Jack's Escape Route?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is no proof that Druitt was in Dorset at the time of Nichols murder so I really can’t see why you keep repeating it. For him to have gone to London by train after the cricket match ended would have been the simplest of things and not even remotely difficult. Unless you, or anyone else can show that he couldn’t have made it back in time the attempt to eliminate Druitt on these grounds clearly fails. The cricket matches only show with 100% certainty that Druitt no longer has an alibi for Tabram.

Abberline didn’t think Druitt was a plausible suspect but MacNaghten and others clearly did.

As this subject is completely off-topic, I can only suggest that any further Druitt-related points should be made here.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...328#post798328

It may have been possible for Druitt to have committed the murder, but I suggest that it's not reasonable seriously to consider such a possibility.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree that it would have been more difficult for Sickert to have crossed the channel several times than for Druitt to have gone back to London and then back to Dorset.

I was actually going to make that point in my previous post but edited it out.

But the fact remains that the evidence is that Druitt was in Dorset at the time that the first murder took place and that Sickert was in France when it took place.

Until this evidence surfaced, people were saying that Druitt was in London - not Dorset.

I don't recall that anyone countered by saying, 'well, it isn't a fact that he was in London'.

It was reasonable to think that he was in London, but now there is proof that he was in Dorset.

I would point out that inspector Abberline did not consider Druitt to be a plausible suspect, and it seems he didn't even know about the Dorset cricket matches.

There is no proof that Druitt was in Dorset at the time of Nichols murder so I really can’t see why you keep repeating it. For him to have gone to London by train after the cricket match ended would have been the simplest of things and not even remotely difficult. Unless you, or anyone else can show that he couldn’t have made it back in time the attempt to eliminate Druitt on these grounds clearly fails. The cricket matches only show with 100% certainty that Druitt no longer has an alibi for Tabram.

Abberline didn’t think Druitt was a plausible suspect but MacNaghten and others clearly did.

As this subject is completely off-topic, I can only suggest that any further Druitt-related points should be made here.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/druitt-montague-john/783778-druitt-s-30-august-cricket-match?p=798328#post798328

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Druitt catching a train to London is not comparable with Sickert catching a boat and trains to London from France.

The emboldened sentence above is not even close to being a ‘fact.’ It would be a ‘fact’ if you could prove that Druitt couldn’t possibly have been in London, which you can’t. You thinking that it’s not likely is not a fact. It’s just your opinion. You’re entitled to it of course but you can’t call it a fact.

How can there be ‘overwhelming evidence that the murderer lived in Spitalfields when we don’t know who the murderer was or have any definite information about him? There’s just no ‘evidence’ that he was from Spitalfields. Bury is certainly high on the list of the named suspects and he lived in Bow. We haven’t a clue where the killer lived.

The fact that Druitt had a job and a hobby is irrelevant when we look at other serial killers who were in the same position. We can’t judge the thought processes and actions of a serial killer in the same way that we judge those of a normal, sane person.

Whilst we of course can’t state that Druitt was the ripper there is not a single, solitary piece of evidence that eliminates him. This applies to the majority of suspects too. On. the thread that you quoted, the researchers that took part like Chris Phillips, Gary Barnett, Steve Blomer and Roger Palmer (none of them so-called Druittists) would all tell you that no evidence was found that eliminated Druitt. One piece of evidence that was found however was that Druitt no longer has an alibi for Tabram.

I agree that it would have been more difficult for Sickert to have crossed the channel several times than for Druitt to have gone back to London and then back to Dorset.

I was actually going to make that point in my previous post but edited it out.

But the fact remains that the evidence is that Druitt was in Dorset at the time that the first murder took place and that Sickert was in France when it took place.

Until this evidence surfaced, people were saying that Druitt was in London - not Dorset.

I don't recall that anyone countered by saying, 'well, it isn't a fact that he was in London'.

It was reasonable to think that he was in London, but now there is proof that he was in Dorset.

