Is it plausible that Druitt did it?

[Ben]

You cannot say at all that the person must live there or nearby......only that they are to be found for some reson or another in the area more than once.

Ah, but Lars, to be fair I didn't say anything about "must". Just that on the basis of historical precedent, crime scene evidence and expert opinion from those with experience in the field, it would seem more likely than not that he had a bolt-hole relatively central to the murder district. It's just that bit more parsimonious and that bit more likely. Added to which he clearly headed East of Mitre Square after dispatching Eddowes, into the heart of the murder district, as opposed to West.

People can end up in "places where they do not live", but when it come to a serial killing career, the perpetrators tend more often than not to operate close to their bolt-hole in the instances where crimes are closely clustered and the offender lacks readily available private transport. It doesn't matter what era we're investigating, I can't think of a single example of a "commuter" serial killer whose crimes are within walkable distance of eachother. If the reverse was true, then the likes of Rossmo and Canter would be making suggestions along the lines that he may have been a bank clerk who lived three miles away, rather than somewhere central to the crime locale.

Just out of the area or off the streets in that area. At any rate, one could hang out on the streets all night as unless you were seen, there is no way to prove you did anything.

Well, you'd be somewhat snookered, I'd say, if you didn't have somewhere to "bolt" too rather quickly in the wake of the Hanbury Street murder in those daylight hours, and doubly so in the Kelly and Tabram murders (if you chalk one or both up to Jack's handiwork).

All the best,
Ben

[Mr Poster]

Hi ho Ben

Indeed. But one also finds clusters that are not perpetrated by a local and the existence of a cluster can olso indicate that a person is in the area regularly or is familiar with the area. You cannot say at all that the person must live there or nearby......only that they are to be found for some reson or another in the area more than once. They could be there for work, pleasure or any other reason. People can be regularly in places where they do not live.

A succesfull escape does not mean getting off the streets entirely. Just out of the area or off the streets in that area. At any rate, one could hang out on the streets all night as unless you were seen, there is no way to prove you did anything. So "escape" off the streets is only important if one was seen and in the twentieth century.

It may lead to a less glamorous explanation to a series of grisly crimes, and it might prompt a small minority of us to re-think our dashing docs and upper-class slummers (and, no, I'm not saying that minoity includes you), but it should be encouraged all the same.

You are relying on "local" or "toff". Thats pointless. The killer could have been a bank clerk from 3 miles away. Not local. Not a toff. Not a scumbag.

I'm more inclined to the view that he was locally-based, working class, and operated in an area he felt most comfortable with - the area he lived in.

And I am more incllined to the view that whilst he my have been that there is nothing to suggest he wasnt a bit better than a porter, worked in the area, did not live there but nonetheless knew it reaonably well. I dont live in Oslo but do business there and could easily kill a few women there as its far from my home . I dont live there but I am there often and wouldl know my way around. And I am not a fish porter eitehr.

Meanwhile, we venture further and further away from the premise of this thread.

me too. But perhaps Druittists need a last gasp of activity before the impending alibi information comes to surface and this most implausible of suspects (and I am only according him that disttinction to keep the peace) finally gets to rest in peace.

I might join the queue of people lining up to apologise at his grave side as it should be a very intereting bunch indeed.

p

[Ben]

5 miles to a Victorian man was nothing. he could have been within walking distance of his house and still half way over London.

Yes, Lars, but even today you'll see many closely clustered crime scenes with a locally based perpetrator. 5 miles to a Victorian man wasn't much, but if a successful escape is predicated on an ability to get off the streets at the earliest opportunity, it wouldn't have been very prudent to waste all that energy getting there, only to hoof it all the way back exposed and on the streets. And if 5 miles was "nothing" to a Victorian man without transport, it would have been even less to a Victorian man with transport.

Unless you have some insight into our man....you cannot say what or what was not prudent.

I disagree. Inferering plausible behavioural traits on the basis of what other serial killers have done is far more prudent than conjuring up entirely speculative scenarios with no historical precedent to recommend them whatsoever. It may lead to a less glamorous explanation to a series of grisly crimes, and it might prompt a small minority of us to re-think our dashing docs and upper-class slummers (and, no, I'm not saying that minoity includes you), but it should be encouraged all the same.

Perchance our chap killed the first one (having gone into the EE for what ever reason) and liked the attention. Then simply decided he would ramp it up and stick to one area?

