Is it plausible that Druitt did it?

[Sam Flynn]

yes, but the point is that if JMD worked at the bench and then had a lot of involvement with the minories, then he would have undoutedly known the area well.

I disagree, Ella, for reasons already given.

I also don't think we can class JMD as your typical genteel shabby gentleman

I wasn't. I was classing him as "genteel", pure and simple. People of his standing and background would generally NOT have frequented Whitechapel/Spitalfields to the extent that they were as well-acquainted with its geography as the Ripper would almost certainly have had to have been. Indeed, most people of Druitt's class would generally not have had any reason to venture there at all.

[Mr Poster]

Hi ho SamF

as well-acquainted with its geography as the Ripper would almost certainly have had to have been

This old chestnut pops up occasionally and I am still confused as to why.

1. all the killing sites were within close proximity to the the main thoroughfares.

2. Wjilst the back parts of the EE were no doubt a stinking warren....our man wasnt venturing there. He was never that far from a main street.

3. I would possibly agree if we knew that out man, post crime, would have had to avoid main streets to make good his escape. There is no reason to assume that he did.

4. There is no direct evidence of any geographic wizardry in his perambulations after the event (singular because we only can work with Eddowes).

5. Even if he didnt know where he was, geographic knowledge was not necessary to elude the police...at any rate they were never nor could ever actively chase him. It was 1888.....if he wasnt caught at the scene covered in blood....there was no chance of his being done for anything. Therefore...his escape never involved a dash of more than 100 yards perhaps? Once he was that distance away he could remain lost all night trying to find his way out and it would have made no difference.

6. I do not ever remember reading of a consensus contemporary opinion as to his spatial awareness of where he was in Whitechapel.

No doubt I am soon to be enlightened but I very much doubt whether or not the forthcoming will constitute anything approaching decent evidence that he knew Whitechapel.

Thats not a slight on yourslef but more a reflection on the reality of the situation....

p

[Ben]

I would possibly agree if we knew that out man, post crime, would have had to avoid main streets to make good his escape. There is no reason to assume that he did

Not strictly accurate, Lars.

The quickest and most direct route from Mitre Square would have taken the killer through some pretty obscure back alleys, and while he could have bolted South, then Eastwards along Whitechapel Road, then up the entire length of Goulston Street, it would have been a pretty illogical, circuituous route, and since PC Long was on beat there, it's inconceivable that he'd miss the killer travelling the entire length of Goulston Street. Conversely, if the ripper emerged onto the street from New Goulston Street, he need only have crossed the road, dropped the rag (and possibly wrote the message, depending on your viewpoint), and disappeared East.

It was 1888.....if he wasnt caught at the scene covered in blood....there was no chance of his being done for anything.

A pocket full of innards might have been a little tricky to explain away, especially if the other pocket contained a knife, and there was also the potential for other witnesses from previous murders to establish a positive ID. Either way, I can't really envisage our man contemplating to himself: "Well, I'm probably going to get completely lost here, but even if I do get apprehended when making my escape, they can't pin it on me". There's no compelling evidence that the killer selected all of his victims by encountering them on "main thoroughfares" either.

I can't think of a single example of a serial offender who continually communtes into a district he isn't remotely familiar with, and then commits his crimes within walking distance of eachother. More often, it points towards a locally resident miscreant with a close familiarity with the area.

Best regards,
Ben

[Pilgrim]

Hi, Mr Poster,

I'm not sure if this is "decent evidence". But I have rescued one of Sam Flynn's posts from the "pre-crash boards", saying that we actually know that this murderer was "working class" and that he lived locally. So, it would seem a fact that he was living locally, and that he was "working class". That is where we have to start. And it does of course completely rule out a "suspect" like Druitt.

Furthermore, it would also seem a sure fact that this murderer did venture well beyond the main arteries traversing the area. I have measured these distances, and there can hardly be any doubt that in at least two cases he went far beyond what we know to be a safe walking distance as perceived by any non-local resident anywhere. From Commercial Street and into that backyard in Hanbury street there would, as it may seem, have been well nigh a 100 yards. And the situation may have been even worse in Buck's Row.

You surely also must be aware that there were no public transport back then. So, transporting oneself beyond a distance of 100 yards was no minor matter. People simply had to walk. Try it out for yourself and you'll see how extremely unlikely it is that anyone but a local citizen can accomplish that feat.