I would point out that inspector Abberline did not consider Druitt to be a plausible suspect, and it seems he didn't even know about the Dorset cricket matches.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think I do know what I'm talking about.

I've come across this kind of argument before: Patricia Cornwell and some of her supporters have argued that Walter Sickert, who was on holiday in France at the time of the first two - and almost certainly at the time of the first four - murders, travelled back and forth between France and England during his holiday there, without his mother or brother, who were there on holiday with him, noticing his absence.

That is not a reasonable argument.

Similarly, it is not a reasonable argument to say that Druitt may have travelled between London and Dorset DURING his trip to Dorset.

The evidence is that when the first murder took place, Sickert was on holiday in France and Druitt was on a cricket trip in Dorset.

I've never heard of any other murder case in which such an idea has been proposed.

People have been alleging for years that Druitt committed the murders, even though he lived 8 miles away in Blackheath - when there is overwhelming evidence that the murderer lived in Spitalfields - and even though he had a full-time public school teaching job, was practising as a barrister during the period in which the murders occured, and spent his spare time - such as he had - playing cricket and hockey.

There never has been any case against him, but the fact that he was in Dorset when the first murder took place should eliminate him as a suspect.

It's not a matter of my being thin-skinned; it's just a matter of your being condescending when you could have presented your argument without being so.

Druitt catching a train to London is not comparable with Sickert catching a boat and trains to London from France.

The emboldened sentence above is not even close to being a ‘fact.’ It would be a ‘fact’ if you could prove that Druitt couldn’t possibly have been in London, which you can’t. You thinking that it’s not likely is not a fact. It’s just your opinion. You’re entitled to it of course but you can’t call it a fact.

How can there be ‘overwhelming evidence that the murderer lived in Spitalfields when we don’t know who the murderer was or have any definite information about him? There’s just no ‘evidence’ that he was from Spitalfields. Bury is certainly high on the list of the named suspects and he lived in Bow. We haven’t a clue where the killer lived.

The fact that Druitt had a job and a hobby is irrelevant when we look at other serial killers who were in the same position. We can’t judge the thought processes and actions of a serial killer in the same way that we judge those of a normal, sane person.

Whilst we of course can’t state that Druitt was the ripper there is not a single, solitary piece of evidence that eliminates him. This applies to the majority of suspects too. On. the thread that you quoted, the researchers that took part like Chris Phillips, Gary Barnett, Steve Blomer and Roger Palmer (none of them so-called Druittists) would all tell you that no evidence was found that eliminated Druitt. One piece of evidence that was found however was that Druitt no longer has an alibi for Tabram.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If you consider it ‘condescending’ to point out something then you’re obviously very thin-skinned. My response was simply to try and inform you of something of which you didn’t appear to be aware. You may have read it (or a part of it) but you very clearly haven’t taken in all of the information as evidenced by your faulty conclusion.

It is impossible for us to know what time the game ended because we don’t know what time the game began (which you would have known if you’d read and processed the research. It is entirely possible that the game was finished between 2 and 3 leaving Druitt ample time to have got the earlier train - still leaving him the option of the later one.

Both trains would have got him to London hours before the murder and so again, he would have had more than ample time. So perhaps when someone points something out to you you should first disengage your over active ego before responding.

If it’s ‘reasonable to conclude’ that Druitt was in Dorset then it’s ‘reasonable to conclude’ that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

I think I do know what I'm talking about.

I've come across this kind of argument before: Patricia Cornwell and some of her supporters have argued that Walter Sickert, who was on holiday in France at the time of the first two - and almost certainly at the time of the first four - murders, travelled back and forth between France and England during his holiday there, without his mother or brother, who were there on holiday with him, noticing his absence.

That is not a reasonable argument.

Similarly, it is not a reasonable argument to say that Druitt may have travelled between London and Dorset DURING his trip to Dorset.

The evidence is that when the first murder took place, Sickert was on holiday in France and Druitt was on a cricket trip in Dorset.

I've never heard of any other murder case in which such an idea has been proposed.

