Is it plausible that Druitt did it?

[aspallek]

Hi Graham,

And a doctor or lawyer with good reason to spend time in the East End in 1888? Have you not been paying attention to Ben and Sam? There ain’t no such beast. Doctors and lawyers (or teachers and undertakers), didn’t dare venture into the East End, let alone get to know the geography of the place. If the dirt poor inhabitants got sick, needed a lawyer, wanted to learn to read and write or died, they were obviously left to rot. The London Hospital in Whitechapel, with all its medical and admin staff, is a myth created by early toff theorists, and the only locals who ever managed to get medical treatment had to steal some boots or tramp barefoot to the nearest doctor outside the area. When they got there he had to treat their blisters too.

I'm not certain how much of this is intended as sarcasm but also remember Toynbee Hall. A number of lawyers were among its founders and doctors were featured as speakers there. For example, a medical doctor, Dr. Farquharson (not the MP from West Dorset but an MP from Abderdeenshire) was a speaker at Toynbee Hall.

Hi Caz,Ay! There's the rub! We have no good reason for Druitt being in Bucks Row/Hanbury St (etc) at all, unless one wants to make him Jack the Ripper. A somewhat circular argument, needless to say.

It's actually not a circular argument at all -- not unless you are laboring under the false assumption that a suspect MUST be placed in the East End before he can be a suspect.

Druitt is already a suspect, thanks to HR Farquharson, Macnaghten, and the many who have perpetuated the "Drowned/Suicided Doctor" mythos. Since he is already a suspect, we must ask, "Would there be a reason for Druitt to have gone to the East End to commit murder?" in order to help establish how good a suspect he is. As several have said, there might not need to be a logical reason for that choice of killing field as murderers do not always behave logically, However, one can also come up with plausible reasons for selecting the East End over other potential fields. There is also the logic that one would be wise to choose an area he is not normally associated with in which to commit an illegal act as surely suspicion would first fall on locals.

[Ben]

Hi Andy,

not unless you are laboring under the false assumption that a suspect MUST be placed in the East End before he can be a suspect.

I think a suspect must be placed in the East End to qualify as a good suspect. It might "seem" logical for an offender to commute into their killing fields, but they are surprisingly rare entities, especially in cases where the murders and committed in such a small area.

[Sam Flynn]

It's actually not a circular argument at all -- not unless you are laboring under the false assumption that a suspect MUST be placed in the East End before he can be a suspect.

Not so much "placed", Andy, but - in the case of Druitt and people like him - more about having a reason to stray into its environs in the first place.

[aspallek]

Hi Andy,
I think a suspect must be placed in the East End to qualify as a good suspect. It might "seem" logical for an offender to commute into their killing fields, but they are surprisingly rare entities, especially in cases where the murders and committed in such a small area.

Not so much "placed", Andy, but - in the case of Druitt and people like him - more about having a reason to stray into its environs in the first place.

Given that Druitt already is a suspect then his reason for being in the East End is obviously to commit murder. It is not circular reasoning because he ALREADY is a suspect!

Why the East End as opposed to other locations for killing? Oh my, there must be hundreds of reasons. Some that come to mind immediately:

1. Random choice.
2. Darkness -- poorly lit streets and passageways.
3. Disdain for immigrants.
4. Disdain for poor immigrant prostitutes to the point of thinking them less than human.
5. (Opposite of above!) Concern for East End prostitutes, i.e. sacrificing few to call attention to their plight.
6. High crime area -- his additional crimes blend in to the criminal environment.
7. Relative immunity from suspicion since the police would suspect a local.
8. Some as yet unknown personal connection to the East End.

These are just a few that come off the top of my head. I could probably come up with a dozen more given more time.

Ben,

I'm afraid you are on shaky ground here. Firstly, geographical profiling is still controversial. Secondly, serial killers were rare enough in 1888 that it is hazardous to assume they would behave in the same fashion as modern serial killers. Thirdly, four (canonical) dates is not a large enough database to extract reliable data. Fourthly, do we know for certain that Druitt did not also kill elsewhere, perhaps closer to home?

[Sam Flynn]

Given that Druitt already is a suspect then his reason for being in the East End is obviously to commit murder. It is not circular reasoning because he ALREADY is a suspect!

My point is germane to why he would EVER BE considered a suspect, Andy. The fact that he happens to have been named as a suspect still begs the question of what good cause he had to venture into Whitechapel in the first place. I still see that it requires circular reasoning whichever argument one adopts:

a) that he had reason to be in Whitechapel because he is a suspect; or
b) that he had reason to be in Whitechapel because he was the Ripper!

Frankly, I can't tell which is the more circular argument of the two

[Ben]

Firstly, geographical profiling is still controversial. Secondly, serial killers were rare enough in 1888 that it is hazardous to assume they would behave in the same fashion as modern serial killers.

I'm actually on pretty firm ground here, Andy. Geographical profiling might well be controversial, but there's nothing controversial about established historical precedent and no reason to suppose that Victorian serial killers would behave differently. In fact, given the limited availability of transport in comparison to today, the case for a locally based offender walking to the crimes from where he lived is strengthened, not weakened, courtesy of LVP limitations.

