Is it plausible that Druitt did it?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Pilgrim


No offence to SamF...but when did his opinion become evidence?

Unless he has evidence as to his assertion?

Easy - I made no such assertion. I believe that Jack was likely to have been a local, and that there are reasonable grounds for believing so, but that's as far as it goes. Having just read Pilgrim's dredged-up post of mine, I should point out that, owing to the crash, the context is missing. In response to my selecting an individual from a poll, I said:

"That category works for me - "local unknown" versus "unknown outsider" seems a reasonable distinction. I went for the former, the "local unknown", with the caveat that I still entertain the possibility that a "known" local was responsible. The only reason I didn't vote for the chap in question is that we don't know enough about him.

We do know that he was working class, that he lived locally, that he was definitely resident in the vicinity in 1888, and that he certainly knew his way around the area. These factors are, in my opinion, the most likely to have characterised the murderer.

With those criteria in mind, if I were forced to choose an actual candidate from Charlotte's list, all but four would have to be ruled out."

...the underlined bits are relevant. Whoever the "chap in question" was, it was he - viz. the person referred to in the poll - and not some abstract Ripper, that I was referring to as definitely working class, living locally, etc.

[Mr Poster]

hi ho SamF

I dont have to go easy. Twas not I who pointed at your statement and called it evidence of his being local. If you read back you will find it twasnt me who posted:

But I have rescued one of Sam Flynn's posts from the "pre-crash boards", saying that we actually know that this murderer was "working class" and that he lived locally. So, it would seem a fact that he was living locally, and that he was "working class". That is where we have to start.

I know full well you could only believe it and not say it was true although this demonstrates the risk of saying it in a way less discerning people than me could misunderstand. Your actual statement was:

We do know that he was working class, that he lived locally, that he was definitely resident in the vicinity in 1888, and that he certainly knew his way around the area. These factors are, in my opinion, the most likely to have characterised the murderer.

taken from: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

so telling me to go "easy" would seem at bit.......misdirected?

As to what possible circumstances could possibly cause our man to drop his prize..............well how about getting hung?

We know our man wasnt fond of the notion......leaving the scene of the crime and all and not waiting for the police so we KNOW he didnt relish getting his neck stretched.

Now he has his prize and a police man shouts @stop@ at him from the end of Goulston street.

Now ...... unless he suddenly decides that he doesnt mind getting hung.....his initial preference for not being hung is still there and he quickly gets rid of the one thing he couldnt explain........the organ.

he drops it in the dark and thats that....before the copper gets right up to him.

That being the copper who didnt know he had an organ or that there was one missing.

Who had a poor light, who couldnt see a pear sized dark mass dropping onto a filthy street in the dark from maybe rwenty yards away.

Like drug dealers today do it.

No problem at all.

p

[Mr Poster]

Hi ho SamF

Our posts/editing of them appear to have crossed. yet you still seem to be telling me to "go easy" as to what you say.

Which is still incorrect and a little unjust if not downright wrong as it was not me making more of your statement than was warranted.

p

[Sam Flynn]

I wasn't telling you to "go easy", MrP - I was pointing out that the question arising from Pilgrim's quoted "assertion" was easy to answer.

The "easy" answer being that I made no such assertion.

Hope that clears it up.

[Mr Poster]

Sorry SamF

I took that word up the wrong way completely.

Like when a poster told me before they were not going to answer a post because they had class.

Upon agreeing that I too had class, I was promptly informed that the "class" they had was second period French or something.

p

[Sam Flynn]

Sorry SamF

No need to apologise, MrP - 'twas an understandable misunderstanding (to coin a paradox ). Thanks, anyhow.

[Pilgrim]

Easy - I made no such assertion. I believe that Jack was likely to have been a local, and that there are reasonable grounds for believing so, but that's as far as it goes. Having just read Pilgrim's dredged-up post of mine, I should point out that, owing to the crash, the context is missing. In response to my selecting an individual from a poll, I said:

"That category works for me - "local unknown" versus "unknown outsider" seems a reasonable distinction. I went for the former, the "local unknown", with the caveat that I still entertain the possibility that a "known" local was responsible. The only reason I didn't vote for the chap in question is that we don't know enough about him.

We do know that he was working class, that he lived locally, that he was definitely resident in the vicinity in 1888, and that he certainly knew his way around the area. These factors are, in my opinion, the most likely to have characterised the murderer.

With those criteria in mind, if I were forced to choose an actual candidate from Charlotte's list, all but four would have to be ruled out."

...the underlined bits are relevant. Whoever the "chap in question" was, it was he - viz. the person referred to in the poll - and not some abstract Ripper, that I was referring to as definitely working class, living locally, etc.

Hi...

