Druitt.

[GBinOz]

I have outlined before my interest in Druitt, it is based on a claim to me by my Great Uncle (grandad’s twin) that our family knew wh9 the ripper was, the only two named suspects that could fit that bill, so far as I can see are Druitt and Deeming.

Hi GUT,

Interesting. Can you elaborate on your Great Uncle's claim? It has long been thought that Deeming was either in jail or in South Africa at the time of the murders, but recent research suggests that this may not be the case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQxYiUUDZqk&t=1998s&ab_channel=DarkHistory

Of the two nominated suspects, I would select Deeming.

Cheers, George

[Lewis C]

Just a few years ago Adam Selzer discovered ample new evidence that H.H. Holmes was in Chicago on several dates from mid-September to mid-October 1888. I'd go out on a limb to say that Adam's discoveries have provided H.H.Holmes an "alibi" for the Whitechapel Murders. Feel free to disagree. Or burn me at the stake. But hopefully you get my drift.

JM

It would depend on when those dates were.

The Stride and Eddowes murders were the only ones that occurred during that period, but for most of us, anyone that can be proven to not be Eddowes killer can be presumed to not be JtR.

[GUT]

Hi GUT,

Interesting. Can you elaborate on your Great Uncle's claim? It has long been thought that Deeming was either in jail or in South Africa at the time of the murders, but recent research suggests that this may not be the case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQxYiUUDZqk&t=1998s&ab_channel=DarkHistory

Of the two nominated suspects, I would select Deeming.

Cheers, George

Unfortunately I can’t tell you much more, I really didn’t ask much. This great uncle was grandad’s twin and dad spent most of his life living with Uncle. All I can say with certainty is that he said our family knew who it was.

Now Deeming was a Rockhampton at the same time as some of my family indeed Deeming and another of my uncles (of some degree, I think this one was a great great, but would need to check) worked for the same plumbing firm, but I am yet to confirm it was at the same time, and some of his “Aliases” COULD have come from family members.

On the other hand my great grandad, and most of his siblings were baptised my Thomas Druitt, one ancestor back in England (who I know stayed in touch with my family here, via letter and often sending parcels) was clergyman at the same Church as Druitt’s cousin.

These are the only two that I have been able to find, among named suspects, that my family seem to have and chance of knowing anything about.

Now does it prove anything. No. But is it enough to have me interested in these too. YES, YES, YES

[erobitha]

Hi erobitha,

While changing the date of dismissal is convenient if the reason for dismissal is viewed as mis-conduct, I see no reason to change the date as December 30th would fit if the reason for dismissal was Monty being AWOL.

If Monty decided to commit suicide on the Monday December 3rd, Friday November 30 could not have been the referred to Friday in the "suicide note" as that note was allegedly found at Blackheath. Besides, if the visit to his mother was the trigger, that is conjectured to have occurred on Saturday, not Friday.

Whoever wrote the "suicide note", I am persuaded that the day referred to was that of the Kelly murder.

Cheers, George

Hi George.

Keith’s reply:

A fair point from George re the "Since Friday" note. The truth is it is not clear why Druitt went to Hammersmith on Saturday December 1st 1888 and I am reminded that Paul (Begg) established back in April 1988 from Ann Druitt's case papers that Ann (Druitt's mother) was not transferred to Manor House Asylum in Chiswick until May 31st 1890. I remember Paul's excellent research completely destroyed our theory in The Ripper Legacy(1987),but we've managed to stay good friends for the last 35 years!

As regards to when Druitt committed suicide whilst in an unsound state of mind (which was the verdict of the Inquest Jury) the death certificate states "F.D [Found Dead? KS] December 31st 1888, The River Thames, Chiswick. The Acton, Chiswick & Turnham Green Gazette of Saturday, January 5th, 1889 reported "There were no marks on the body, but it was rather decomposed." I think thst tends to be consistent with Druitt last being seen alive on December 3rd 1888?

Best Wishes

Keith

[Doctored Whatsit]

That's not quite correct, Doc.

I am saying that Druitt had an alibi and complain that it is suggested that I have invented an alibi.

I have stated that I believe / it is likely that he had a cast iron alibi, that I am not claiming that he had a cast iron alibi, and that it cannot at present be proven.

PI, if I may try to explain why people disagree with you so often, it is with your choice of words.