Yeah, maybe. Not wholly beyond the realms of possbilty, but me, I'm more inclined to the view that he was locally-based, working class, and operated in an area he felt most comfortable with - the area he lived in. I'm more inclined to this view because it's bolstered by historical precedent, expert opinion and crime scene evidence.

for everything your say is what "the vast number do" anyone can find an equal number of killers who did precisely the opposite or can point out why this "vast number" are individually irrelevant to our man

I'm extremely confident that they'd fail on both counts, but I'm sure that won't deter someone from trying. Meanwhile, we venture further and further away from the premise of this thread.

[Mr Poster]

Hi ho Ben

5 miles to a Victorian man was nothing. he could have been within walking distance of his house and still half way over London. Outside Whitechapel at least.

We know that killing women can often be opportunistic. You have no proof whatsoever that our man might not only have killed women who approached him.

In which case he could have worked everyday in Whitechapel and it was the five women that approached him that got theirs. There is no evidence that he looked for them and tracked them down. They may have been very unlucky and thats all.

Unless you have some insight into our man....you cannot say what or what was not prudent.

Perchance our chap killed the first one (having gone into the EE for what ever reason) and liked the attention. Then simply decided he would ramp it up and stick to one area?

perhaps his walk home only traversed that small area and if he was accosted there he was killing there and to hell with the consequences? In which case prudence has very little to with it.

And so on.

Try as you might to pigeonhole our man based on "statistics" and 21st century views of what and what not was probable and ignore the fact that for everything your say is what "the vast number do" anyone can find an equal number of killers who did precisely the opposite or can point out why this "vast number" are individually irrelevant to our man.

The only things we can say about him and what he could/couldnt, did/didnt, would/wouldnt do are those defined by physical impossibilities.

ie. He didnt live on Mars when he was killing or anywhere outside a radius attainable by transport means of the day etc. Anything else is fair game.

p

[Ben]

Hi Lars,

It is pointless to discuss what Victorian serial killers got up based on "statistics" derived from a time when transportation and the very notion of distance was a whole lot different.

Perhaps, but this very fact argues even more strongly in favour of a locally resident killer as opposed to a commuter. Sutcliffe's "criminal map" was characterised by the availablity of private transport, just as Jack the Ripper's crime scenes were characterised by a lack of private transport. Sutcliffe covered a much wider area for this reason (rather than targetting one incredibly localized pocket of land), and yet his bolt-hole was still centrally located in terms of his crime scenes, just as his 1888 counterpert's probably was.

Even if prostitute killing was a sort of "Oh well, while I'm here" secondary consideration, which I doubt, it still wouldn't have been prudent to keep killing in one specified locality when he had the money and the transport to try other prozzie-patches in the East End and elsewhere, which is why Ted Bundy and Peter Sutcliffe - both of whom had transport - didn't do any such thing.

[Mr Poster]

hi ho

Honestly, if we never heed any historical precedent in terms of what other serial killers have done - electing instead to bash any expert who might interfere with the shepherding of a hobbyist theory - then all we're doing is creative writing, not learning anything.

It is pointless to discuss what Victorian serial killers got up based on "statistics" derived from a time when transportation and the very notion of distance was a whole lot different. Im not saying he was or wasnt local.....but backing up one assertion or another based on how far killers today can/are willing to go and then applying it to a time when there were no cars and walking 19 miles was no problem at all is a bit much really.

rather than commuting into the same tiny cluster each time

That implies he travelled there with the express and sole intention of killing whores. We do not know that. perhaps he only killed whores when he was there. Rather than only being there when he killed whores. If killing whores was not his main reason for being there and was incidental......then all bets are off.

statistic-defying commuter

he only defies "statistics" if you can prove he only went there to kill whores. If he was there for any other reason (work, business, smoking opium, drinking, buying children etc.) then he has defied nothing.

p

[Ben]

A local man had no more or less need than an outsider to stick with what he had become familiar with: a relatively small area geographically with a relatively large concentration of vice

Yes he did, Caz. Of course he did. If he didn't have the transport or the money for transport, and enjoyed a close familiarity with the immediate locality, it naturally follows that he'd be more inclined to stick with an area he felt comfortable with rather than commuting into the same tiny cluster each time and never bothering to try other prostitution black-spots (of which there were many) whenever police pressure increases in his tiny-radius localty.

