Druitt's 30 August Cricket Match

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh, for sure!

He could have been bisexual, pansexual or completely asexual.

I don't think any of those categories would have any impact on his standing as a potential JTR candidate.

Being exclusively gay would be the only one which would to my mind, make it highly unlikely (based simply on sexuality).

It would be really interesting if it came to light that the reason he was sacked from Valentine's school was for harassing middle aged char women / school cleaners of similar class (in the parlance of the time) to the victims.

Something of that nature would be quite a big "tick" in favour of his candidacy.

Thats wishful thinking on your part

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Oh, for sure!

He could have been bisexual, pansexual or completely asexual.

I don't think any of those categories would have any impact on his standing as a potential JTR candidate.

Being exclusively gay would be the only one which would to my mind, make it highly unlikely (based simply on sexuality).

It would be really interesting if it came to light that the reason he was sacked from Valentine's school was for harassing middle aged char women / school cleaners of similar class (in the parlance of the time) to the victims.

Something of that nature would be quite a big "tick" in favour of his candidacy.

hi diddles had to google pansexual, and i still dont know what that means. isnt it the same as bisexual?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree, but we are entitled to draw infereneces from what we do know and those inferences clearly show us another nail in the coffin of Druitt as JTR.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But there’s not a single fact that points to him being gay Trevor. It’s not a nail in the coffin. It’s not even a drawing pick, a tack or a staple. Wasn’t Feigenbaum unmarried? (you can correct me if I’m wrong of course) Can we infer that he was gay from that? I certainly wouldn’t. Kosminski wasn’t married so can we infer that he was gay?

[Herlock Sholmes]

hi diddles had to google pansexual, and i still dont know what that means. isnt it the same as bisexual?

It’s someone that sexually attracted to kitchen utensils Abby

[c.d.]

From Wikipedia:

Pansexuality is sexual, romantic, or emotional attraction towards people regardless of their sex or gender identity. Pansexual people may refer to themselves as gender-blind, asserting that gender and sex are not determining factors in their romantic or sexual attraction to others.

c.d.

[Ms Diddles]

hi diddles had to google pansexual, and i still dont know what that means. isnt it the same as bisexual?

Kind of!

c.d.'s definition pretty much nails it.

[Yabs]

Great idea, to do his first [or second] ripper murder in Dorset, in between his cricket matches there.

The whole point of doing that journey up to London and back would have been to make it look as unlikely as you and others find it, paul.

It's called setting up a false, but credible alibi.

My gut feeling is that Druitt was innocent and more likely to have stayed put in Dorset for those three days. But then, my gut feelings are no better or worse than anyone else's.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

I kind of agree with you, and I don’t know much about Druitt or where he lived, but after a quick search I see he played cricket at Blackheath on Sept 8th 1888 which is about 6 miles from Whitechapel.
So I guess he didn’t consider his alibi too much on that day.

Although, If it was an early match he must have been extremely tired after what he had been up to just a few hours before.

[JeffHamm]

Thats wishful thinking on your part

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why is MsDiddle's suggestion of "It would be really interesting if it came to light that the reason he was sacked from Valentine's school was for harassing middle aged char women / school cleaners of similar class (in the parlance of the time) to the victims." wishful thinking, but your suggestion he was gay and interfered with a student is described as an inference drawn? The exact same evidence is being used, and both are just one of an infinite number of ways to explain his getting sacked from the school (Herlock has listed quite a few more)? Shouldn't both be described as either "inferences drawn" or "wishful thinking"?

For all we know, he could have been sacked because he got in trouble for taking too many days off to play cricket (we know he played cricket after all, we don't know if he was gay - we don't know if he was a member of the club you mentioned, etc). Maybe he started putting more time/effort into his legal career and was treating the teaching and school as secondary and beneath him. His dismissal may have nothing to do with sexuality at all, or his sporting, or his legal career, it could have been the end result of an ongoing and growing personality difference between him and the school master - they just didn't like each other and working together became untennable. There's a few more "inferences", none of which have a negative impact upon his case (nor do they have a positive impact, they make the reason for his dismissal unrelated to the case).

Basically, we have no information at all as to why he was dismissed from the school and therefore we really have no basis upon which to prioritize any of the various hypotheses as the one that should be preferred.

Each potential explanation we come up with will, of course, have an associated impact upon his case if it were true, but that impact doesn't happen until evidence is found that indicates that particular hypothesis is the right one - we don't have that, there is no evidence as to why he was dismissed. That means there is no actual impact upon his case at this time, only a bunch of possible impacts which may be positive, negative, or none at all, that entirely depend upon showing that hypothesis is correct.