You wrote "I am saying that Druitt had an alibi", which suggests a fact, and then you wrote, "it is likely that he had a cast iron alibi", which is clearly only an opinion. The first is incorrect, the second is correct. I believe that if he had been questioned at the time, a cast-iron alibi could probably have been established. But this is an opinion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course its true, unless your calling Detective Abberline a liar without any evidence to suggest otherwise.

1 . Isnt strickly tru that he said it .

2 Isnt strickey tru he was correct.

Please provide evidence to show why ? .






But there is ''absolutely nothing'' beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him''

,''
Pay attention here herlock, read what his actually saying, ..''Found at the time'', that could mean one thing in my book , the police obviously thought enough to look into DRUITT as the whitechapel murderer. Guess what they found ,absolutely nothing.

Surely were not going down the old line that Detective Frederick Abberline was an idiot , mistaken or lied ?

Do you believe that Kosminski was the ripper? If you don’t then you are claiming that Robert Anderson and Donald Swanson were idiots, liars or that they were mistaken? Or do you apply different criteria to whichever point you happen to be making at the time?

All that the Abberline quote proves is that he’d heard of the suspect and the fact that he’d committed suicide at a time which explained the cessation of the murders but he saw nothing about Druitt, from the type of person that he was, to indicate that he was the killer. We have no way of knowing that he was aware of MacNaghten’s ‘private information,’ which he could have received after Abberline’s retirement.

He also believed that George Chapman was the killer which I assume that you agree with as you appear keen to promote Abberline’s infallibility.

The bottom line is that like any suspect we can neither prove or disprove Druitt. As individuals we can assess likelihood or otherwise but we have a duty to do it in as unbiased a manner as possibly. Every single one of us as humans is capable of some form of bias but we should guard against this because it’s a particular issue on this subject.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Problems arise when we try and claim to know what someone would or wouldn’t have done. None of us can know this and yet some appear to claim to be able to do just this. The only thing that we can do is to, in the words of Sherlock Holmes: “eliminate the impossible..” The possibility of Druitt returning to London isn’t impossible or even remotely difficult given what we know. So all that we can say is that it was possible but we have no evidence either for or against it. The difference is that I’m not claiming that Druitt did go to London, only that he might have, whilst others are claiming to know that he didn’t. And that’s the difference between the two positions. I’m suggesting that there are unknowns whilst others are claiming that they are knowns.

Then this pointless question is asked…. “why would he have travelled back to London from Dorset to commit a murder?” Three suggestions can be made in the absence of evidence. One is that he didn’t go but remained in London. One is that he returned for some other reason and committed murder due to some kind of urge, or perhaps something occurred while he was there that triggered the murder. The other is that if he was a serial killer then we can’t attribute logic thinking to his possible actions and so he might have returned to kill.

Obvious problems arise when we choose to go down the above avenues of the unknown. Someone says - why did he go to Dorset if he had a meeting on the 31st? I say - why would he cancel his entire holiday for one meeting? Then someone says - why didn’t he cancel the meeting? And I say - what if the meeting couldn’t be cancelled or re-arranged or that it was a meeting that he actually wanted to attend? What if it was important to his career? And on we would go down a pointless path.

If someone is accused of a crime and it was shown that he was somewhere else 15 hours before and 8 hours after the crime with a perfectly good transport system at his disposal it would not be an alibi in court that would be worth using in the absence of further evidence. And we have no further evidence. Little can be more futile than saying “I think that if it had been investigated at the time then he’d have had a solid alibi,” because we could apply that kind of thinking to every single suspect. Would anyone see any future for the subject as a whole if we allowed every suspect discussion to be ended by “he probably had a cast-iron alibi so let’s move on and eliminate him?” We can be thankful that the police don’t employ that kind of thinking.

To say that as things stand at the moment and until such time that further evidence might arise Druitt has no alibi is to make a statement of fact. All else is opinion and speculation on all sides. Claims to know that he couldn’t have killed Polly Nichols as a fact are provably, factually false.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Unfortunately I can’t tell you much more, I really didn’t ask much. This great uncle was grandad’s twin and dad spent most of his life living with Uncle. All I can say with certainty is that he said our family knew who it was.