People have been alleging for years that Druitt committed the murders, even though he lived 8 miles away in Blackheath - when there is overwhelming evidence that the murderer lived in Spitalfields - and even though he had a full-time public school teaching job, was practising as a barrister during the period in which the murders occured, and spent his spare time - such as he had - playing cricket and hockey.

There never has been any case against him, but the fact that he was in Dorset when the first murder took place should eliminate him as a suspect.

It's not a matter of my being thin-skinned; it's just a matter of your being condescending when you could have presented your argument without being so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

'If you had read the thread you would have seen that ...'

I have frequently had that kind of condescending remark made to me online and it is so obviously inappropriate.

I have read the link, which is why I mentioned it!
I didn't mention the trains because it's just not believable that Druitt would have done what you hypothesise.
Since I did read the link, I did read that it would have been customary to have drinks and dinner following the match, which itself ended in the evening, and it was calculated that had Druitt still caught the train, he would have ended up arriving at such a time that it would have been practically impossible for him to have committed the murders.
Now if you want to be difficult, you can argue that Druitt forwent his drinks and dinners, rushed by train to Whitechapel in order to commit the murders, and then went back by train to Dorset so he could play in the second match.

I suggest that that is not credible, and that it is reasonable to deduce that Druitt was in Dorset at the time that that murder was committed and that that does eliminate him as a suspect in the murders.

If you consider it ‘condescending’ to point out something then you’re obviously very thin-skinned. My response was simply to try and inform you of something of which you didn’t appear to be aware. You may have read it (or a part of it) but you very clearly haven’t taken in all of the information as evidenced by your faulty conclusion.

It is impossible for us to know what time the game ended because we don’t know what time the game began (which you would have known if you’d read and processed the research. It is entirely possible that the game was finished between 2 and 3 leaving Druitt ample time to have got the earlier train - still leaving him the option of the later one.

Both trains would have got him to London hours before the murder and so again, he would have had more than ample time. So perhaps when someone points something out to you you should first disengage your over active ego before responding.

If it’s ‘reasonable to conclude’ that Druitt was in Dorset then it’s ‘reasonable to conclude’ that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If you had read the thread you would have seen that Druitt could very easily have got to London via 2 trains that were easily available. This was proven by researchers who have absolutely no reason to favour Druitt as a suspect. What was also revealed by the research on that thread was that the long held belief (originating from DJ Leighton’s book) that Druitt had an alibi for the murder of Martha Tabram, was incorriect. He had no alibi for Tabram’s murder.

Anyone can say that they think that Druitt is a poor suspect and that’s fair enough but we have no evidence that eliminates him.

Again though, this is off topic.

'If you had read the thread you would have seen that ...'

I have frequently had that kind of condescending remark made to me online and it is so obviously inappropriate.

I have read the link, which is why I mentioned it!
I didn't mention the trains because it's just not believable that Druitt would have done what you hypothesise.
Since I did read the link, I did read that it would have been customary to have drinks and dinner following the match, which itself ended in the evening, and it was calculated that had Druitt still caught the train, he would have ended up arriving at such a time that it would have been practically impossible for him to have committed the murders.
Now if you want to be difficult, you can argue that Druitt forwent his drinks and dinners, rushed by train to Whitechapel in order to commit the murders, and then went back by train to Dorset so he could play in the second match.

I suggest that that is not credible, and that it is reasonable to deduce that Druitt was in Dorset at the time that that murder was committed and that that does eliminate him as a suspect in the murders.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Like I have said, I have produced enough evidence and created enough doubt to show that the killer did not remove these organs, and I dont intend to continue arguing on this issue, or keep having to prop up my theory every time you or any other poster makes reference to it. The theory is far from speculative and does not totally rely on the timings.

Its a shame you do not understand the meaning of evidence

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Utter speculation with zero evidence and nothing more. We should leave it at that.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, you haven’t produced a single piece of what you term ‘hard evidence.’ What you’ve ‘produced’ is basically in three parts.

Part One - that the trade for body parts existed which is an interesting piece of information but nothing more. Just because the trade existed it doesn’t prove that it was the reason for the missing organs. You are simply speculating on this whilst at the same time berating everyone else for speculating.

Part Two - that the actual action of removing the organs would have taken too long and wouldn’t have been possible under those conditions. Again you have provided only the doubts from specific experts whilst ignoring the experts who disagree (including your usual ‘go to’ Doctor, Biggs) You also ignore the opinions of the Doctors who were there at the time Brown and Sequiera, neither of whom doubted that the killer could and did remove organs at the scene.

Part Three - a strangest of all from my point of view is the available time. You’ve mentioned recently that the timings can’t be relied upon (despite being resistant to this notion on other threads on other topics) That timings can’t be relied upon is absolutely correct of course but why do you ignore the fact that whilst an estimated time might have meant a reduced time available it might have meant a greater time available.

I genuinely can’t see why you persist on this point because you’re just not being logical about it. For example you repeatedly talk about the fact that the couple might have delayed before entering Mitre Square. This is totally possible of course and no one has ever disputed this. But the only relevant point is that they could have gone straight into the Square. For your theory to have legs you have to prove that the killer couldn’t have removed the organs (and the onus is on you Trevor) or at least show solid reasons for doubt and you simply can’t come close to doing that. Unless for evidence arises it’s an impossible task. You have a speculative theory with nothing solid to back it up and nothing more.

Like I have said, I have produced enough evidence and created enough doubt to show that the killer did not remove these organs, and I dont intend to continue arguing on this issue, or keep having to prop up my theory every time you or any other poster makes reference to it. The theory is far from speculative and does not totally rely on the timings.

Its a shame you do not understand the meaning of evidence

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Trevor, you haven’t produced a single piece of what you term ‘hard evidence.’ What you’ve ‘produced’ is basically in three parts.

Part One - that the trade for body parts existed which is an interesting piece of information but nothing more. Just because the trade existed it doesn’t prove that it was the reason for the missing organs. You are simply speculating on this whilst at the same time berating everyone else for speculating.

Part Two - that the actual action of removing the organs would have taken too long and wouldn’t have been possible under those conditions. Again you have provided only the doubts from specific experts whilst ignoring the experts who disagree (including your usual ‘go to’ Doctor, Biggs) You also ignore the opinions of the Doctors who were there at the time Brown and Sequiera, neither of whom doubted that the killer could and did remove organs at the scene.

Part Three - a strangest of all from my point of view is the available time. You’ve mentioned recently that the timings can’t be relied upon (despite being resistant to this notion on other threads on other topics) That timings can’t be relied upon is absolutely correct of course but why do you ignore the fact that whilst an estimated time might have meant a reduced time available it might have meant a greater time available.

I genuinely can’t see why you persist on this point because you’re just not being logical about it. For example you repeatedly talk about the fact that the couple might have delayed before entering Mitre Square. This is totally possible of course and no one has ever disputed this. But the only relevant point is that they could have gone straight into the Square. For your theory to have legs you have to prove that the killer couldn’t have removed the organs (and the onus is on you Trevor) or at least show solid reasons for doubt and you simply can’t come close to doing that. Unless for evidence arises it’s an impossible task. You have a speculative theory with nothing solid to back it up and nothing more.

[Trevor Marriott]

That you find it highly unlikely that the police would have gone public that the body had been tampered with and organs removed, doesn't change the evidence we have before us, Trevor. And so, untill you find evidence that supports the notion of someone steeling organs from the mortuary, you're inconsistent in your reasoning, as far as I'm concerned.

The evidence I seek to rely on has been posted on these boards many times over the past few years so i dont propose to go over it again, and it is good hard evidence and not one of the many "what if`s" "maybes`s" or "I think" you are accustomed to posting which have no evidential value.

