Is it plausible that Druitt did it?

[Mr Poster]

hi ho Ben

Doesn't mean the odd outsider can't have known them well, but why posit the existence of that "odd outsider" when we know the group most likely to be familiar with them are locals?

Not true. The people most likely to be familiar with them were people who used them. As we know that apart from the skank industry there were many other industries in that area it is quite reasonable to assume that a large number of people had business in and would have visited Whitechapel.

To limit the search to just locals requires one to believe that outsiders were some kind of tiny minority, that no one but locals went there ever, that the industry of the area was owned by, run by and populated solely by locals, that no one ever walked through Whitechapel going somewhere else, that outsiders never visited the area for any other reason and that one could never gain a knowledge of the main streets without living there and being a scumbag.

All of which are not true. The evidence, to the contrary, points to outsiders being in the area, regularly and in numbers.

Indeed......one could argue that in a hive of people with nothing better to do than gossip, sleeping cheek to jowl in communal quarters and living, eating and drinking in a concentration of a small area......that had our man lived in the area he would have been found out by the locals, who....we know....were not shy about casting their own ilk to the fuzz in the shape of leather aprons and Scrubbies.

p

[Ben]

You'd also have to admit though that anyone with a passing knowledge of serial crime its perpetrators, and who is willing to extend a modicum of respect to those with knowledge and experience in the field is more than justified in considering it more likely than not that the killer was locally based and probably working class

[Mr Poster]

You'd also have to admit though that anyone with a passing knowledge of serial crime its perpetrators and a fervent belief in the more ludicrous gushings of the "profilers", and who is willing to extend a modicum of misplaced respect to those who pretend to have knowledge and experience in the "field" but who's methods are ridiculed by police, judiciary and professionals alike is more than justified in considering it more likely than not that the killer was locally based and probably working class.

I'll admit that.

p

[Ben]

Hi Lars,

Not true. The people most likely to be familiar with them were people who used them.

Yes, and those people were most likely to be working class and local. Are you really sure you want to argue the reverse? That most people sauntering Hanbury Street, Greenfield Street and Plummers Row would have been "businessman" outsiders rather than local residents and workers?

To limit the search to just locals requires one to believe that outsiders were some kind of tiny minority, that no one but locals went there ever, that the industry of the area was owned by, run by and populated solely by locals, that no one ever walked through Whitechapel going somewhere else, that outsiders never visited the area for any other reason and that one could never gain a knowledge of the main streets without living there and being a scumbag.

Not "solely". I never said anything about "solely". I'm talking about the people most likely to be sauntering the streets of Whitechapel. The vast majority of people living there would have been working class and local. The vast majority of people working there would have been working class and local. The vast majority of people using prostitutes there would have been working class and local.

I'm not talking about excluding wealthier outsiders beyond any further consideration. I'm just cautioning against according them "equally likely to be there" status when it's so clear that they don't warrant it. And no, I reject the argument that a local was easier to find out. This, too, runs contrary to experience. If you're local, unnassuming and solitary in your habits, you're more likely to blend into the crowd and pass unnoticed that you would if you were a conspicuous outsider.

[Ben]

You'd also have to admit though that anyone with a passing knowledge of serial crime its perpetrators and a fervent belief in the more ludicrous gushings of the "profilers", and who is willing to extend a modicum of misplaced respect to those who pretend to have knowledge and experience in the "field" but who's methods are ridiculed by police, judiciary and professionals alike is more than justified in considering it more likely than not that the killer was locally based and probably working class.

Oh dear.

That was rather immature, wasn't it? We were doing so well up until that point.

It doesn't matter what you think of criminologists and profilers, Lars. It's all very well to cast doubt on their knowledge and expertise, but it's a bit ridiculous to dismiss then whilst projecting yourself as a viable substitute. Love ya to bits, Lars, but if it's a choice between them and you...

[Mr Poster]

hi ho Ben

Are you really sure you want to argue the reverse? That most people sauntering Hanbury Street, Greenfield Street and Plummers Row would have been "businessman" outsiders rather than local residents and workers?