Now Deeming was a Rockhampton at the same time as some of my family indeed Deeming and another of my uncles (of some degree, I think this one was a great great, but would need to check) worked for the same plumbing firm, but I am yet to confirm it was at the same time, and some of his “Aliases” COULD have come from family members.

On the other hand my great grandad, and most of his siblings were baptised my Thomas Druitt, one ancestor back in England (who I know stayed in touch with my family here, via letter and often sending parcels) was clergyman at the same Church as Druitt’s cousin.

These are the only two that I have been able to find, among named suspects, that my family seem to have and chance of knowing anything about.

Now does it prove anything. No. But is it enough to have me interested in these too. YES, YES, YES

Interesting family story GUT. It reminds me of the story of the pamphlet The East End Murderer I Knew Him (written by someone called Knowles if I remember correctly) which came to the attention of Dan Farson. Howells and Skinner showed that it was likely to have been related to Deeming rather than Druitt. I only say ‘likely’ because I can’t recall if it was conclusively proven or not but I remember agreeing with their conclusion.

These oral family histories are always worth listening to as they could, at least, have a kernel of truth. I can only imagine that it makes you think - why didn’t I ask more questions? Hindsight is a constant pain.

[FISHY1118]

Do you believe that Kosminski was the ripper? If you don’t then you are claiming that Robert Anderson and Donald Swanson were idiots, liars or that they were mistaken? Or do you apply different criteria to whichever point you happen to be making at the time?

All that the Abberline quote proves is that he’d heard of the suspect and the fact that he’d committed suicide at a time which explained the cessation of the murders but he saw nothing about Druitt, from the type of person that he was, to indicate that he was the killer. We have no way of knowing that he was aware of MacNaghten’s ‘private information,’ which he could have received after Abberline’s retirement.

He also believed that George Chapman was the killer which I assume that you agree with as you appear keen to promote Abberline’s infallibility.

The bottom line is that like any suspect we can neither prove or disprove Druitt. As individuals we can assess likelihood or otherwise but we have a duty to do it in as unbiased a manner as possibly. Every single one of us as humans is capable of some form of bias but we should guard against this because it’s a particular issue on this subject.

Im convinced you have no idea how to responsed to a simply ''fact'' but to go round in circles as to avoid a direct answer to a simple question , which is plainly obvious for all to see . Goodness me your hard work .

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In reply to # 265: by 'grades of alibi', I meant the strength of the alibi.

Druitt was in Dorset on a cricketing trip at the time of the Nichols murder.

Every time I point out this fact, you object that we do not know exactly where he was at the exact time of the murder.

If Druitt spent the whole duration of that three-day match with his teammates, then he had a cast-iron alibi.

If he absented himself on the evening of the 30th, then he might not have, but he might still have spent the evening somewhere where he could be identified.

I would like to know why this consideration - that we do not know exactly where a suspect was - seems always to work against him.

We know that he was in the West Country on the day following the double murder.

How do we know that he was not in the West Country for the duration of the weekend immediately preceding those murders, thereby providing himself with an unshakeable alibi?

It is not true, as you have claimed, that Druitt 'had no alibi'.

You ask for proof that he had an alibi.

The record of the match proves that he was in Dorset.

That is the alibi.

The full details of his whereabouts would have been provided had he been challenged.

We have no reason to think that they would not have been satisfactory.

Where is your proof that the police had any evidence that he was in Whitechapel on the morning of the 31st of August?

Where is the evidence that he bought a ticket from Dorset to London on 30th August or from London to Dorset on 31st of August?

Where is the evidence that he separated himself from his team mates during the trip and that he absented himself?

Where is the evidence that someone fitting his distinctive description was seen in Whitechapel at any time during the period in which the murders were committed, let alone at about the time that any murder was committed?

[erobitha]

Interesting family story GUT. It reminds me of the story of the pamphlet The East End Murderer I Knew Him (written by someone called Knowles if I remember correctly) which came to the attention of Dan Farson. Howells and Skinner showed that it was likely to have been related to Deeming rather than Druitt. I only say ‘likely’ because I can’t recall if it was conclusively proven or not but I remember agreeing with their conclusion.

These oral family histories are always worth listening to as they could, at least, have a kernel of truth. I can only imagine that it makes you think - why didn’t I ask more questions? Hindsight is a constant pain.

