Druitt's movements around murder dates

[celee]

Hi Ben,

Druitt is a much stronger suspect then Maybrick, right? We know Druitt was a suspect. Maybrick is just fabricated as far as I am concerned.

Your friend, Brad

[Ben]

Hi Gideon,

The fact that nothing concrete has yet surfaced to rule Druitt out is, I suggest, more a feature of the passage of time that has elapsed since the commission of the crimes. Plenty of material has surfaced to place him in the "probably not" pile, but as for ruling him out completely, one would be hard pressed. I envisage a similar thing happening with Maybrick: 40 years later we're still unlikely to have an alibi, but that wouldn't make Maybrick any less lame as a suspect.

All the best,
Ben

[Johnr]

Hello Andy and All,
I think it is good, tidy housekeeping - given the Boards have been restarted after the old ones were lost - to make a log of Druitt's whereabouts in the vital months mid to late summer and autumn, and even winter, 1888.
What exactly were the dates of the two or three court appearances we know of by Druitt during this time? ( Is the name recorded just "Mr Druitt" or does it clearly identify MJD?).
Some years ago, a fellow researcher told me the Bournemouth(?) papers or Christchurch papers recorded visitors to these towns weekily on their social pages.
As Gideon Fell has said, as with all the suspects, we just don't know enough about them to make authoritative judgement.
The "West of England" MP's unmasking is a promising milestone though.
I wish we had a permanent Ripperologist with a sleeping bag waiting outside Colindale for paid assignments in the newspaper files!
JOHN RUFFELS.

[Gideon Fell]

I have always liked Druitt as a suspect and I have never seen a thing that proves he couldn't have been our man. That means he has withstood all examinations since his name was first given to Ripperologists over forty years ago. That is quite a record and with his family or someone close to him suspecting him it must be strong support for the theory. Though alike with all suspects there was apparently no hard proof.

[aspallek]

Could be Ben, but still an assumption of a probability as I'm sure you'd agree. Courts were in session in London during August so one might say Druitt would likely have been in London making use of some valuable free time from the school to pursue his legal career. It's all a matter of perspective.

But, as long as we agree that in any case "probability" is not an alibi....

[Ben]

The fact that there is no documented record of Montague Druitt's appearance in a fixture between 11 August and 1 September to me rather argues against the month-long holiday.

Here I'd respectfully beg to differ, Andy.

As I mentioned earlier, the month in question would be entirely consistent with a normal school summer holiday at an English private school, and the dates in question all seem congruent with time spent leisurely by the coast, cricketing some weekends, and just chillin' out on others. Additionally, his return to London by 8th September would be consistent with the start of the new winter or "Michaelmas" term (bearing in mind he was in Dorset on 1st). That said, I'd never dispute that "probably" doesn't constitute a proven alibi.

Cheers,
Ben

[aspallek]

No, but if I knew your whereabouts in London between 3rd August and 1st September 2007 and also knew that you'd been in London on several occasions in between those dates, I'd conclude that you were probably in London the whole time.

Two observations:

[1] "Probably" does not constitute an alibi.

[2] The only date between August 3-4 and September 1 that Montague Druitt is known to have been in Dorset is August 10-11. I agree that it is likely he spent the week between these dates in Dorset, though even that is a probability rather than a fact. But now the question becomes whether this was a week-long cricketing holiday in Dorset or a month-long holiday there. The fact that there is no documented record of Montague Druitt's appearance in a fixture between 11 August and 1 September to me rather argues against the month-long holiday. The fact is we just do not know his whereabouts between 11 August to 1 September. There is also the fact that he made what must have been a brief visit to his brother William in Bournemouth at the end of October. Therefore, such quick jaunts between London and Dorset were not unknown of Druitt. It is a rail journey of 2 to 3 hours.

[Ben]

No, but if I knew your whereabouts in London between 3rd August and 1st September 2007 and also knew that you'd been in London on several occasions in between those dates, I'd conclude that you were probably in London the whole time.

[aspallek]

It depends how often you cropped up in London between those two dates, Andy.