They are not inferences, they are not wishful thinking, they are hypotheses in need of testing.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

It’s someone that sexually attracted to kitchen utensils Abby

[GUT]

Why is MsDiddle's suggestion of "It would be really interesting if it came to light that the reason he was sacked from Valentine's school was for harassing middle aged char women / school cleaners of similar class (in the parlance of the time) to the victims." wishful thinking, but your suggestion he was gay and interfered with a student is described as an inference drawn? The exact same evidence is being used, and both are just one of an infinite number of ways to explain his getting sacked from the school (Herlock has listed quite a few more)? Shouldn't both be described as either "inferences drawn" or "wishful thinking"?

For all we know, he could have been sacked because he got in trouble for taking too many days off to play cricket (we know he played cricket after all, we don't know if he was gay - we don't know if he was a member of the club you mentioned, etc). Maybe he started putting more time/effort into his legal career and was treating the teaching and school as secondary and beneath him. His dismissal may have nothing to do with sexuality at all, or his sporting, or his legal career, it could have been the end result of an ongoing and growing personality difference between him and the school master - they just didn't like each other and working together became untennable. There's a few more "inferences", none of which have a negative impact upon his case (nor do they have a positive impact, they make the reason for his dismissal unrelated to the case).

Basically, we have no information at all as to why he was dismissed from the school and therefore we really have no basis upon which to prioritize any of the various hypotheses as the one that should be preferred.

Each potential explanation we come up with will, of course, have an associated impact upon his case if it were true, but that impact doesn't happen until evidence is found that indicates that particular hypothesis is the right one - we don't have that, there is no evidence as to why he was dismissed. That means there is no actual impact upon his case at this time, only a bunch of possible impacts which may be positive, negative, or none at all, that entirely depend upon showing that hypothesis is correct.

They are not inferences, they are not wishful thinking, they are hypotheses in need of testing.

- Jeff

And if you accept the actual evidence he wasn’t sacked till after he was dead, but before he was found, so could have been sacked in absentia for going AWOL.

No idea why Valentine wasn’t questioned about this issue.

[JeffHamm]

I was thinking, with regards to the idea that Druitt may have travelled to London between the matches. I don't think we need to presume that his motive for doing so was to commit a murder. Such a journey might very well have been made because he had some reason to be in London and had to make that journey. But once in London, it was then that he acts upon his "urge" - who knows, maybe something about his reason for going to London went poorly and set him off, etc.

What I'm getting at is, I'm not sure we have to presume his journey would only have been made in order to use his cricket matches as an alibi, that might have been serendipitous. Basically, if he was JtR it is probably safe to say he's been thinking about murder for some time, and as he hadn't yet acted upon those ideas (if Nichols is his first of course) then really, he might have been as surprised as any when he finally took that fatal step.

Of course, the above is only considering things on the basis of him actually being JtR. If he's not, then he still may have travelled to London but then his reason for doing so would have to be unrelated to the case. But that unrelated reason could still be why he travelled even if he subsequently kills and is JtR.

Tracking down his whereabouts between those matches will tell us if we need to think about this at all because if he's not in London that settles it. If he is, then I suspect the evidence that shows us that will also give us an idea as to why he was there (i.e. had to sign some documents, etc).

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

But there’s not a single fact that points to him being gay Trevor. It’s not a nail in the coffin. It’s not even a drawing pick, a tack or a staple. Wasn’t Feigenbaum unmarried? (you can correct me if I’m wrong of course) Can we infer that he was gay from that? I certainly wouldn’t. Kosminski wasn’t married so can we infer that he was gay?

No one has mentioned the belief that he was gay based on him being single, but there is sufficient facts in existence for an inference to be drawn to suggest he was gay.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

And if you accept the actual evidence he wasn’t sacked till after he was dead, but before he was found, so could have been sacked in absentia for going AWOL.

No idea why Valentine wasn’t questioned about this issue.

Very true, and given the timing of his sacking, that both makes sense and also negates the idea that he got into any kind of trouble with the school while alive.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

No one has mentioned the belief that he was gay based on him being single, but there is sufficient facts in existence for an inference to be drawn to suggest he was gay.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No there aren’t. I can’t think of one.

[Trevor Marriott]

And if you accept the actual evidence he wasn’t sacked till after he was dead, but before he was found, so could have been sacked in absentia for going AWOL.

No idea why Valentine wasn’t questioned about this issue.

Where is the evidence to show he was not sacked until after his death or is this something you have made up in a feeble attempt to prop up Druitt as a viable suspect?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk