and whether he had the time to wander its streets looking for victims.

Prove to me that he wasn’t familiar with the streets then. Show me how you can say with absolute certainty that Druitt never spent any time in the East End. Again, you are giving your opinion as if it’s a fact. It’s not.

That is a completely unfounded criticism on your part.

What you write isn't even logical.

I raised some questions: 'It is not just a question of whether ... but whether .. and whether.'

I didn't mention the word fact.
I didn't imply that I was talking about facts.
I merely raised questions, which I believe tend towards certain conclusions.

You said: Presumably, they were unaware of his Dorset alibi.

So you clearly said that Druitt had an alibi. No matter how much you try and obfuscate you still made this claim as if it’s a fact. I simply pointed out your error. We all make errors from time to time so I don’t see why you couldn’t have just accepted it?

Again, you are giving your opinion as if it’s a fact.


That's a ridiculous comment to make .

I didn't mention facts. I gave an opinion. You say I gave my opinion as if it's a fact.

That's just a gratuitous criticism.

I’ve dealt with that. You said Druitt had an alibi.

Prove to me that he wasn’t familiar with the streets then. Show me how you can say with absolute certainty that Druitt never spent any time in the East End. Again, you are giving your opinion as if it’s a fact. It’s not.


I don't have to prove any of that, and nor would he - had he been accused at the time.

Then you can’t say that he didn’t have knowledge of the area. It’s an unknown. He might have, he might not have. Add this to the fact that there’s no reason to say that the killer must have lived locally and we can see that you’re clutching at straws.

What you're saying smacks of 'anyone selected as a suspect is guilty until proven innocent'.

Not at all. What I’m saying is that we should be clear about the difference between a suspect that we might believe to have been unlikely and one that has a proven alibi. How many ‘suspects have a proven alibi? Of the top of my head I can only think of Prince Eddie, Neil Cream and Van Gogh. Even unlikely suspects like Lewis Carroll, Walter Sickert, etc have no proven alibi.

I could say to you: prove that Druitt was familiar with the streets of the East End; prove that he frequented the East End.

You can't.

And I’d be honest enough to tell you that I can’t.

And there isn't any case against Druitt.

And your entitled to your opinion of course but Sir Melville MacNaghten and many others disagree with you.

I’ll tell you what……why don’t you have the courage of your convictions and name your suspect? Could the killer have been a sailor? Absolutely. And he could have been a Barrister or a carpenter or a circus juggler. We just don’t know who the killer was. Unless you have evidence that the rest of us are unaware of?

I really can’t see why you keep taking offence when you’re disagreed with? All of this just because I mentioned that it wasn’t correct to say that Druitt had an alibi.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It would be easier to respond if you used the quote function and emboldened your answers. Without doing this it’s difficult for anyone reading (if anyone is reading of course) to work out which are your comments and which are mine.

So I’ll leave my original comments as they are, I’ll embolden your responses, and make my responses in blue.




And your entitled to your opinion of course but Sir Melville MacNaghten and many others disagree with you.

I’ll tell you what……why don’t you have the courage of your convictions and name your suspect? Could the killer have been a sailor? Absolutely. And he could have been a Barrister or a carpenter or a circus juggler. We just don’t know who the killer was. Unless you have evidence that the rest of us are unaware of?

I really can’t see why you keep taking offence when you’re disagreed with? All of this just because I mentioned that it wasn’t correct to say that Druitt had an alibi.

DRUITT'S HEIGHT:


The photo of Montague seated at table with head resting on hand appears to show an individual of normal proportions. In this photo it appears that Montague has his left leg crossed over his right with that leg rather flat atop the right. His crossed knee is at or just slightly below table level. When I replicate this posture, my crossed knee comes to exactly the same level with respect to my desk. I am 6'1". To be sure, the height of Montague's table and his chair are unknown. Also, Montague's head is resting on his right fist with his right arm bent and elbow leaning on two stacked books. Yet he still must incline his upper body downward to make his head meet his fist. This is about the position of my upper body when I strike Montague's pose without the books, i.e. with my elbow resting directly on my desk. This would suggest that Montague was a tall man. We might also consider his athletic prowess, which suggests that he might have been rather tall.

I think the "head on hand" photo is the most useful for estimating height. I can only give a very approximate guess, but my estimate would be about 5'9 or 10" to about 6'2".


(Andrew Spallek)


Still, MJD looks to be a tall,lanky guy, based on his long neck and fingers. I have trouble equating him with the descriptions of a man not much taller than the victims.


(Maria Giordano)

https://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/13373.html

DRUITT'S HAIR COLOUR



And how could Lawende judge hair colour with the man wearing a cap? Lawende also said that he wouldn’t be have been able to identify the man so he hardly had a close look.


Lawende did give a detailed description of the man and was considered to be a reliable witness.

He said that the man had a fair moustache.

Druitt had a dark moustache.




DRUITT'S ALIBI



Druitt was not alone in Dorset.

Cricket is obviously not the kind of game that one can play on one's own.

Had he been accused of having committed the murder in Buck's Row, and the police discovered that he was in Dorset, it seems likely that they would have accepted that he had an alibi.

Had they made enquiries, it is likely that his team mates would have confirmed that he was in Dorset for the duration of the trip.

To put it another way: he was obviously a man of high intelligence and I think we would be insulting his intelligence if we suggested that he would have announced to his team mates that he was taking a trip to London and returning the next day to Dorset, knowing that if he did commit a murder, his absence would coincide with the murder.