No, no. You are misunderstanding my question. If all you knew about my whereabouts was that I was in London in March 2006 and March 2007 and if you knew of no record of me being anywhere else in the interim, would you conclude that I was in London for that whole year?

[Ben]

Look, I was in London in March 2006 and in March 2007. From this evidence would you assume I spent the whole year there?

It depends how often you cropped up in London between those two dates, Andy.

[Mr Poster]

hi ho

I want Phil to know that I didn't say that

I dont see the problem with saying it. And no one is scolding anyone.

The person who apparently has the information is well regarded and not known as hysterical so just saying "Yes, an alibi exists, its bulletproof and people still working on Druitt could save themselves some work. I will present the alibi when I have typed it up and can present it in a form appropriate to its importance".


Thats all that is required. IF the alibi is not bulletproof then DRuitt can still remainn as a fairly implausible suspect as he has in the past.

p

[aspallek]

It is a pity that the holders of this information would not come forward and clarify a bit although I understand their desire to present it without the chance of being pipped to the post.
P

I want Phil to know that I didn't say that and I am not scolding him for not bringing the information forward right now. It's just that I would like to know what the information consists of so that I will know whether to go on researching Druitt or not.

Ben,

There is not nearly enough of a "record" of Druitt's whereabouts to base your assumption on. If he was in Dorset the whole of August, why doesn't he show up in other cricket fixtures, say between 11 August and 1 September? We simply don't know where he was then. Look, I was in London in March 2006 and in March 2007. From this evidence would you assume I spent the whole year there?

[Mr Poster]

Hi ho

I would imagine the "new" alibi is based on something more than just the information we currently have as to Druitt. Otherwise it wouldnt be "new"? I freely admit I had not heard that the alibi was cricket based and had assumed it could have been in relation to something else.

At any rate, assuming Druitt knew in advance when his cricketing forays would be.....was it not a bit gormless to indulge in his exploits in London so shortly before his crickettiing?

Plus.....does cricketing not need practice of some sort? Would it not be logical that his day prior too the matches would have included some light limbering up withh the team or whatever?

Or do cricket players only play in matches and not practice at all with the team?

I thought they ate sandwiches together and had meetings and the like?

Perhaps its records of these that constitute the new alibi?

It is a pity that the holders of this information would not come forward and clarify a bit although I understand their desire to present it without the chance of being pipped to the post.
P

[Ben]

Hi Andy,

While opinion is divided on Tabram, the consensus is still that she was not a Ripper victim.

Not trying to be antagonsitic here, but how do you know? At the time of the murders the police consensus said the opposite, so I'm not really sure how this changed or why.

On the subject of Druitt's movements in August and September, the issue is not so much one of time and distance, but rather the fact that he can only be placed in Dorset whenever he shows up on the record between early August and September, which is fairly often considering that we're dealing with events that occured 119 years ago. I'm not trying to establish a certain alibi, but rather outline what I believe to be the simpler explanation that he can placed there and nowhere else between those dates because he was there and nowhere else. The fact that this "entire month" is consistent with a private school holiday is also pretty telling, to my mind. He could have returned to London between those dates, just as he could have headed back between cricket in Dorset on 3/4th of August and cricket in Dorset on the 10/11th August, but is it likely that he did? I'd have to say no, on both counts.

Best regards,
Ben

[aspallek]

Ben,

I disagree on both counts. While opinion is divided on Tabram, the consensus is still that she was not a Ripper victim. But suffice it to say that my suspicion of Druitt as the killer is predicated upon Tabram not being a victim. I readily admit that.

With regard to the whole of August, I can neither agree with you on that one. His being in Dorset on consecutive August weekends does suggest that he spend the interim there. However, his appearance there at the beginning of August and the beginning of September does not suggest the he spend the entire month in Dorset. The time period is too great and the distance is too small. Remember tat he made a quick visit to brother William in Wimbourne at the end of October. Now, if it can be shown that Montague was in Dorset around 22 August then the presumption that he spent the whole month in Dorset becomes more likely, though still not a certain alibi.

Remember that in this thread I am talking about alibis and whether Druitt should be eliminated from consideration as a suspect and not the likelihood that the suspect Druitt committed the murders.