What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[seanr]

I'm not sure anyone set out with the intent of murdering a stranger in such a way as to make it look like the work of someone else.

When I talk about 'copy-cat', especially in the McKenzie case, I mean someone assaulted a woman for whatever reason and slit her throat. Only after he realized what he did does he think to try make it look like something it isn't. Make some marks on the body to make it appear like the previous Ripper murders.
It's a last minute desperate attempt to cover his tracks or deflect the police towards the wrong assumption.
I'm not suggesting something planned right from the start.

This thread moves too fast for me to keep up, but I feel like this 'copy cat' scenario is worth extrapolating on. Over the type of copy cat I previously discussed (a killer setting out to emulate another), here it's being suggested that someone met with Alice McKenzie without the intent of killing her, somehow ended up killing her and then attempting to cover up their tracks by making the crime look like a Ripper killing.

Firstly, we have the disquieting similarity to previous crimes where the murder happens literally on a policeman's beat in a 10 - 15 minute time window. We may posit the Ripper knew the police beats or had a look out and that is how he was able to complete his task in a tight time window but for our accidentally killer who did not plan to attack, we have no such explanation. That he was able to kill, complete his attempt to make it look like something it isn't and to make it away in time to avoid detection or being seen, is pure dumb luck.
Secondly, we have the testimony of Sarah Smith that there was no noise in the street prior to PC Andrews whistle, so as with the previous Ripper murders we have a quiet execution without the victim crying out or a prior argument ensuing. So, we have someone assaulting Alice McKenzie without the intention of murdering her, their getting out of control enough to kill but without either of them reaching an emotional state which causes them to make a loud noise. Hmm.
Then, having realised he had killed someone - in the middle of the street no less, where even if he did not know he was on a policeman's beat there is every possibility he might be seen or already seen by a passer by.
In the space of ten minutes, he is able to accurately recall details of the Ripper crimes specifically that there were two cuts to the throat in these cases. He won't have seen the photograph of Katherine Eddowes, so to remember that Eddowes had been cut from the top of her chest down towards the abdomen, he could only have read this in a newspaper or attended the inquest. Furthermore, he attacks the victims genitals with a knife. Oh, and also whilst doing this, in what should have been a fearful and heightened emotional state, the medical evidence is he got down onto the ground to the right of the body and inflicted the injuries from that position - not on his feet ready to run away if he needs to, no, he exactly replicates the strategy employed by the killer of Katherine Eddowes.
Either he had perfect recall of these details and was able to remember them at that heightened emotional moment or he happened upon each of these details by pure luck.

I don't conclude this is impossible, but I do think it improbable, possibly implausible. Especially when there is the far more plausible explanation that this murder was connected to the previous crimes. On balance, I think it is far more probable that there is a connection to the previous Ripper murders - and therefore Druitt is an unlikely suspect.

[Abby Normal]

The argument that you and Sam and John G are using is the "convenience" argument. One sees it constantly on these boards. Why would X (Bury, Druitt, etc.) kill in Spitalfields when there were prostitutes in Y (Bow, The Haymarket, etc.)?

Are you

suggesting that killers are motivated strictly by convenience? Like a guy going out for a quick cheeseburger, he's going to hit the nearest café?

As the poster "Caz" likes to point out on the "geographic profiling" threads, Colin Ireland killed all of his victims out of the same pub in Earl's Court, but lived 50 odd miles away in Southend. He was even homeless for awhile, but kept making the long trek. One can hardly argue there were no other gay hotspots between Earl's Court and Southend!

What the 'convenience' argument fails to appreciate is that the killer--whoever he was--may have had a

psychological

attachment to the area, which is something that 'geographical profiling' can never measure. What could this attachment have been? Who knows, unless you identify the killer? He could have caught the clap there 5 years earlier; he could have grown up there; he could have attended London Hospital. He could been arrested and beaten there when he was 18.

And once the publicity and the hysteria of the killings made the news, why would he change venues? He had an audience at the edge of their seats. That would have motivated him far beyond convenience ever could.