If he didn't tell them that he was leaving, he would certainly have aroused suspicion by his unannounced absence.

Of course, if there were evidence that he was playing cricket in Dorset at the precise time that the murder took place, that would be conclusive, but it would be highly unusual for a cricket match to take place at about 3:30 in the morning.

[Herlock Sholmes]

DRUITT'S HEIGHT:


The photo of Montague seated at table with head resting on hand appears to show an individual of normal proportions. In this photo it appears that Montague has his left leg crossed over his right with that leg rather flat atop the right. His crossed knee is at or just slightly below table level. When I replicate this posture, my crossed knee comes to exactly the same level with respect to my desk. I am 6'1". To be sure, the height of Montague's table and his chair are unknown. Also, Montague's head is resting on his right fist with his right arm bent and elbow leaning on two stacked books. Yet he still must incline his upper body downward to make his head meet his fist. This is about the position of my upper body when I strike Montague's pose without the books, i.e. with my elbow resting directly on my desk. This would suggest that Montague was a tall man. We might also consider his athletic prowess, which suggests that he might have been rather tall.

I think the "head on hand" photo is the most useful for estimating height. I can only give a very approximate guess, but my estimate would be about 5'9 or 10" to about 6'2".


(Andrew Spallek)


Still, MJD looks to be a tall,lanky guy, based on his long neck and fingers. I have trouble equating him with the descriptions of a man not much taller than the victims.


(Maria Giordano)

https://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/13373.html

It’s not possible to judge someone’s height from a photograph of them seated. A full length photograph of Druitt doesn’t give the impression of him being particularly tall but I certainly couldn’t say how tall he was.


DRUITT'S HAIR COLOUR



And how could Lawende judge hair colour with the man wearing a cap? Lawende also said that he wouldn’t be have been able to identify the man so he hardly had a close look.


Lawende did give a detailed description of the man and was considered to be a reliable witness.

He said that the man had a fair moustache.

Druitt had a dark moustache.

How is this a dark moustache?

https://www.google.com/search?q=montague+john+druitt&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB704GB704&oq=montague+john+druitt&aqs=chrome.0.35i39i355j46i39i512j0i20i263i512j69i60l3.5428j0j7&hl=en-GB&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=XLcdA0kyNA89iM

or this

https://www.google.com/search?q=montague+john+druitt&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB704GB704&oq=montague+john+druitt&aqs=chrome.0.35i39i355j46i39i512j0i20i263i512j69i60l3.5428j0j7&hl=en-GB&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=-4dKyGrzeSyjkM

Id say light brown.

Lawende also said that he wouldn’t be able to recognise him again so this hardly suggests an in depth identification. Average man, with a cap, looked a bit like a sailor.




DRUITT'S ALIBI



Druitt was not alone in Dorset.

Cricket is obviously not the kind of game that one can play on one's own.

Had he been accused of having committed the murder in Buck's Row, and the police discovered that he was in Dorset, it seems likely that they would have accepted that he had an alibi.

Had they made enquiries, it is likely that his team mates would have confirmed that he was in Dorset for the duration of the trip.

To put it another way: he was obviously a man of high intelligence and I think we would be insulting his intelligence if we suggested that he would have announced to his team mates that he was taking a trip to London and returning the next day to Dorset, knowing that if he did commit a murder, his absence would coincide with the murder.

If he didn't tell them that he was leaving, he would certainly have aroused suspicion by his unannounced absence.

Of course, if there were evidence that he was playing cricket in Dorset at the precise time that the murder took place, that would be conclusive, but it would be highly unusual for a cricket match to take place at about 3:30 in the morning.

I really don’t understand that last point. Serial killers don’t usually manufacture alibi’s. They work on not getting caught. How many of Druitt’s friends would have given the slightest credence to any suggestion of him being the murderer? Why would the police have suspected him?

The simple fact of the matter is that Druitt didn’t have an alibi. This doesn’t make him guilty of course but it does mean that he can’t be eliminated on facts.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

NOT BLOND ENOUGH


Our exchange about the colour of Druitt's hair reminds me of my earlier exchange with The Baron about the colour of Kosminski's hair - or rather, I think the discussion was originally about the colour of the hair of the man seen by Lawende.

I think he accused me of alleging that Kosminski's hair was not blond enough, as if I were some kind of white supremacist.
That is rather strange, as I am the one who has been consistently complaining about the anti-Semitism with which the Whitechapel Murders case is shot through, and the 'case' against Kosminski reflects that.

In an attempt to disprove my assertion that Jews and gentiles in Whitechapel were easily distinguishable, he sent me some photographs of Kosminski's relatives which were familiar to me except that I couldn't remember whom they were photographs of.

That led to the familiar accusation of ignorance.

He said he was amazed that I thought that the men in those pictures would have been considered to be recognisabiy Jewish in Whitechapel at that time.

Both men had dark hair.

He had been railing against my contention that it was unlikely that Kosminski had fair hair, and yet the photographs he produced in evidence showed close relatives of his with very dark hair!

So yes, you could say Kosminski wasn't blond enough.

The same goes for Druitt.

You have produced photographs of him that show him with dark hair.

I don't think I've ever come across a case of someone having hair as dark as his and a fair moustache.




WHEN IS AN ALIBI NOT AN ALIBI?



As I understand it, there are different grades of alibis.

There are good alibis and there are bad alibis.

In some cases, there are watertight alibis.

It seems to me that what you are saying is that only a watertight alibi counts as an alibi and that anything less than a watertight alibi is not an alibi.