I certainly did read you out of context, or perhaps rather into the wrong context. When I read that statement the first time, I had, I would say, seen opinion stated as "more-or-less-fact" so many times at these boards that I no longer found it too strange that some people might think they could "know for a fact" where this murderer was residing and of what "class" he might have been.

Sorry about the misunderstanding, but glad to see that my "interpretation" actually was wrong.

My Regards.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Pilgrim,

Again, no need to apologise for a simple misunderstanding - but thank you anyway.

[anna]

Hi everyone.Having read thought the thread,something I had dismissed before may be of relevance,although if there is evidence that Druitt didn't do it,then may be not.When I did local research on Druitt,I started a few months before the JTR period.I actually spoke to the librarian who noticed my suprise as I read of cuttings,murders,headless bodies etc,when she came over she smiled and said it all went on then,didn't it.I dismissed what I read as just that,now I'm wondering if Monty had a trial run locally,so to speak.Maybe I'll make a return trip and take a note of dates and what occurred just to see.By the way,If we are discussing the plausibility of Monty being JTR should we not look at whether he would have been medically and mentally able to deal with the pressures of these quick murders out in the open?

[aspallek]

I'm not quite sure I follow you, Anna. Are you saying these crimes took place at Blackheath? That's one area I have not been abnle to research very well.

[ella090]

So you have to admit......there is no evidence that he was anything at all.

Thats not to say he was a toff mind you. But we DO have evidence that the local whores were willing to say at inquest that they were not surprised to see all sorts down Whitechapel so that is evidence that not only locals were to be found in the area.

So I'm afraid the local concept is based on nothing and I am quite suspicious that people tend to think its fact due to often touted "profiling" which, I would hazard a guess, included local more because they had a higher chance of being right and looking good than based on anything else.

Thats fine.....but to say it has been established he was local is completely untrue.

And very troublesome as an indication of the sort of viral assumptions that turn bolsters into arses.

p

Finally someone that is showing reason!! GO MR. P!

[Ben]

Says Ella, the "relative" of Druitt who seems pretty insistent that her ancestor dunnit.

[Mr Poster]

Hi ho Ella

I always show reason..........but showing reason round here is usually treated in much the same way as showing your dingus in a nunnery.

First its politely ignored in the hope it will just dissappear, then treated with indignation at someone having the temerity to show it and then physical violence is threatened if its not put away.

p

[anna]

Hi Aspallek,Yes that's correct.They took place in the areas covered by the local papers,(which includes Blackheath and it's surrounding area)of which there were two papers at the time.I felt I would probably have a chance of finding out what happened at the school in the local column inches through general gossip,which seems to get an airing!news stories,police or court reports.I was not familiar with how the microfilm system worked,so the librarian suggested I started to look a couple of months before the period I needed,so I could get used to how the papers were set out,which would make it easier for me to home in on where to find what I needed,easier and quicker when got to the months I needed. So,I looked through the general gossip and news and the police and court reports covering the months just before the JTR crimes.I was suprised by the nature of the crimes reported,but didn't take much notice as I had focussed my mind on the Ripper period so didn't pay much attention to the other details.It wasn't until I saw the suggestion on a post that it rang a bell as to what I had read at the library.The local records are stored in a cabinet.There are a complete set for both papers covering 1888.It's such a lot to go through on your own and I was spending hours on the machines.(locals and people travel to search for ancestors etc.Don't forget we have the local Princess Alice reports,so the machines are well used,which makes it difficult to sit and use them for too long,but the lady is used to me now,and doesn't mind).In fact,there's an incredible amount that is not on view to the public of local information,that she has given me permission to look through.I think that if someone doesn't come up with the answer on Monty,as has been suggested in this thread,the answer may lie within the reams of information and tiny print and column inches in these local papers.It's just having the time to go through them.You must know the amount of searching I am talking about,it doesn't sound a lot,four papers a month,five months out of one year x 2.But that is a lot of searching as you can appreciate!But if the answer is not revealed,I am determined to complete the task.I will try to go back in the next couple of weeks to have a look at the time previous to the JTR period,to see what was occuring,just out of interest.What do you think?Kindest Regards.

[anna]

Just as a p.s.There was a pamphlet put out by Valentines school for prospective parents in 1888.I am currently trying to get hold of a copy.It will show the inside of the school plus all the relevant info they would have wanted them to know.Like teachers and what was available to their boys,dormatories,local shops,travel so they can visit etc.I'd love a look.We have lots of antiquarian book shops in Blackheath and Greenwich, who it has been suggested might have a copy on their shelves.The library has tons of box's in the back room that are unopened,so who knows one might be in there.(They have a book on private schools in Blackheath,covering 1888)I have been told to put an ad in the local paper,incase anyone had a relative at the school and has a copy.Hopefully,one will be found from somewhere!.