There might be valid arguments against Druitt, Bury, etc., but I personally don't find this one convincing. I don't think the Ripper was motivated by convenience. He wasn't going out for a quick cheeseburger; he was on a 'campaign.'

hi rj/all
these are some excellent debates on the geoprofile/local-not local issue on both sides! RJ I love how you constantly use examples of other serial killers to back up your arguments-I think its a valid and sound way to debate points. and enlightening. seriously. I do it too sometimes but mainly only know about American SKs.

but that being said we know who were talking about here-Druitt-so whats his "psychological attachment"? all we know about druitt is he has NO connection to the area at all.

(kind of just playing devils advocate here. you know I think Druitt a valid suspect-to me theres pros and cons for him).

[The Baron]

This thread moves too fast for me to keep up, but I feel like this 'copy cat' scenario is worth extrapolating on. Over the type of copy cat I previously discussed (a killer setting out to emulate another), here it's being suggested that someone met with Alice McKenzie without the intent of killing her, somehow ended up killing her and then attempting to cover up their tracks by making the crime look like a Ripper killing.

Firstly, we have the disquieting similarity to previous crimes where the murder happens literally on a policeman's beat in a 10 - 15 minute time window. We may posit the Ripper knew the police beats or had a look out and that is how he was able to complete his task in a tight time window but for our accidentally killer who did not plan to attack, we have no such explanation. That he was able to kill, complete his attempt to make it look like something it isn't and to make it away in time to avoid detection or being seen, is pure dumb luck.
Secondly, we have the testimony of Sarah Smith that there was no noise in the street prior to PC Andrews whistle, so as with the previous Ripper murders we have a quiet execution without the victim crying out or a prior argument ensuing. So, we have someone assaulting Alice McKenzie without the intention of murdering her, their getting out of control enough to kill but without either of them reaching an emotional state which causes them to make a loud noise. Hmm.
Then, having realised he had killed someone - in the middle of the street no less, where even if he did not know he was on a policeman's beat there is every possibility he might be seen or already seen by a passer by.
In the space of ten minutes, he is able to accurately recall details of the Ripper crimes specifically that there were two cuts to the throat in these cases. He won't have seen the photograph of Katherine Eddowes, so to remember that Eddowes had been cut from the top of her chest down towards the abdomen, he could only have read this in a newspaper or attended the inquest. Furthermore, he attacks the victims genitals with a knife. Oh, and also whilst doing this, in what should have been a fearful and heightened emotional state, the medical evidence is he got down onto the ground to the right of the body and inflicted the injuries from that position - not on his feet ready to run away if he needs to, no, he exactly replicates the strategy employed by the killer of Katherine Eddowes.
Either he had perfect recall of these details and was able to remember them at that heightened emotional moment or he happened upon each of these details by pure luck.

I don't conclude this is impossible, but I do think it improbable, possibly implausible. Especially when there is the far more plausible explanation that this murder was connected to the previous crimes. On balance, I think it is far more probable that there is a connection to the previous Ripper murders - and therefore Druitt is an unlikely suspect.

Great post! Great reasoning!

As if he was afraid to be charged only for McKenzie murder, he wanted to be charfed for all the other ripper crimes too! yes that makes perfect sense!


The Baron

[JeffHamm]

...

That's why the geographical profile strongly indicates a local perpetrator. A marauder-a killer who commits crimes in an area he frequents I his day-to-day life. Not a commuter killer, who commits crimes in an area he does not routinely frequent: http://www.wesleyenglish.com/geoprof...ck-the-ripper/, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...d-experts.html,