It doesn't matter which arguments you consider to be full of holes. If the vast majority of serial killers whose crimes were in walking distance of eachother turned out to have had bolt-holes central to their criminal activity, and the vast number experts in the field (the ones that hobbyists like to bash all the time) subscribe to the view that the killer was probably locally resident, I'd say we've ample reason to believe he lived central to his crimes, as opposed to being some evil genuius who swept in from afar to target the same small pocket each time. If you want to believe that I'm wedded to a specific or generic "local nobody" suspect, fair enough - believe away. I'd be more than justified in believing it to be the simplest and most likely explanation.

Honestly, if we never heed any historical precedent in terms of what other serial killers have done - electing instead to bash any expert who might interfere with the shepherding of a hobbyist theory - then all we're doing is creative writing borne out of stubbornness, not learning anything. Similarly, you'll find people trying to invalidate all statistics by imagining that the Great Uncaught chiefly comprises lots of wealthy commuters who venture into a localised pocket of a large city, which is also a pity.

But Jack wasn’t caught

Well, either because he was a local nonetity who knew the area very well, like the vast majority of serial killers operating in a specified region, or because he was a statistic-defying commuter killer who randomly targetted one smal area and nowhere else every time. You pays your money and takes your choice, I guess.

I have no “wealthy outsider” suspect theory to push either

Sorry, Caz, you're going to hate me - but I strongly suspect otherwise.

But back to Druitt.

[caz]

Hi Ben,

What Mr P said - with knobs on.

Jack hoperated where he hoperated, whoever he was. A local man had no more or less need than an outsider to stick with what he had become familiar with: a relatively small area geographically with a relatively large concentration of vice, with arguably the most infamous street in London - Dorset St - right at its heart. Yes, Jack could have lived there or worked there purely by chance, along with a perfect potential victim on every corner, but if he didn’t happen to live or work there permanently, or even at all, it would have been no big deal to sort it.

You are so protective of your local Jack that you can’t give him either the brain, the legs or the willpower to walk just a few streets away if he wants to avoid the increased police presence on his immediate patch, while insisting that anyone not already living or working there from the start would have the sense, the transport and the burning need or desire to take off to prossie-filled pastures new well before the November. But Jack wasn’t caught, so whether his thinking on the matter was identical to yours or unique to him, he didn’t put a foot wrong by staying put.

Caz, Caz, Caz.

Well, it may not seem so to someone who's invested a lot of emotional stock in a particular "wealthy outsider" suspect theory, but to everybody else, it should make pretty clear sense.

I don’t know who you refer to here, but I don’t ‘do’ emotional in this context I’m afraid, and I have no “wealthy outsider” suspect theory to push either. I just recognise a ‘much more likely’ argument that is full of logical holes when I read one. I am not trying to argue that the case evidence favours a wealthy outsider (from the West End or anywhere else) as the killer over a Spitalfields resident/worker. I am looking at your own virtual certainty that anyone but the latter type can safely be disregarded, based not on the case evidence, but on your own reasoning, propped up with a bit of profiling mumbo jumbo based on examples of unsuccessful serial offenders, none of which can warrant such confidence.

If you think having a particular suspect theory can cloud one’s view of what makes sense and what doesn’t, then maybe you need to check your own fog lamps before presuming that others are having similar trouble finding their way through the myths and smog.

Love,

Caz
X

[detective abberline]

Druitt as a suspect

Hi

No-one would have heard of Druitt if not for McNaughten. Have any of you ever thought of that? Then Swanson comes along years later with his corrorobation.

Cheers

[Ben]

Hi Lars,

it remains that the EE was the largest concentration of skanks in London.

That's true, but we're not talking about the East End as a whole. The East End refers to a huge chunk of Greater London, but in this case we're dealing with a comparatively tiny pocket of the East End, in which all crimes scenes are within a very short walk of eachother; a tiny pocket that certainly didn't boast the highest concentration of prostitutes within the East End.

I'm not disputing that the occasional rare "commuter" serial killer might crop up from time to time, but they tend to move around when police presence hots up rather than sticking to a specific localized area. I've never heard of a commuter serialist who keeps commuting into the same tiny-radius locality, despite an increasing police presence, despite the availability of transport, and despite the readily availability of other relatively un-policed prostitute hot-spots elsewhere in the East End, and elsewhere in London. It is for this reason that offenders whose crimes are closely clustered tend to be "marrauders" instead, operating from a bolt-hole relatively central to their crimes and within what your favourite geo-profilers would call a comfort zone.

Whitechapel was the place to be for all his prostitute killing needs.

I'm afraid that simply isn't the case, Lars. Stepney boasted a larger prostitute population, and even then it wouldn't be "the" place. There was many other options.

Best regards,
Ben

[Mr Poster]

Hi ho Ben/SamF

Well unless one wants to argue that other parts of London were 1) bigger, 2) more vicious (Boothian), and 3) more infested with prostitutes....it remains that the EE was the largest concentration of skanks in London.

Which, whilst not negating the existence of black spots elsewhere, would be the best place to facilitate the killing of skanky street walkers with minimal chance of anyone caring/being caught.

A leopard looking for dinner picks out the weak ones from the bigger herds because 1) there are more of them, and 2) less effective protection in the chaos.


he does not spend his time stalking the sick one in the small family herds.

There are reasons criminals congregate and find their prey in the crowded areas. Thats why pickpockets pop up at football matches and do not prey on groups of 3 people talking on the street.

If you want to kill prostitutes one logically goes to where there are more of them, the ones that are there are easy to kill, there is more chance of getting away with it and a better chance of no one caring. They are fairly normal criteria for any criminal activity.

No one is going to convince me that smaller pockets of prostitutes in other areas are better hunting grounds. Never. Not in a blue fit. Or a million years. It defies all logic.

be he from Whitechapel or somewhere else, by virtue of size, population, demographic, and crime level....Whitechapel was the place to be for all his prostitute killing needs.

p

[Ben]

Hi Lars,

I'd have to agree with Gareth here.

Even in the rather unlikely event that our killer had a penchant for the lowliest of the low, there were myriad other "lowly" options besides Whitechapel, and our toff was surely better off keeping his plentiful options open, rather than restricting himself every time to a tiny-radius locality in a pocket of the East End and "commuting" there on every occasion.

Naturally, it wouldn't be prudent to rule out all alternatives completely (and in that sense your "perhapses" and "perchances" are fair enough), but on the basis of parsimony, common sense and historical precedent, it's more likely than not that the killer was local to the area, and walked to the crimes from where he lived, as endorsed by Canter, Rossmo and chums.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi MrP,

Reasons to go to the east end to kill whores.

1. Perchance one likes the lowest of the low
2. Perhaps one feels such scummy women will engender less opprobrium
3. Perchance one feels that given the violent reputation of the EE that the death of a whore will be assigned to a local

etc...

Contrary to popular belief, the East End did not have a monopoly on poverty, violence and prostitution - much closer to Druitt's home were the mean streets of Deptford, Woolwich and Greenwich, for example. If "not soiling his own doorstep" were an issue, there were places South of the River at an easy (but safe) distance such as Peckham, Southwark and Rotherhithe. In the West, the areas around Paddington and Covent Garden were hardly short of poverty-class prostitutes either.

Booth's surveys show these almost if not just as "semi-criminal" and "vicious" as the East End. (NB: "Vicious" in this sense means "full of vice", BTW - not "vicious" as in "nasty". Just thought I'd point that out.) The East End may have had a greater concentration of such "black-spots" than most, but that doesn't mean that nocturnal, gin-soaked streetwalkers couldn't be found with equal ease elsewhere in the Metropolis.

[Mr Poster]

hi ho Ben

I couldnt help but read your post as I lost my ignore list in the Great Crash and secondly you popped up where I did not expect you (a bit like our killer).

Reasons to go to the east end to kill whores.

1. Perchance one likes the lowest of the low

2. Perhaps one feels such scummy women will engender less opprobrium

3. Perchance one feels that given the violent reputation of the EE that the death of a whore will be assigned to a local

4. Perhaps one is well known in ones own area and feels its a bit of a risk

5. Perchance one just likes the thrill of slumming

6. Perhaps EE whores are weaker, sicker or drunker

7. Perhaps the chance of finding such a whore is greater in the EE

8. Perhaps a man who likes his "standing" wants to highlight his "position" by finding the lowest of the low

9. Perchnce he feels that he has a better chance of committing violence and getting away with it in a violent area as opposed to somewhere else

10. Perhaps he has business in the EE and killing whores is something he does after work

11. Maybe he feels the police do not really care about the EE

and so on. Categorically stating that X does Y when it doesnt involve a life sustaining function is a slippery road too speculation

p

[c.d.]

If the motivation for the murders was revenge for getting a venereal disease from a prostitute and that prostitute had practiced her trade in the East End...well, you get the picture.

c.d.