Who said businessmen? Why are you making stuff up? Unless you want to argue that the diverse range of semi-skilled tradesmen, clerks, minor officials, shop owners, hairdressers etc who worked but didnt live in the area did not exist?

Or that a post office clerk for example is a "local working class ruffian"?

Or that the people attending the music halls, pubs, whorehouses, opium dens, etc. but didnt live in the area did not exist either?

Or that the people like Maybricks business partner, with offices in the area, didnt exist either?

The vast majority of people living there would have been working class and local. The vast majority of people working there would have been working class and local. The vast majority of people using prostitutes there would have been working class and local.

That must be why Maxwell was able to say that they were well used to seeing all sorts down there?

So......the vast minority were so small that a resident felt able to say she was quite used to seeing this tiny minority with the women down there?

I contend that at night there would have been a plethora of types down there..........up to and including clerks, semi-professionals and non resident neer do wells and normal folk alike.

This notion that some "vast majority" of flat capped scallywags existed is mistaken.

We KNOW it wasnt so.


p

[Mr Poster]

hi ho Ben

Love ya to bits, Lars, but if it's a choice between them and you...

Not wanting to start a hug-fest but if the choice is between logic, reason and resistance to nonsense and some majic-stick waving, pulp fiction writing, universally disregarded as deluded bunch of twits..........I think I'll stick with the former.

p

[Ben]

Unless you want to argue that the diverse range of semi-skilled tradesmen, clerks, minor officials, shop owners, hairdressers etc who worked but didnt live in the area did not exist?

I don't dispute any of that, Lars, but the majority of them would still have been working class and local to the area. I never used the expression "Ruffian".

Or that the people attending the music halls, pubs, whorehouses, opium dens, etc. but didnt live in the area did not exist either?

A lot of those would have been local and working class too, and the ones that didn't were naturally a minority representation of the district. You would not, incidentally, have found many of these in the smaller thoroughfares we were discussing. In the main, they were to be found on the main thoroughfares.

Or that the people like Maybricks business partner, with offices in the area, didnt exist either?

Where were his offices?

There is really no reason to assume that Maxwell was specifiying class when she spoke of "all sorts". She could have been referring to Jewish tailors, Gentile tinkers, sailors, soldiers etc. Some have magically inferred from this that Maxwell was saying that lots of toffs came there, but anyone familiar with the evidence will see that no such inference is permitted by her comments.

I contend that at night there would have been a plethora of types down there..........up to and including clerks, semi-professionals and non resident neer do wells and normal folk alike

Yes, but the vast majority would still have comprised Joe Average of the flat-capped Proletariat.

Boring, isn't it?

[Mr Poster]

Where were his offices?

Close enough to be familiar with the main thoroughfares. Which is all thats required.

p

[halomanuk]

Well unless something has happened to push Druitt into the number 1 suspect spot since i was away for a few months i still dont think he is JTR.

Has anything developed im not aware of ?

[Ben]

Hi Lars,

Just checked. You must be referring to Gustave Witt who worked in Cullum Street. This was some way into the City of London (not the East End at all) to the North-East of the Tower of London. He had no business-related reason to acquire a familiarity with any street in the East End, main thoroughfare or otherwise.

Best regards,
Ben

[aspallek]

Now boys, let's settle down please. To inject some...better not say "sanity" as that got me in trouble once...calm into the discussion at hand:

1. Victorian Londoners were used to walking and thereby navigating the twisted maze of streets and alleys. While some familiarity with the EE is likely, it is not necessary to assume JtR had to reside in the EE. Yes, someone like me has difficulty navigating the whole of London but that is primarily because we think today in terms of being behind a steering wheel. Furthermore, Americans like me are used to a grid street system. Chicago, where I grew up, has basically two major thoroughfares that do not run either N-S or E-W: Archer Avenue and Milwaukee Avenue. But the Victorian Londoner would not be at so great a disadvantage. EE streets and alleys are no more twisted or complex than most of London, so anyone familiar with navigating London could manage in the EE. The Inns of Court, where Druitt's chambers were, for example, is also a complex maze of passageways -- albeit much more pleasant than those of the EE.

