Is it plausible that Druitt did it?

[dougie]

No Dougie, we don't know the exact wording of the suicide note. But we can only try and interpret what we have, and unless there is any reason to believe that what we have is virtually the opposite of what Monty actually wrote, or that he directly contradicted himself within the same note by adding stuff that has not survived, I think we have to accept this was no blame-shifting, "poor me" exercise.

Love,

Caz
X

well if we dont know what the exact words were ,and dont have the complete contents we can hardly interpret it correctly. and how does one ascertain whether he contradicted himself or otherwise . its not possible to accept ,or not accept much at all,based on what we know of the note.and it seems odd the complete contents didnt survive in some fashion or other. maybe the note was long -winded and a summary was necessary? or maybe the full contents were with held,if so there would,i presume have been a reason. and at this late stage its hardly fair to either put words into druitts mouth ,or presume his guilt or innocence based on the phrase.."since frifday i felt i was going to be like mother" etc....
regards

[Ben]

Caz, Caz, Caz.

Your argument that an outsider would definitely have done this, that or the other, while a local would not, doesn't sound like it's based on sound enough logic to me

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.

If Jack was a user a prostitutes before he started ripping them up, then yes, the chances are he'd find somewhere suitable, without venturing throughout Greater London in search of prostitution pastures anew each time. However, if he lived in the West End (or anywhere that wasn't the East End really) the chances of that "somewhere suitable" being grotty Spitalfields every single time is extremely unlikely.

Moreover, if that user of prostitutes mutated into a killer of prostitutes, there was no longer any incentive to stick to one closely concentrated prostitute hot spot and keep commuting there every time, despite the prevalence of prostitution elsewhere, despite the availability of transport, and despite the fact that police presence would have increased every time.

If he was locally resident, he wouldn't have had the transport to familiarise himself with ripping pastures anew elsewhere, unlike our well travelled commuter toff. He was forced to make do with a locality with which he was closely familiar; somewhere where he could get off the streets as quickly as possibly after the killings; somewhere that resided to the East of Mitre Square.

[aspallek]

The "territorial" argument is a good point against Druitt, I agree. However, it is far from fatal. As I understand the geographical profile theory, serial killers begin by killing rather farther away from their residences and then gradually as they get more bold the killing takes place closer to home. I would argue that in this case we have only 4 murder dates, which is not enough for a reliable profile.

But again, there are certainly good arguments against Druitt. We need to pay attention to these as well.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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,

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

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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 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