Is it plausible that Druitt did it?

[Ben]

The problem here is that too many people are equating local and working class with expressions like "ruffian" and "scumbag", which is to miss the point most spectacularly. One can be local and working class and still be classed as respectable; you had shopkeepers, hairdressers and plasterers living in the area, all earning a respectable wage and avoiding the "vicious, semi criminal" element in the district. We don't automatically assign them "Bill Sykes" status purely because they were local and working class.

However, if we lump these respectable honest folk in with the "scumbag" contingent (which was also very heavily represented) we're left with a collective vast majority population that utterly dwarfed the occasional upper class "slummer", if such people ever ventured into that district for prostitutes at all. Argue all you want that the occasional toff might have sauntered into Whitechapel, but to go further, and pretend that toff and peasants were rubbing shoulders on a daily basis and that the ripper belonged in the former catergory is altogether beyond the truth.

ridiculous notions like his having exhibited some inate feral knowledge of the back streets. Which there is no evidence for his having done so.

Excep the crime scene evidence from Mitre Square, which I took the trouble to provide in great detail and will repeat again if necessary.

Edit: With my apologies to Gareth, whose "Slummers" post I've just noticed. He's responded over there, and I suggest we all follow suit.

Back to Druitt!

[Mayerling]

It's a funny thing, but there are those who cry 'calumny' whenever the name of Maybrick is associated with the Ripper, but if I were a descendant of Montague Druitt I think I might be slightly miffed that the memory of an ancestor of mine was being dragged through the mud courtesy of the baseless (or baseless so far as we know it) statement of a senior public official.

Let those who claim Druitt's guilt come up with something solid: Macnaghten's conjecture is just that - conjecture. I agree with Ally insofar as had Druitt been inclined towards serial murder, he'd have gone elsewhere other than the East End of London. Or so one would think.

Is there any serial killer, before or since, who chose as his victims those above or below his social status? This is a question - not a challenge.

Cheers,

Graham.

PS: hate to say it, but since the Great Crash the balls seem to have been cut off this site, for me at least. Let's hope that 'time heals all'.

Hi Graham,

I don't think there was anyone who was a serial killer who made social choices like that, aside from those who picked on prostitutes - the idea was to hit on a target who was not only potentially physically weaker than the attacker but also in a profession that the police would be lazy to probe too deeply because the choice of profession of being a whore would necessarily always run the risk of picking up rough or dangerous "Johns". Actually, the Ripper and Cream may have served an interesting social phenomenon that has only recently been noted (in a recent book on Cream): the prostitutes of London, having just gone through the nightmare of the Ripper, were determined to bring the murderer of Clover, and the other Cream Victims to justice, and played a role in prodding the police. They also were markedly excited the day Cream was executed, congregating near the prison and
dancing when they hears the good news.

As for the other point about the lack of reaction (for good or ill) by the surviving Druitt family to what's happening to Monty's posthumous reputation:
We have no evidence about this right now...except one piece of negative evidence which is curious. In 1959 Daniel Farson did not reveal Monty's name when he mentioned him as a suspect. It isn't until Tom Cullen publishes AUTUMN OF TERROR that Monty's name is revealled. Just about seven or eight years. In that period something lifted the veil. Farson could have revealled the name in 1959 (there was no chance of any libel suit, because you can't libel the dead). He did not for some reason connected to the living - something we probably will never know. But Cullen had no problem. Possibly someone was still alive when Farson talked who would have had unwelcomed attention from Ripperologists, so Farson did not say anything to protect his/her privacy. That same party may have been dead by the time Cullen was writing his account. At least that is a possibility.

I might add that the fact that the Druitt family has not reacted may be because the notoriety adds a degree of interest to a member of their family, for better or worse. As for the Maybricks (most of whom may be collateral descendants - their son died from accidental poisoning and the daughter may have married and had children), they were used to notoriety since 1889 when Florence was found guilty of killing James. This current strand of notoriety is just an odd twist to that.

Now I am curious about how many people looking at this board are descended from people connected to famous murders or crimes. I know I was contacted by one on the second old board, but aside from that person I know nobody who is.

Jeff

[Pilgrim]

Peasant.