And maybe you should find the conclusive evidence that the killer had sufficient time to remove the organs from Eddowes, and while you are at it Chapman as well, and then explain why Chapman and Eddowes were the only two victims out of all the murders where organs were found missing at the postmortems, answers please without using the terms "what if`s" "maybes`s" or "I think"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FrankO]

I think it highly unlikely that the police would have gone public that the body had been tampered with and organs removed. I have found nothing to suggest that they ever acknowledged the exitstence of body dealers or corrupt mortuary attendants who were activley engaged in the illegal trade of bodies and body parts at the time of the murders

That you find it highly unlikely that the police would have gone public that the body had been tampered with and organs removed, doesn't change the evidence we have before us, Trevor. And so, untill you find evidence that supports the notion of someone steeling organs from the mortuary, you're inconsistent in your reasoning, as far as I'm concerned.

[Trevor Marriott]

[FONT=Calibri][FONT=Verdana]
Which I find logical enough. So, I wondered why, if he thinks this is logical, he doesn’t think we also have to accept that the murderer did all that was done to Catherine? After all, the police also seems to have thought the murderer did all that was done to Catherine, and there’s absolutely no evidence at all that they, even if briefly, entertained the notion that there was a second person who took the organs from her body at the mortuary.

I think it highly unlikely that the police would have gone public that the body had been tampered with and organs removed. I have found nothing to suggest that they ever acknowledged the exitstence of body dealers or corrupt mortuary attendants who were activley engaged in the illegal trade of bodies and body parts at the time of the murders

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Harry D has kindly provided the link in the section on Druitt:

http://www.jtrforums.com/forum/perso...f-of-innocence

It proves that Druitt was in Dorset on the day before and after the first murder, which means that rather like the Duke of Clarence, who was in Yorkshire or Scotland, and Walter Sickert, who was in France, he couldn't have committed the murder unless he had the use of a helicopter or aeroplane.

If you had read the thread you would have seen that Druitt could very easily have got to London via 2 trains that were easily available. This was proven by researchers who have absolutely no reason to favour Druitt as a suspect. What was also revealed by the research on that thread was that the long held belief (originating from DJ Leighton’s book) that Druitt had an alibi for the murder of Martha Tabram, was incorriect. He had no alibi for Tabram’s murder.

Anyone can say that they think that Druitt is a poor suspect and that’s fair enough but we have no evidence that eliminates him.

Again though, this is off topic.

[FrankO]

The police didn't know any more than we do. They knew the medical opinion that Catherine was murdered 1.40 to 1.45am. It certainly does count for something.

But then, they knew that supposedly Catherine and her murderer were stood at Church Passage around 1.35am, Catherine was murdered and mutilated, and the murderer left unseen before PC Watkins entered the square at 1.44am. That really is cutting it fine, and you'd have to assume that the murderer knew Watkins would be back at 1.44am, is that really a given?

It's certainly not a given that the murderer knew Watkins would be back at 1.44 am, as I think he simply couldn’t know where any PC was at any given time. So, if it was Watkins who caused the murderer to leave unseen, then he must have heard him coming and he must have got away through Church Passage or St. James Place. But I don’t see how this being a given or not is of any influence on anything. The murderer wasn’t there anymore when Watkins arrived.

In the event the police deduced that it was Catherine and her murderer then it is not logical nor illogical to follow that, you could argue it either way and the argument against has merit.

I can’t follow you, Fleetwood. If the police deduced that it was Catherine and her murderer, then what is neither logical nor illogical to follow? And what is the argument against? Could you please rephrase?

Furthermore, the bigger picture was me reacting to Trevor’s line of thinking. In post #124 he wrote:
The question of whether or not the couple were Eddowes and her killer is a valid question, but the police seemed to accept that they were,and in the absence of any evidence to prove them wrong, or they supported that belief we have to accpet that the couple were Eddowes and the killer

Which I find logical enough. So, I wondered why, if he thinks this is logical, he doesn’t think we also have to accept that the murderer did all that was done to Catherine? After all, the police also seems to have thought the murderer did all that was done to Catherine, and there’s absolutely no evidence at all that they, even if briefly, entertained the notion that there was a second person who took the organs from her body at the mortuary.