A fascinating case

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

You are placing too much significance on this. Lawende saw the couple under a street light. Druitt had a pretty thin looking moustache according to the pictures. Lighting can affect a witnesses perception of colour. But aside from this I’m not claiming that the man was Druitt. It might not have been. It might not have been Eddowes and her killer. The description proves nothing.



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.

What I’m saying is a simple statement of fact. Druitt was in Dorset on the 30th August and the 1st September. Trains existed. Druitt lived and worked in London. He could easily have got to London hours before the murder of Nichols. He would then have had all day of the 31st or early on the morning of the 1st to get a train back down to Dorset. And as we can’t question his friends and family and as we have no physical record of him being in Dorset on the the 31st then he has no alibi.

Why are you disputing this?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

... as we can’t question his friends and family ...


I would say that he has an alibi; it's not a watertight alibi; if it were possible to question his team mates, it probably would be a watertight alibi; since we can't question them, it is not fair to deduce that he didn't have a watertight alibi.

[Herlock Sholmes]

... as we can’t question his friends and family ...


I would say that he has an alibi; it's not a watertight alibi; if it were possible to question his team mates, it probably would be a watertight alibi; since we can't question them, it is not fair to deduce that he didn't have a watertight alibi.

We can’t prove he was in Dorset on the 31st……but he has an alibi because he was in Dorset on the 31st.

I surrender.