As peasants have been mentioned, I say it would seem most likely that a plausible, general suspect would have seen himself as in some way being a mere peasant.

~~~

Originally posted by Pilgrim, 13th April 2007, 10:38 AM.


1885. Peasant Sharpening His Scythe. Partially disguised self-portrait, painted with the aid of a mirror.*

*Text added.

[Ben]

Whose self portrait is that, Pilgrim?

[Sam Flynn]

Whose self portrait is that, Pilgrim?

Ivan Klogov

[Pilgrim]

Ivan Klogov ?

The "local scumbag theory" may have some rational merit, but I'll say the uncritical belief in it may seem to stand in need of some further explanation.

"Slumming", of various kinds, is a historical fact. And it is a fact that "The East End" was the perhaps most infamous slum area in Western Europe during the years leading up to these murders. A major reason would probably be the fact that London was the capital of the British Empire, which made its perceived fault lines, real and imaginary, stand out all the more clearly. The "slumming" phenomenon would of course tend to follow the same fault lines; it hardly matters if a few even darker spots might have been found some other way.

So, it is a historical fact that people of better means did visit the East End, and for a number of reasons. And I would say a general underlying idea, would be the perception, real and imaginary, of the East End as an "antipodean creature" - "synonymous with poverty, overcrowding, disease and criminality." (#162) If some people find it necessary to argue against this historical fact, I'll say it would seem to stand in need of some external explanation. The most obvious reason would perhaps be that they simply are defending "the local scumbag theory". But I would tend to agree that any too uncritical belief in that theory might be well explained along the lines suggested in the above quote. I would think Barrett, Cornwell, Knight et al may have something to answer for here.

My Regards.

The problem here is that too many people are equating local and working class with expressions like "ruffian" and "scumbag", which is to miss the point most spectacularly. One can be local and working class and still be classed as respectable; you had shopkeepers, hairdressers and plasterers living in the area, all earning a respectable wage and avoiding the "vicious, semi criminal" element in the district. We don't automatically assign them "Bill Sykes" status purely because they were local and working class.

However, if we lump these respectable honest folk in with the "scumbag" contingent (which was also very heavily represented) we're left with a collective vast majority population that utterly dwarfed the occasional upper class "slummer", if such people ever ventured into that district for prostitutes at all. Argue all you want that the occasional toff might have sauntered into Whitechapel, but to go further, and pretend that toff and peasants were rubbing shoulders on a daily basis and that the ripper belonged in the former catergory is altogether beyond the truth.

(...)

Back to Druitt!

Local, or non-local; I think it would be fair to say that any plausible suspect would have been a scumbag either way.

[Septic Blue]

As to Druitt....I dont doubt his alibi is forthcoming. Im arguing that this notion that only scumbags were down there is nonsense. We KNOW it is from contemporary records. We KNOW it is from residents.

Part of it is caused by people (not necessarily you) seeking to distance themselves from the Epitome of Non-Suspects, Knights Gull. To show their non-susceptibility to guff.....they flee with fervency to the antithesis of the toff....which is the scumbag.

To copperfasten their new found credentials as non-toff-ists, they now seek to prove that no one except scumbags were ever down there. Which is patent nonsense.

This has been my perception too, for some considerable time. The "local scumbag theory" may have some rational merit, but I'll say the uncritical belief in it may seem to stand in need of some further explanation.

"Slumming", of various kinds, is a historical fact. And it is a fact that "The East End" was the perhaps most infamous slum area in Western Europe during the years leading up to these murders. A major reason would probably be the fact that London was the capital of the British Empire, which made its perceived fault lines, real and imaginary, stand out all the more clearly. The "slumming" phenomenon would of course tend to follow the same fault lines; it hardly matters if a few even darker spots might have been found some other way.

So, it is a historical fact that people of better means did visit the East End, and for a number of reasons. And I would say a general underlying idea, would be the perception, real and imaginary, of the East End as an "antipodean creature" - "synonymous with poverty, overcrowding, disease and criminality." (#162) If some people find it necessary to argue against this historical fact, I'll say it would seem to stand in need of some external explanation. The most obvious reason would perhaps be that they simply are defending "the local scumbag theory". But I would tend to agree that any too uncritical belief in that theory might be well explained along the lines suggested in the above quote. I would think Barrett, Cornwell, Knight et al may have something to answer for here.