2. Geographic profiling is still controversial. With JtR we have only four murder dates to work with, hardly sufficient data for a profile.

3. Poster is quite right in saying that there really wasn't any way the killer could be caught if he was not witnessed in the act. We don't know what he did with the organs he took away but the point is he knew that he could have ditched them at any time he felt in jeopardy.

4. JtR was indeed very lucky not to be caught, no question about that. But again, we are dealing only with five murders, only four of which were outdoors. He would only have had to be lucky these few times.

Certainly, logic suggests the likelihood that the killer was a resident of the EE. However, this suggestion is in no way strong enough to rule out a non-resident.

[Ben]

Certainly, logic suggests the likelihood that the killer was a resident of the EE. However, this suggestion is in no way strong enough to rule out a non-resident.

That's about the size of it, Andy.

In addition to the fact that the vast majority of geographically concentrated serial offences (if not all of them) are committed by somone living in the area, there's also physical crime-scene evidence that the killer headed East, in the direction of the heart of the murder district, as opposed to West towards the City and the rest of London. There's also a huge difference between complex passageways that one is familiar with, and complex passageways that one is not.

Even if the killer could have jettisoned the organs if he felt himself in peril, in what circumstances would he have done so? Surely if he felt that questioning or "stop searching" was imminent, it would have been difficult to ditch them prior to the encounter with the hypothetical "questioner".

Five or six crime scenes ought to be more than adequate to compile a profile. Granted, it would be trickier if the crime scenes were spread further away from eachother, but their closely clustered nature renders the task simpler, if anything.

All the best,
Ben

[Mr Poster]

Normally I stop posting at 5 oclock but this caught my Unblinking Eye of Increduility:

Even if the killer could have jettisoned the organs if he felt himself in peril, in what circumstances would he have done so? Surely if he felt that questioning or "stop searching" was imminent, it would have been difficult to ditch them prior to the encounter with the hypothetical "questioner".

What, pray tell, in the name of God, could have prevented him ditching his organ?

He has a hand. Its in his pocket. The night is dark. The streets filthy.

What could concievably had prevented him from ditching his organ? Seriously. What?

Even if nabbed physically......the streets are dark and filthy. Th elight is poor. The nabber could not have known that the nabber had even taken an organ.

Onejust opens ones hand and its detritus on theh street. At any rate, the only situation whereby he wouldnt have time is if the nabber materialised at his side suddenly. Otherwise he would have had all the time between feeling he was going to nabbed and the copper being close enough to see the small dark organ fall to the ground. By the non-kight of his lantern. In the dark street.

Drug dealers doo it all the time in the brights streets of our cities. Yet our man could not apparently.

Let another thread in the majical carpet that supports a theory that is never far away...


p

[Ben]

What, pray tell, in the name of God, could have prevented him ditching his organ?

No, Lars.

Please read again, Lars.

I didn't say anything about prevention. I said "even if the killer could have jettisoned the organs" (and of course he could), what possible circumstance(s) would prompt him to do so? An imminent approach of a policeman on beat? Okay, but how did the approaching policeman on beat manage to miss him chucking them away, only for them to be mysteriously lost forever thereafter? Or did he just discard them because he was anxious about the possibility of a PC encounter? In which case why - for the love of poopoo - did he bother extracting them in the first place?

The nabber could not have known that the nabber had even taken an organ.

No, but if was a policeman worthy of that name, he would have found the knife and escorted him to the nearest police station and then located the innards. Or is it necessary to posit the existence of another negligent copper, like the one on 11th November?

Let another thread in the majical carpet that supports a theory that is never far away...

Well, tell you what, why not start a poll requesting votes as to what was done with the kidney? I can't envisage "discarded it immediately on the streets along with the uterus" cropping up very frequently, but then nothing surprises me too much anymore.