From Keith:

Herlock #278 is correct that Martin (Howells) and I did conclude that the pamphlet related to Deeming and not Druitt but we didn't prove it. After many discussions with Paul (Begg) over the past 30 years - and taking on board and agreeing with Paul's insightful observations - I'm now no longer as certain as I previously was in 1987.

In the 2010 edition of The Complete Jack The Ripper A To Z we give a comprehensive entry to the THE EAST END MURDERER - I KNEW HIM

Best Wishes

Keith

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Then this pointless question is asked…. “why would he have travelled backh to London from Dorset to commit a murder?” Three suggestions can be made in the absence of evidence. One is that he didn’t go but remained in London. One is that he returned for some other reason and committed murder due to some kind of urge, or perhaps something occurred while he was there that triggered the murder. The other is that if he was a serial killer then we can’t attribute logic thinking to his possible actions and so he might have returned to kill.

(HS, # 277)



Druitt obviously did not remain in London.

Otherwise, his name would not be on the scorecard.

There is no evidence that he had an urge to commit murder in Whitechapel during a cricket match in Dorset.

The only evidence we have of any urge is his urge to play cricket.

The trigger for the murder occurred in the East End of London - not in Dorset, as you are speculating.

We may not be able to expect a serial killer to think logically, but we can ourselves apply logic to this case.

Logic tells us that Druitt was playing cricket in Dorset and not stalking prostitutes in Whitechapel.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

PI, if I may try to explain why people disagree with you so often, it is with your choice of words.

You wrote "I am saying that Druitt had an alibi", which suggests a fact, and then you wrote, "it is likely that he had a cast iron alibi", which is clearly only an opinion. The first is incorrect, the second is correct. I believe that if he had been questioned at the time, a cast-iron alibi could probably have been established. But this is an opinion.

If I may correct your first sentence, Doc, it is not that people disagree with me often but that a few very vocal persons disagree with me often, very often in unpleasant fashion, using personal insult.

There was an exchange of views yesterday among me, Herlock and one other.

The other contributor agreed with me that Druitt did have an alibi.

You did not mention the many people who agree with me and have said so on this forum.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Do you believe that Kosminski was the ripper? If you don’t then you are claiming that Robert Anderson and Donald Swanson were idiots, liars or that they were mistaken?

(HS to Fishy, # 276)



Robert Anderson was prejudiced against Polish Jews.

The Whitechapel murders case was not the only murder case in which he made unsubstantiated allegations against Polish Jews: that the murderer was a Polish Jew and that other Polish Jews perverted the course of justice by refusing to cooperate with the police investigation.

I have made this point seven times previously on this very forum.

Six times there was no response whatsoever.

Only once was there a response, from one poster, that I had made a 'sweeping statement'.

Nothing more.

[FISHY1118]

In reply to # 265: by 'grades of alibi', I meant the strength of the alibi.

Druitt was in Dorset on a cricketing trip at the time of the Nichols murder.

Every time I point out this fact, you object that we do not know exactly where he was at the exact time of the murder.

If Druitt spent the whole duration of that three-day match with his teammates, then he had a cast-iron alibi.

If he absented himself on the evening of the 30th, then he might not have, but he might still have spent the evening somewhere where he could be identified.

I would like to know why this consideration - that we do not know exactly where a suspect was - seems always to work against him.

We know that he was in the West Country on the day following the double murder.

How do we know that he was not in the West Country for the duration of the weekend immediately preceding those murders, thereby providing himself with an unshakeable alibi?

It is not true, as you have claimed, that Druitt 'had no alibi'.

You ask for proof that he had an alibi.

The record of the match proves that he was in Dorset.

That is the alibi.

The full details of his whereabouts would have been provided had he been challenged.

We have no reason to think that they would not have been satisfactory.

Where is your proof that the police had any evidence that he was in Whitechapel on the morning of the 31st of August?

Where is the evidence that he bought a ticket from Dorset to London on 30th August or from London to Dorset on 31st of August?

Where is the evidence that he separated himself from his team mates during the trip and that he absented himself?

Where is the evidence that someone fitting his distinctive description was seen in Whitechapel at any time during the period in which the murders were committed, let alone at about the time that any murder was committed?

"Yes," said Mr. Abberline, "I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is ''absolutely nothing'' beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him.


ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.