Against my better judgment, I am allowing myself to be dragged into this discussion. Of course, my comments will be ignored or contested; the sun will rise tomorrow, and the world of Ripperology will be none the wiser. However, I am compelled to speak out !!!

I wish to join the procession begun by Mr Poster and Pilgrim, regarding the so-called "local scumbag theory". However, I think the "local commoner - for the sake of simplicity – theory" would be a more appropriate and more telling reference.

The world of Ripperology is quite clearly fed up with eccentric theories, and many students of the case have subconsciously allowed themselves to become insistent that simplicity holds the only possible key to a practical solution:

__ The Whitechapel Murders most widely attributed to Jack the Ripper were UNDOUBTEDLY perpetrated by a commoner, who lived in the immediate vicinity of the killing fields – any other solution would be totally implausible, and plainly and simply too eccentric

__ The Goulston Street graffiti was UNDOUBTEDLY written before Eddowes's murderer arrived on the scene – again, any other solution would be totally implausible, and plainly and simply too eccentric

__ Montague John Druitt UNDOUBTEDLY avoided Whitechapel as if it were the plague; as any compulsion on his part to do otherwise has yet to be demonstrated – once again, any other solution would be totally implausible, and plainly and simply too eccentric

__ etc …

The pendulum has quite clearly begun to swing away from eccentric fantasy. But for some, it has swung too far. The result: Simplistic Fantasy !!!

While some students of the case have espoused simplicity for quite some time, others have seemingly climbed aboard the simplicity bandwagon quite recently, in what would appear to be some sort of eccentricity backlash. In so doing, they have begun to insist that the Emperor looks resplendent in his new clothes.

If in this day and age, Montague John Druitt were living in Blackheath and practicing in King's Bench Walk, whilst having a particular affinity for Indian Curry; would we be at all surprised to find him spending his free time in Brick Lane ???

Please don't retort by pointing out the fact that Druitt could have easily found prostitutes of the lowest social and economic standings in places much closer to home: Greenwich, Rotherhithe, Bermondsey, Southwark and Lambeth. I am as aware of that fact as anyone who posts to these boards.

Likewise; no one should bother to retort by pointing out the fact that Druitt could have easily found prostitutes of the lowest social and economic standings in places much closer to his chambers: Westminster, Soho, Seven Dials, Covent Garden, Drury Lane, Holborn, Saffron Hill, St. Sepulchre ("Smithfield"), Clerkenwell and St. Luke. Again; I am as aware of that fact as anyone who posts to these boards.

As I have indicated on other long-lost threads, my research has given me the distinct impression that London's East End did not have any semblance of a monopoly, where poverty, vice and criminal behaviour within the metropolis were concerned. This of course, is contrary to today's conventional wisdom, as well as that of 1888. Charles Booth, himself, was quite surprised by the amount of poverty that his research team uncovered in areas like Greenwich, Bermondsey, Southwark, Holborn and Clerkenwell. In fact, he eventually concluded that the Southwark Parishes of Christ Church and St. Saviour were the most impoverished in the whole of the metropolis.

Considerable wealth and abject poverty both tended to be concentrated in various enclaves throughout the four quarters (North, East, South, and West) of the metropolis, with two notable exceptions: Certain parts of the West End, which were too large to be considered mere "enclaves", enjoyed considerable wealth; while nowhere in the East End was such wealth at all prevalent. The only characteristic of the East End, which truly differentiated it from the other quarters of the metropolis, was just that: An apparent lack of any enclaves of considerable wealth. The East End was a massive sea of blue collar society, having perhaps slightly more than its fair share of enclaves of abject poverty, vice and criminal elements.

Three of these enclaves were found in the Civil Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields:

Great Pearl Street
- Great Pearl Street
- Little Pearl Street

Dorset Street
- Dorset Street
- Little Paternoster Row

Flower & Dean Street
- Flower & Dean Street (excepting its southwestern quarter)
- George Street (eastern side)
- Thrawl Street (eastern half)
- Wentworth Street (between George Street and Brick Lane)
- George Yard (northeastern quarter)

I am inclined to believe that two of them – namely Dorset Street and Flower & Dean Street – were most unusual, in that they were apparently home to an extraordinarily large concentration of middle-age, alcoholic, totally destitute and completely vulnerable dolly-mops.