. Random choice.
2. Darkness -- poorly lit streets and passageways.
3. Disdain for immigrants.
4. Disdain for poor immigrant prostitutes to the point of thinking them less than human.
5. (Opposite of above!) Concern for East End prostitutes, i.e. sacrificing few to call attention to their plight.
6. High crime area -- his additional crimes blend in to the criminal environment.
7. Relative immunity from suspicion since the police would suspect a local.
8. Some as yet unknown personal connection to the East End.

But the East End is an extremely big place, and the above holds true for many districts in London. It simply wouldn't have made sense to keep commuting into a tiny pocket of the worst quarter of Tower Hamlets in spite of the increasing police presence, unless he was familiar with that area only and could get off the streets very shortly after committing the crime...like the vast majority, if not all serial offenders operating in a small circumscribed area.

[aspallek]

My point is germane to why he would EVER BE considered a suspect, Andy. The fact that he happens to have been named as a suspect still begs the question of what good cause he had to venture into Whitechapel in the first place. I still see that it requires circular reasoning whichever argument one adopts:

a) that he had reason to be in Whitechapel because he is a suspect; or
b) that he had reason to be in Whitechapel because he was the Ripper!

Frankly, I can't tell which is the more circular argument of the two

But he IS a suspect and you can't undo that. The only way you can undo the suspect status of someone who was actual suspect is to find an alibi for him, as in the case of Ostrog. Yes, he was a suspect but we now know that he had an alibi for the WM. To say, 120 years on, that our knowledge is so superior to that of Farquharson, Macnaghten, et al that we can take it upon ourselves to eliminate their suspects on purely subjective grounds seem to me to be the height of arrogance.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Andy,

To say, 120 years on, that our knowledge is so superior to that of Farquharson, Macnaghten, et al that we can take it upon ourselves to eliminate their suspects on purely subjective grounds

Rest assured that my asking what would cause Druitt to frequent Whitechapel is an entirely objective question. If the response to that is that he was suspected of being Jack the Ripper, then it's not a particularly strong answer - in fact, it's almost teleological.

seem to me to be the height of arrogance.

Well, I'm not tall, if that's what you mean...

[Graham]

I've lost track of this thread, to be honest. But regarding persons of Druitt's class and whether or not they sought sexual solace amongst East End whores in the open and on the street, I still say by and large not! Obviously the East End contained its fair share of better-off, better-educated people (doctors, lawyers, accountants, businessmen, etc) or it would have ceased to function.

Another point - seems to me that serial killers stick to killing victims from their own class. Off the cuff, Ted Bundy killed college-type girls, Sutcliffe killed working-class girls, Haig killed middle-class ladies (OK, Haig was originally working-class, but aspired to be middle-class).

Just a thought,

Cheers,

Graham

[aspallek]

Hi Andy,Rest assured that my asking what would cause Druitt to frequent Whitechapel is an entirely objective question. If the response to that is that he was suspected of being Jack the Ripper, then it's not a particularly strong answer - in fact, it's almost teleological.

No, Sam. Asking why he would have gone there is an entirely subjective question. Asking "Was Druitt ever in the East End?" is an entirely objective question. Unfortunately, it is a question we cannot answer. But it is also a question Macnaghten must have asked himself as well and he was in an infinitely better position to answer it than we are.

[Sam Flynn]

But it is also a question Macnaghten must have asked himself as well and he was in an infinitely better position to answer it than we are.

Well, one might think so, Andy.

Personally, I doubt that Macnaghten asked that himself that question at all. Macnaghten gave a fair bit of apparently biographical detail on Druitt in his Memo, but there's not even a superficial hint of Druitt's frequenting the East End.

On the other hand, perhaps Macnaghten really did ask himself questions along those lines, and deemed that Druitt's body being found in the Thames was "London enough" to justify a connection.

[Mrs Hudson]

Druitt's Character

The Druitt material contained in Thomas Toughill's new book, The Ripper Code, tells us something at long last about Druitt's character. What do you think of this new evidence?

[aspallek]

Well, one might think so, Andy.

Personally, I doubt that Macnaghten asked that himself that question at all. Macnaghten gave a fair bit of apparently biographical detail on Druitt in his Memo, but there's not even a superficial hint of Druitt's frequenting the East End.

On the other hand, perhaps Macnaghten really did ask himself questions along those lines, and deemed that Druitt's body being found in the Thames was "London enough" to justify a connection.

Well, fine, Sam. I can see we are never going to come anywhere close to agreement on this.

[Sam Flynn]

Well, fine, Sam. I can see we are never going to come anywhere close to agreement on this.

I don't really think we're arguing the same point, either, so it's pretty safe to agree to disagree, as I'm not entirely sure that we've agreed what to disagree on!

I need a lie down. My brain hurts, and it's all my doing

[aspallek]

Actually, Sam, what we are debating is whether the questions you are raising about Druitt would not have also occurred to Macnaghten, and to Druitt's family for that matter. My point is that any serious issues regarding Druitt's plausibility as a suspect would have been dealt with at the time. This is where you and I disagree.