My Regards.

[Mr Poster]

hi ho Ben

The quickest and most direct route from Mitre Square would have taken the killer through some pretty obscure back alleys, and while he could have bolted South, then Eastwards along Whitechapel Road, then up the entire length of Goulston Street, it would have been a pretty illogical, circuituous route, and since PC Long was on beat there, it's inconceivable that he'd miss the killer travelling the entire length of Goulston Street. Conversely, if the ripper emerged onto the street from New Goulston Street, he need only have crossed the road, dropped the rag (and possibly wrote the message, depending on your viewpoint), and disappeared East.

That answers nothing I'm afraid. Do you know, for a certainty, that our man would have to had avoided main streets to make good his escape?

You are discussing "probabilities" and "illogicalities". You can only discuss those two if you KNOW for a ceratinty that our man either:

1. Had to avoid main streets to effect an escape

2. Did not have to avoid main streets to make his escape.

Again....you fundamentally do not and cannot know that our mans movements after Eddowes were not the product of:

1. a calculated dash through the streets

2. blind panic and turning any which way

3. his having a vague idea of where he was and then getting confused

4. his being lost but not panicked

5. his being thick as a brick and thinking he was cleverly dodging the police

6. etc.

All these discussions about where he went after Eddowes and his route are doomed to failure because no one has a clue about what he was at.

Yet we are then expected to extrapolate from assumptions as to his route and start discussing whether he was local or not.

When in reality he may have run round the block five times in panicked confusion. This is an example:

it would have been a pretty illogical, circuituous route,

Thats like saying people who are lost never walk around in a circle because thats illogical and circuitous. And no....Im not saying our man ran a circle but the point remains. What you deem illogical is only illogical within th econtext of a scenario you have deemed most likely and yet for which there exists no evidence.

You, without evidence, have decided our man is a local. Based on that you decide he must have gone one way or t'other as other routes would be illogical.

Why you have decided he was a local is because he was able to navigate the streets after Eddowes.

But you decision that he was able to do this is because he was local.

A so on goes the circular argument. Its bizarre.

A pocket full of innards might have been a little tricky to explain away,

what pocket full of innards? The kidney could have gone the same way as the apron and no one would be any the wiser and our man could have walked the length of the main street with nothing to link him to anything apart from a twinkle in his eye and a faint stink of sh*t.

especially if the other pocket contained a knife,

What knife? A clean knife in the pocket of a man at a time when pretty much half the working population of the East End had use of a knife in their day to day lives.

there was also the potential for other witnesses from previous murders to establish a positive ID.

Awwww..........not this stuff again..........He knew, they didnt know, suppressed evidence, what our man thought the police couldnt know........we've heard it before and it was weak then and its no better for having aged a bit.

"Well, I'm probably going to get completely lost here, but even if I do get apprehended when making my escape, they can't pin it on me".

More like "aw crap....I'm lost. better clean my knife, ditch th erag and kidney and find a street Im familiar with".

Why would he think "They cannot pin it on me" when he knows they cannot?

He would have been as aware that they couldn't pin it on him without being caught at the scene as we are aware that its best not to leave semen at the scene.

He wouldnt have to think about it. Its a fact of life in the LVP:

There's no compelling evidence that the killer selected all of his victims by encountering them on "main thoroughfares" either.

Theres no compelling evidence that he met them deep in the bowels of the east End either. All the killing sites are close to main throughfares.

No need at all for our man to have had some homing pigeon ability to navigate the streets.

The Goulston St. Traverse more resembles the confused wanderings of someone lost than any kind of expert local knowledge.

I can't think of a single example of a serial offender who continually communtes into a district he isn't remotely familiar with, and then commits his crimes within walking distance of each other. More often, it points towards a locally resident miscreant with a close familiarity with the area.

or a guy who by virtue of work or pleasure is familiar with the main routes of the area and commits his killings in close proximity to those main throughfares as opposed to venturing deeper into the area where his victims might remain undiscovered for longer.

p

[Mr Poster]

Hi Pilgrim

I'm not sure if this is "decent evidence". But I have rescued one of Sam Flynn's posts from the "pre-crash boards", saying that we actually know that this murderer was "working class" and that he lived locally. So, it would seem a fact that he was living locally, and that he was "working class". That is where we have to start. And it does of course completely rule out a "suspect" like Druitt.

No offence to SamF...but when did his opinion become evidence?