I have little doubt that had these murders continued indefinitely, the epicenter of their locations would have gradually moved into increasingly closer proximity to the epicenter of the two enclaves mentioned above, Dorset Street and Flower & Dean Street; regardless of the location of the perpetrator's residence and/or base.

Now that we are discussing the subject of geographic profiling:

"If the area covered by a series of crimes is circumscribed, then in the majority of cases the serial offender has a base of some sort within that area. Let me hasten to add that this is not true in all cases, and the proportion of offenders who live within this 'criminal range' varies considerably depending on many aspects of the crimes and locations. But as a rule of thumb there is at least a 50-50 chance that the offender lives within the area defined by a circle that joins the two furthest crimes. If the spread of the crime is great and the criminal thinks he may be recognized in a given location then the chance he lives within this circle increases. If the criminal is clearly targeting a particular type of criminal opportunity then the chance will decrease because it is the opportunity for the crime that determines where he will offend, rather than the location of his base. There is thus the real possibility that Jack came into the area because of the opportunities available to carry out his mission. But the distribution of the crimes around the small area, together with their timing, also offers the possibility that he had a base in the area." David Canter, Mapping Murder, p. 131.

Take a good long look at that, folks.

"If the criminal is clearly targeting a particular type of criminal opportunity then the chance (that the offender lives within the area) will decrease because it is the opportunity for the crime that determines where he will offend, rather than the location of his base."

That, along with my own deductive reasoning, has inclined me to believe that a relatively confined distribution of murder sites might indicate the likelihood of a perpetrator who commuted to a particular area, with which he had developed a certain degree of familiarity: A sense of comfort with its immediate vicinity, in the absence of the sort of comfort and familiarity with the broader surrounding area, that would be expected of a local resident.

Please don’t retort by asking the question: "Why would someone like Druitt have ever gone to the Whitechapel area, in the first place?" Compulsive killers, in many instances I'm sure, go wherever they want to go, do whatever they want to do, and kill whomever they want to kill. The presence of a Polish Jew (i.e., Aaron Kosminski) in Dorset Street, George Yard or Buck's Row would have raised as many eyebrows as that of Montague John Druitt. But if either of these suspects was in fact, a compulsive killer; so be it !!! They would have gone where their compulsions led them !!!

It is my considered opinion that neither of these suspects (Kosminski or Druitt) was our man. There is very little known basis for the suspicion of Druitt; while the suspicion of Kosminski was clearly born of bigotry, senility, a compulsion to cover one's own ass, and perhaps outright dishonesty. Apart from that; suspects bore me !!! I honestly don’t care who he was !!! But, again; compulsive killers, in many instances I'm sure, go wherever they want to go, do whatever they want to do, and kill whomever they want to kill.

And once again; if in this day and age, Montague John Druitt were living in Blackheath and practicing in King's Bench Walk, whilst having a particular affinity for Indian Curry; would we be at all surprised to find him spending his free time in Brick Lane ??? It is entirely possible that Druitt's Indian Curry, in this case, was the sort of dolly-mop that tended to migrate toward that part of London, in which four-penny common lodging houses were most prevalent: Christ Church Spitalfields; but more specifically, Dorset Street and Flower & Dean Street.


Colin

[Mr Poster]

Hi ho Septic

I wish to join the procession begun by Mr Poster and Pilgrim, regarding the so-called "local scumbag theory". However, I think the "local commoner - for the sake of simplicity – theory" would be a more appropriate and more telling reference.

It probably would. But what would be probably better would be "anyone on th eplanet bar a top hat wearing toff". because....ultimately.....I feel that this commoner theory only exists to ward off the looming toffs. People attempt to validate it with "but thats whats most probable" but forget that 1)whats most probable is then quickly forgotten as we start discussing anything else Ripperesque, and 2) its not most probable as Whitechapel was apparently well populated with non-common, non-locals.

Look at Tabram. If we knew nothing about her we would, on this theory, say she was killed most likely by a commoner, local. But in all probability she was killed by a couple or one squaddie. Who hardly fit the local commoner concept. Unless you adapt it to my more suitable "anyone on Gods green earth who isnt a toff".

