Is it plausible that Druitt did it?

[Ally]

I am of course referring to the six hour window of time to kill and then hop on a train to go back and play cricket.

Sure it is barely possible, I am presuming that the train schedules for the day have been checked and the timing is workable, but is it plausible?

I frankly don't think so. A guy spends all night trolling for a kill, then hops back on the train to return home in order to....go play cricket all day? Why in the world would he bother? The idea that it would be to establish an alibi is ludicrous. People attempt to establish alibis when they are connected to the victim and likely to be consdered a suspect.

I just don't think it's remotely plausible.

[Rob Clack]

Just to reiterate what I wrote before the boards died a horrible and nasty death:

There is no proof that Druitt was anywhere near the East End on the nights of the murders, all murders and not just the Macnaughten five (obviously the ones he was alive for). In fact there is no proof that he ever visited the East End at all.
I think people need to bare Druitt’s residency during the autumn of 1888, Blackheath in mind. If Druitt was intent on going out to murder a prostitute there were other areas within easier reach of East London that Druitt could have found one. London Bridge, Elephant and Castle to name just two.
Saying there is no proof that Druitt was in East London on the nights of the murders may seem a bit harsh so I’ll open up a bit. If someone can convince me that Druitt was in East London around the time of the murders than I’ll listen. It’s up to people who push Druitt to convince others that he is a viable suspect.
At least with someone like Kosminski we know he was a resident in the area and had business there, which is a lot more than we can say for Druitt.

This is why the onus of proof is on the Druittists.

Rob

[aspallek]

In the recent discussion about Druitt there are two distinct issues, each with its own "onus of proof." The onus of proof I spoke about on the pre-crash boards was regarding whether Druitt should be eliminated as a suspect. The onus of proof Rob is speaking of now concerns how strong a suspect he should be.

In answer to Ally: Yes, there was more than enough time. Even on Saturday, trains left Cannon Street Station before 7AM for Blackheath. Travel time would have been somewhere around 30 minutes. As I recall, the match was at 11AM. Distance was about 6 miles (frankly, he also could have walked and easily arrived in time). Now, I realize there are other issues such as where did he hide for the hours until the train departed for Blackheath and those need to be considered as well. How plausible? That is a matter of judgment and I respect your opinion. However, there have been many similar cases in which a killer behaved in a similarly cool manner. In fact, one could argue that if Druitt was the killer and if he was expected to turn out for cricket, he would have to go through with it in order to avoid suspicion, no matter how tired or emotionally drained he was. You will note that his performance in the match was poor. My point, with regard to my original "onus of proof" is that the cricket match provides Druitt with no alibi here.

Rob: The items you are talking about are indeed factors that mitigate against Druitt. These are problematic and they (along with others) are the reason I think it unlikely that Druitt was JtR. These issues do not eliminate him as a suspect, however. This is the point I keep trying to get across with a frustrating level of ineffectiveness. Elimination and strength of candidacy are two different things, each with its own onus of proof.

Yes, you are quite right. Anyone trying to prove that Druitt was JtR will have to show that he was in the East End when the murders were committed. But I am not trying to prove Druitt was JtR! And I ask once again, which of the known suspects can we absolutely place in the East End at the time of a canonical murder? You want me to place him in the East End at some time during the Autumn of 1888? I'm not prepared to do that -- at least not yet. That's why I am not making the claim that Druitt is JtR. The closest I can come is the apparent placing of him at Cannon Street Station repeatedly during that time period (see my article in the next Ripper Notes). This is a 13 minute walk from Mitre Square. But again, I am not making the claim that Druitt was JtR.

[Ally]

I have to take issue with one point....I sincerely doubt that not showing up for cricket would make him an automatic suspect in murder, making his showing up a requirement. Anyone who fails to show up for an appointment is considered a murderer in Victorian England? I don't think so no matter how high the insanity is running. A simple, cough, cough, I just cannot make it tomorrow, I am so ill, and bam, the end.