Unless he has evidence as to his assertion? Which I know for a fact he doesnt...or we wouldnt be having this discussion.

From Commercial Street and into that backyard in Hanbury street there would, as it may seem, have been well nigh a 100 yards. And the situation may have been even worse in Buck's Row.

he didnt venture....he was most probably led, by the prostitute, there. All he had to do was remembert the way back. Its hardly hard.

There are three or four bigger streets in the area. All his killing spots are near them or within close range. many of the spots he was led to by "local experts". All he has to do is remember how to get back to the main street.

He wasnt killing deep in the guts of the East End. he was killing in and around Main Streets.

Streets where he may have walked on his way to and from work.

Find my a spot deep in the East End, away from any bigger street and I might agree. But you cannot.

p

[Mr Poster]

Just to drive home my point...is there anyone here who really wants to argue that the killing sites were not easily accessible from main streets and that he was so deep in this warren of filthy alleys that he could quickly have gotten back onto a main street?

Its not a reasonable argument at all. All the sites ly in near proximity to the main throughfares which one hardly required encyclopediac knowledge to navigate.

p

[Mike Covell]

Its not a reasonable argument at all. All the sites ly in near proximity to the main throughfares which one hardly required encyclopediac knowledge to navigate.

p

I actually got lost whilst there Mr P, I walked past the White Hart Public House and thought, "mmm nice pub, must get a photo!!"

[Mr Poster]

hi ho Mike

Perhaps you did......but if you worked there or walked through there every day on your way to work....you might not have gotten lost. And yet still you would not have been a local rapscallion now would you?

And yes....people who didn t live there, worked there. And people who didnt live there or work may well have been there often enough to know their way round the main streets with relative confidence.

And when it all boils down.......pretty much the only thing upon which our concept of Jack being some dyed in the wool Whitechapel born and bred local geezer is based is what?

The FBI "profile"? Don't get me started. Unless you have some secret evidence that the sole contemporaneous opinion was that he was a local ruffian?

One wouldnt think it by watching the police actions.

p

[Ben]

Hi Lars,

That answers nothing I'm afraid. Do you know, for a certainty, that our man would have to had avoided main streets to make good his escape?

Not for certain, but it seems likely in the extreme that he did, and that's surely what we're most interested in? Not that which "can't be ruled out", but what is more parsimonious and therefore more likely.

1. a calculated dash through the streets
2. blind panic and turning any which way
3. his having a vague idea of where he was and then getting confused
4. his being lost but not panicked
5. his being thick as a brick and thinking he was cleverly dodging the police

If he was afflicted by any of the above, then he must have been fiendishly lucky to evade capture not once, but many times. In this case, we're expected to believe that some blind "lost" instrict propelled him headlong in the worst possible direction, the heart of the East End, in the direction of two police forces trafficking between two police stations and two murder scenes; that he picked the most obscure street possible when making his escape after each murder and that somehow lead him to sanctuary.

Thats like saying people who are lost never walk around in a circle because thats illogical and circuitous. And no....Im not saying our man ran a circle but the point remains.

No, I've already explained.

If he took the circuitous route, he would have encountered PC Long on beat in Goulston Street because both of them would necessarily have travelled the entire length of Goulston Street - Long because that was his duty, and the killer because of the disposal location at the far Northern end of the street. If he took the more direct "back alley" route, he could have emerged at the Northern end of Goulston Street, crossed over, dumped the rag and scarpered.

The kidney could have gone the same way as the apron and no one would be any the wiser and our man could have walked the length of the main street with nothing to link him to anything apart from a twinkle in his eye and a faint stink of sh*t.

Oh, come off it, Lars.

Is this really something you want to argue?

That he went to all that trouble to extract a kidney and a uterus only to dispose of it en route home, and all because he forgot to factor in his hazy or non-existent knowledge of the area? In which case, why bother with extraction process at all? Why, if he was so concerned about getting lost, did he go to the trouble? And did he dispose of them both in the Wentworth dwellings, as he did with the rag? In which case, where did they end up? Please not dogs and rats again!

What knife? A clean knife in the pocket of a man at a time when pretty much half the working population of the East End had use of a knife in their day to day lives.

Accompanied by trace fluids and pooey hands? He would have apprehended and taken to the station, Lars, unless the policeman was incompetent.