The pendulum has quite clearly begun to swing away from eccentric fantasy. But for some, it has swung too far. The result: Simplistic Fantasy !!!

Nicely put! The "simplest explanation" is not that a local commoner killed them. Its that anyone who would have been in Whitechapel could have killed them.

Which therefore includes everyone working in, visiting, walking through, slumming in the area. That does not shove probability onto "toffs" but does not give sole monopoly to local commoner scumbags either.

While some students of the case have espoused simplicity for quite some time, others have seemingly climbed aboard the simplicity bandwagon quite recently, in what would appear to be some sort of eccentricity backlash.

Another wise observation from Septic!

An all round nice post.

p

[Sam Flynn]

Ivan Klogov ?

...he was only wearing wearing one of his sabots, the other lying beside his foot = Ivan Klogov.

Sorry, V!

[Ben]

But, again; compulsive killers, in many instances I'm sure, go wherever they want to go, do whatever they want to do, and kill whomever they want to kill

And that rarely, if ever, involves continued commuting into the same tiny-radius concentrated locality every time, especially if there were myriad other prostitute hotspots elsewhere and the killer had the availability of transport, and cash aplenty for transport, and the police presence was increasing in that area after each murder. It doesn't matter what you are "sure" about. Common sense and experience dictate otherwise; that the vast majority of serial offences (perpetrated in the same area) are committed by someone with a bolt-hole in that area, especially if the area is as closely clustered as it was in 1888 Whitechapel. In this case, the vast majority population in that district was working class and often semi-literate, and what an amazing coincidence, the vast majority of serial killers also derive from a working class background.

I'm sorry if working class killers are boring. I'm sorry if simplicity is boring. I'm sorry if decades of experience and expertise is boring, but to rule it out as the most likely explanation smacks of hobbyism, and a desire to seek a glamorous explanation to a series of barbarous crimes.

Canter had unfortunately mounted the Maybrick bandwagon when he penned that quote, as he never espoused any communter theory in his "Criminal Shadows". On the contrary, he was at pains to illustrate that in the studies he'd carried out, the commuters had been rare, and that the most "parsiminious" explanation is that the killer walked to the crimes from where he lived. But if we wish to quote selectively from "Mapping Murder":

"If the area covered by a series of crimes is circumscribed, then in the majority of cases the serial offender has a base of some sort within that area.

It was Dr. Kim Rossmo who pioneered geoegraphical profiling, incidentally, not David Canter, and his experience and expertise led him to believe that the killer lived relatively central to the murder district. He didn't draw up a profile and think "Hey, maybe it was some wealthy outsider who kept commuting into the same concentrated area (like no serial killer has ever done) before heading home in time for Pimm's o'clock." Nor did his knowledge conduce the knee-jerk ejaculation "They would have gone where their compulsions led them !!!" He knows better from experience, and if we're willing to learn anything from other cases, so should we.

If in this day and age, Montague John Druitt were living in Blackheath and practicing in King's Bench Walk, whilst having a particular affinity for Indian Curry; would we be at all surprised to find him spending his free time in Brick Lane ???

You're honestly comparing a modern upper-middle class individual heading for a curry on bring lane with a Victorian upper-middle class man going for a meal in the same area, in 1888? Wow.

Meanwhile, the "pendalum" stays right where it has been since toffs, hobbyists and dinosaurs ceased ruling the field several decades ago; in the direction of experience and simplicity, and both epithets indicate the stronger likelihood that the killer was a faceless, working class nobody from the East End; i.e. one of the majority population.

Boring, isn't it?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Colin,

Please don't retort by pointing out the fact that Druitt could have easily found prostitutes of the lowest social and economic standings in places much closer to home [or to his chambers]. I am as aware of that fact as anyone who posts to these boards.

...as anyone? You're too polite, Col!

Whilst I know that you are fully aware of this, it's equally clear that many - if not most - people who come to these boards seem to suffer under the delusion that Whitechapel and/or Spitalfields was the "Red Light District" of its time; that the district was the place to go to buy some nookie, attracting sex-tourists in droves, much like London's Soho or the Reeperbahn does today. This impression, perpetuated and perhaps exaggerated by books, television and cinema, is very wide of the mark. However, the idea has so woven itself into the fabric of Ripperology that it clouds even intelligent people's view of "Whitechapel" even to this day.