[aspallek]

Fair enough, Ally. I didn't really mean to imply that he would automatically be suspect number one had he not turned out for the match. However, guilty minds tend to think in extreme ways. With the pressure of guilt on his mind he may have believed he had to turn out in order to avoid suspicion. In other words, he may have overcompensated.

[Mr Poster]

Hi ho

Hes hardly viable if the vaunted alibi which apparently will be published (soon?) holds up.

Unless we are going to discuss the viability of suspects even when they have alibis :

"I know Druitt was attending his nieces christening when Kelly was killed but is he still viable as a suspect?"

That sort of thing. Excuse the tyeping but I am using my very nice new eeepc and the small keyboard takes getting used to.

p

[dougie]

makes you wonder why macnaughton didnt think of these "negative" points too doesnt it? ..or perhaps he did....and knew something we dont.(which he plainly did)...to say Druitt was never "known" to have been in the east end,clearly isnt the same as saying hed never been there..after all the east end wasnt exactly a million miles away from blackheath was it? whether he played cricket or not on the same day is rather meaningless as a reason to discount him ,...if he hadnt been playing cricket, he would have been doing SOMETHING wouldnt he?..and that something(providing it was in travelling distance to whitechapel within the appropriate time limits)wouldnt of its own negate the possibility of druitt being the culprit. ..now if someone can place druitt on the isle of skye within 5 mins of any of the murders that might be considered as a pretty solid alibi...
regards

[aspallek]

Indeed. People tend to forget that his cricketing at Blackheath does place him within 6 miles of Whitechapel hours after the murder.

[dougie]

In the recent discussion about Druitt there are two

In answer to Ally: Yes, there was more than enough time. Even on Saturday, trains left Cannon Street Station before 7AM for Blackheath.


Yes, you are quite right. Anyone trying to prove that Druitt was JtR will have to show that he was in the East End when the murders were committed. But I am not trying to prove Druitt was JtR! And I ask once again, which of the known suspects can we absolutely place in the East End at the time of a canonical murder? You want me to place him in the East End at some time during the Autumn of 1888? I'm not prepared to do that -- at least not yet. That's why I am not making the claim that Druitt is JtR. The closest I can come is the apparent placing of him at Cannon Street Station repeatedly during that time period (see my article in the next Ripper Notes). This is a 13 minute walk from Mitre Square. But again, I am not making the claim that Druitt was JtR.

the placing of druitt at cannon st during that period for all intents and purposes frankly would mean that he would have ,in all probability visited whitechapel at aleast at some time....the distances involved are minor, one could even find oneself in whitechapel by accident,let alone by design from cannon st. i find the "never KNOWN to have visited whitechapel" issue rather silly and pointless. could just as well argue druitt was never known NOT to visit either. he resided/worked near enough to make it a distinct possibility,surely that is enough....not to make him jtr,but to accept he shouldnt be discounted purely on the locality.
regards

[aspallek]

At last, some sanity. Welcome to this thread, Dougie!

[Rob Clack]

I'd like to see some evidence that places Druitt at Cannon Street and not someones wishfull thinking.
Since Philip and myself have been accused of making an error that Druitt had an alibi for the murders without proof, it is wrong of Andy to say Druitt was at Cannon Street repeatedly during the Autum of 1888 without proving it. Sounds like double standards to me.
And if my argument that Druitt was not known to have visited the East End silly, than perhaps someone could explain to me why he would visit the East End. To visit a place you need a reason to go there, explain it to me.
Druitt did not reside or work near enough to Whitechapel for him to visit there by accident. If someone one can come up with a logical reason for Druitt to visit the East End than than I'd listen and change my veiws. All I am hearing at the moment is some desparate attempts to link Druitt to Whitechapel and the East End.