Awwww..........not this stuff again..........He knew, they didnt know, suppressed evidence, what our man thought the police couldnt know........we've heard it before and it was weak then and its no better for having aged a bit.

No, none of that. Just normal witnesses from earlier crimes, irrespective as to the extent of their description or sighting. And you're asserting that something's "weak" is not tantamount to it being so - in fact, usually the reverse is true.

Why would he think "They cannot pin it on me" when he knows they cannot?

With organs, knife and all? Right....Great situation to be "lost" in, but perhaps he got amazingly lucky each and every time? Perhaps he ditched the organs he extracted each time, only to be eaten by dogs and rats?

Theres no compelling evidence that he met them deep in the bowels of the east End either. All the killing sites are close to main throughfares. No need at all for our man to have had some homing pigeon ability to navigate the streets.

Not "homing pigeon" perhaps, but as usual, I'm rather more swayed by crime scene evidence, historical precedent and expert opinion all of which gravitates towards the more palatable explanation that the killer was living in, and familiar with the area of his crimes...like all serial killers with pretty much no exception who operate within a concentrated locality, as the ripper did. It might trouble those who seek a more glamarous explanation to a series of barbarous crimes than the notion that a boring local nobody was responsible, but that isn't anything new.

or a guy who by virtue of work or pleasure is familiar with the main routes of the area and commits his killings in close proximity to those main throughfares as opposed to venturing deeper into the area where his victims might remain undiscovered for longer.

Lars, this was a densely populated district with several main thorouhfares. The chances of committing a crime at an apprreciable distance from one of these was slim.

[Mr Poster]

Hi ho Ben

Well perhaps you will address the following:

You think he's local because he knew his way on the Gouolston St. traverse?

You think he knew his way over that traverse because he was local?

Both your assertions rely on the other.

p

[Mr Poster]

But this is worth noting from ben.

this was a densely populated district with several main thoroughfares. The chances of committing a crime at an appreciable distance from one of these was slim.

Indeed. And there is not a reason in the world to assume that only a local could find his way from killing sites to main thoroughfares or that only a local would know those thoroughfares or that nobody who did not live there ever entered the area ever for any reason.


p

[Pilgrim]

Hi again, Mr Poster,

This is where I found it, the statement saying that we know this murderer was local and working class -

Who do you honestly think JtR is ?

So, you see, it even says 'honestly'. Which means that it surely ought to be true. And why would it possibly be untrue ? For some nefarious purpose ? Surely not.

My Regards.

[Ben]

Hi Lars,

I've already explained why I believe the more direct route to Goulston Street is more likely. Either he selected that route because he'd built up a natural familiarity with the area through living there (like most serial killers operating in a localized area), and wanted to bolt directly for home, or he randomly selected an obscure alley and was propelled there through blind instrict in the worst possible location, and managed to get lucky.

I'd opt for the former, but your mileage may vary.

And there is not a reason in the world to assume that only a local could find his way from killing sites to main thoroughfares or that only a local would know those thoroughfares

The people most likely to be most familiar with these thoroughfares would have been locals, or those who worked in the area. 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?

Cheers,
Ben

[Mr Poster]

Hi Pilgrim

I take it you mean this from SamF:

We do know that he was working class, that he lived locally, that he was definitely resident in the vicinity in 1888, and that he certainly knew his way around the area.

Quite frankly......I dont see how any of those can be asserted with confidence.

1. WE do not know that he was local. No documentary evidence says he was, the police were not restricting their work to locals etc.

2. We do not know he lived locally. No one ever asserted he did, there is no evidence.

3. We do not know what class he belonged to. he could easily have been a clerk which ishardly fish portering.

4. We have no real evidence to suggest he knew the area outside of main thoroughfares.

At any rate, number 3 and 4 could be true and fulfilled by someone living outside the area and from somewhere else entirely.

So you have to admit......there is no evidence that he was anything at all.

Thats not to say he was a toff mind you. But we DO have evidence that the local whores were willing to say at inquest that they were not surprised to see all sorts down Whitechapel so that is evidence that not only locals were to be found in the area.

So I'm afraid the local concept is based on nothing and I am quite suspicious that people tend to think its fact due to often touted "profiling" which, I would hazard a guess, included local more because they had a higher chance of being right and looking good than based on anything else.

Thats fine.....but to say it has been established he was local is completely untrue.

And very troublesome as an indication of the sort of viral assumptions that turn bolsters into arses.

p