if in this day and age, Montague John Druitt were living in Blackheath and practicing in King's Bench Walk, whilst having a particular affinity for Indian Curry; would we be at all surprised to find him spending his free time in Brick Lane ??? It is entirely possible that Druitt's Indian Curry, in this case, was the sort of dolly-mop that tended to migrate toward that part of London

I never thought I'd see the Canonical Five compared to a curry, except inasmuch as many of the curries I've eaten were made of mutton dressed as lamb Interesting comparison though it is, it may fall short when one considers that such dolly-mops were readily found elsewhere. Further, whilst I readily acknowledge that there's no accounting for taste, it's a bit of a stretch to understand how most men of Druitt's age and background (let alone geographical location) could be driven to such extremes of appetite in the first place.

(Sorry about Barnsley, by the way!)

[Mr Poster]

Hi ho SamF/Ben

Perhaps someone will explain to me why it is then that relatively wealthy businessmen will get in their cars and drive to the red light districts of any city you care to mention, with all the concomitant hazards of arrest, mugging, disease etc, to get a whore when the self same businessmen could pick up the phone and have a reasonably good looking whore with nice panties delivered to their door?

Do not say it doesn't happen..because we all know it does, all the time. Take a walk down any red light street and the cars that are crawling the kerbs are not always VW Golfs but are as likely to be BMW's.

In the same way and presumably for the same reason, I imagine Victorian non-scumbags could have wandered to more reputable places to get their skanks but, for whatever reason, in the same way as it is now, there would have been some who went to get the worst sort of trollop they could find. Be that in Whitechapel or any other vice den.

Call it the "Hugh Grant" syndrome.

So blathering on that London was full of other vice spots and better brothels and the like and that that would have prevented non-commoner lads from going down Whitechepl for sex......is completely illogical.

Seeing as we know that guys who use the skankiest prostitutes are often fairly well off, not living on the street who's kerbs they are crawling and could have had their pick of a wide variety of better class trollops should they have so desired.

p

[Sam Flynn]

Perhaps someone will explain to me why it is then that relatively wealthy businessmen will get in their cars and drive to the red light districts of any city

MrP,

As I said above, Whitechapel was NOT the "red light district" of London. It wasn't even "A" red light district. It was a rough area where it was common for rough streetwalkers to service rough residents on the basis of necessity.

Relatively wealthy businessmen (or their equivalents back in 1888) would have been more inclined, then as now, to head for the whacking-clubs of West London.

[Mr Poster]

Hi ho SamF

Relatively wealthy businessmen (or their equivalents back in 1888) would have been more inclined, then as now, to head for the whacking-clubs of West London.

But some, then as now, would have been more inclined to head for the less trendy whacking clubs.

Which meant going to places like Whitechapel and its equivalent.

Unless you want to argue that businessmen and their ilk never go kerb crawling and always go to "whacking clubs"? In which case a quick trip down to your local kerb crawling district wont be long in disabusing you of that notion.

And of course....we have actual testimony from one such Whitechapel whore that that is apparently exactly what was going on. Given that she was well accustomed to seeing all sorts down there with the girls and would only have been surprised to see a silk hat, presumably fairly toff head gear.

Now what do you think she meant by that exactly? That they were buying grapes in the select fruit shops of Whitechapel?

or that she was well used to seeing non-local better off punters down Whitechapel buying whores?

Doesnt matter if there was 100 equivalent red light districts all over London. The fact remains that better off punters buy skanks, then and now, and that the local whores were well used to seeing all sorts down Whitechapel way.

Its getting to the point where the argument against better off punters coming into Whitechapel has been reduced to:

1. But there were loads of red light districts and:

2. Wealthier people dont buy street walkers.

We know that "1" is irrelevant and we know that "2" isnt true.

Plus we know that the local prostitutes werent surprised to see all sorts down in Whitechapel with th egirls.

p

[Sam Flynn]

Oh God! This will annoy Colin no end, but... here goes again:



As far as Druitt goes, the above map (showing some rough areas with their own low-grade streetwalkers) makes any notion of a Blackheath-based killer so far-fetched that I'd personally have to admit to clutching at straws in order to justify it to myself.

If you want to discuss "slummers" in general, MrP, you've already noted that I've opened a thread on the subject.