Rob

[dougie]

maybe his reason to visit the east end was to find a moggie and slash her?
and if druitt was the ripper,it wouldnt be much good looking for "logical" motives. macnaughton plainly thought druitt visited whitechapel........
regards

[Sam Flynn]

macnaughton plainly thought druitt visited whitechapel

Not quite, Dougie. Macnaghten wrote that he'd heard that Druitt's family believed him to be the killer. Whether Macnaghten himself thought that Druitt visited Whitechapel is an entirely separate matter.

[aspallek]

I'd like to see some evidence that places Druitt at Cannon Street and not someones wishfull thinking.
Since Philip and myself have been accused of making an error that Druitt had an alibi for the murders without proof, it is wrong of Andy to say Druitt was at Cannon Street repeatedly during the Autum of 1888 without proving it. Sounds like double standards to me.
And if my argument that Druitt was not known to have visited the East End silly, than perhaps someone could explain to me why he would visit the East End. To visit a place you need a reason to go there, explain it to me.
Druitt did not reside or work near enough to Whitechapel for him to visit there by accident. If someone one can come up with a logical reason for Druitt to visit the East End than than I'd listen and change my views. All I am hearing at the moment is some desperate attempts to link Druitt to Whitechapel and the East End.

Rob

Let's not get carried away here. First, I never said I have ironclad evidence that places Druitt at Cannon Street Station. I have made the claim that I have found evidence suggesting it is very likely that he was at Cannon Street repeatedly during the Autumn of 1888. I discussed that evidence at length on the old boards (thread entitled "Rail Service between Blackheath and London," I think it was) and I submitted it in article form to Dan for Ripper Notes many months ago. The article will appear in the next edition of that periodical. So, Rob, don't accuse me of double standards or of not presenting my evidence when I have already stated it publicly and when it is about to come out in print.

To give a review/preview, the circumstantial evidence runs as follows. Rail service between Blackheath and London arrived at four London stations: London Bridge, Cannon Street, Waterloo Junction, and Charing Cross. Druitt's chambers were virtually equidistant from Cannon Street and Charing Cross, being in between these stations, thus there would be no advantage to remaining on the train until Charing Cross. Furthermore, this service in 1888 was subject to severe delays between Cannon Street and Charing Cross, so much so that customer complaints eventually caused the South Western to withdraw service to Cannon Street. Why would Montague subject himself to long delays by staying on the train until Charing Cross when he could alight at Cannon Street and have the same walking distance to his chambers? The only fly in this thinking is the fact that he had on his body a ticket issued at Charing Cross, so we presume that at least that final time he did remain with the train until Charing Cross. But, of course, his destination that day was not his chambers, but Hammersmith.

I fully realize this does not prove that Druitt was ever in the East End. I never claimed that it did. It does likely place him within a 13-minute walk of one of the murder sites, however. Clearly, Druitt remains a suspect until an alibi is found or until someone else is identified as the killer.

Instead of being chastised for showing that Druitt is very much a suspect and even being accused of being a spammer and a troll, it would be nice for someone to recognize the hours and hours (not to mention some serious travel expenses) I have put into fleshing out some more of the details of Montague's last months as well as digging out information on his associates and to receive at least a word of thanks for my small contribution to this branch of Ripperology. Indeed, you may find out soon that my research has answered some other long-sought-after questions!

No, I don't claim to have fond JtR but I have dedicated myself to solving the puzzle of Montague Druitt. Bit by bit, I'm still working on it. If that puzzle eventually shows that poor Montague is innocent, I will happily strike him from the suspect list.

[aspallek]

Not quite, Dougie. Macnaghten wrote that he'd heard that Druitt's family believed him to be the killer. Whether Macnaghten himself thought that Druitt visited Whitechapel is an entirely separate matter.

I believe what Dougie meant is that Sir Melville clearly thought Druitt was the Ripper. The Ripper obviously visited Whitechapel. In other words, Macnaghten thought it at least plausible that Druitt visited the East End or else he would not have believed Druitt to be JtR.