Hi John G.,

Geographical profiling does not indicate whether or not an offender is a marauder or commuter, rather, the analysis of solved cases show that the majority (in the vicinity of 80%) of offenders have an anchor point (home or work location) inside the smallest circle that encompasses all of the offenses - which classifies them as a marauder. After that, geographical profiling analysis is used to analyse the crime locations and produce probability distributions to try and prioritize the search within that smallest circle (so right off the bat, it's going to be wrong at least 20% of the time). The profile map above is a curious one, as the minimal description of the analysis corresponds to Rossmo's approach to the analysis (a program called Rigel), but the output doesn't correspond to what Rigel produces with the C5. Rather, it looks like something I've seen when I was putting together a version of Rigel for my own research and was miscalculating the output (I won't go into details and bore everyone, but basically, if you combine the values in what first appears to be "the right way", you get something like the above, but once you get your head around what Rossmo's doing the apparent "right way" is incorrect because Rigel works from "anchor point to crime density" rather than from "crime location to anchor point", meaning it's working backwards to how one presumes it's working, and that influences how the jeopardy map gets calculated). It may be they're using a different analysis, of course, but without knowing what they've used, we have no idea how well it performs.

I don't want to turn this into a profiling thread (there's a fair bit in the Millwood discussions if you're interested), but Rigel highlights the area around Flower and Dean. However, interpreting this result, it could be that the "anchor point" being identified is not JtR's work/residence but rather it's picking up on the victim locations - where JtR is centred in terms of his search for victims. This, of course, would be a good location to search for JtR but one would be looking for him in the process of being out "hunting". He could very well have commuted into the region, but when he's there, this appears to be his local focus area. And the police at the time were focused on that area.

Anyway, based upon a relatively small sample of marauders (16), I've found Rigel has a 75% success rate of locating the offender inside of "zone 7.25" (the orange area goes out to zone 6, so just beyond the first contour line in the magenta region; the hotspot would be the pink&yellow areas, with the pink highlighting the peak). This is better than chance, but we're not talking about pinpointing a particular house.



- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

This thread moves too fast for me to keep up, but I feel like this 'copy cat' scenario is worth extrapolating on. Over the type of copy cat I previously discussed (a killer setting out to emulate another), here it's being suggested that someone met with Alice McKenzie without the intent of killing her, somehow ended up killing her and then attempting to cover up their tracks by making the crime look like a Ripper killing.

.
Firstly, we have the disquieting similarity to previous crimes where the murder happens literally on a policeman's beat in a 10 - 15 minute time window. We may posit the Ripper knew the police beats or had a look out and that is how he was able to complete his task in a tight time window but for our accidentally killer who did not plan to attack, we have no such explanation.

Im sorry but this sounds a little like conspiracy theorist thinking to me. Is it likely that......? There beats everywhere. Chapman was in a yard, Stride was in a yard, Kelly was indoors. Leaves Nichols and Eddowes. It’s not a massive coincidence is it Sean?

. That he was able to kill, complete his attempt to make it look like something it isn't and to make it away in time to avoid detection or being seen, is pure dumb luck.

As was the Eddowes murder.

.
Secondly, we have the testimony of Sarah Smith that there was no noise in the street prior to PC Andrews whistle, so as with the previous Ripper murders we have a quiet execution without the victim crying out or a prior argument ensuing. So, we have someone assaulting Alice McKenzie without the intention of murdering her, their getting out of control enough to kill but without either of them reaching an emotional state which causes them to make a loud noise. Hmm.

Ill stand correcting here Sean but didn’t the occupants of the house right next to where Nichols was killed hear nothing too? Maybe there was a shout or two and Smith simply didn’t hear. Was she actively listening or doing other things at the time? A few weeks ago my sister-in-law was in her front room alone reading a newspaper with no tv or music on. A very few yards away two cars smashed into each other. Her neighbour dashed out because she heard a large bang. My sister-in-law heard nothing and there’s nothing wrong with her hearing.

.
Then, having realised he had killed someone - in the middle of the street no less, where even if he did not know he was on a policeman's beat there is every possibility he might be seen or already seen by a passer by.
In the space of ten minutes, he is able to accurately recall details of the Ripper crimes specifically that there were two cuts to the throat in these cases. He won't have seen the photograph of Katherine Eddowes, so to remember that Eddowes had been cut from the top of her chest down towards the abdomen, he could only have read this in a newspaper or attended the inquest. Furthermore, he attacks the victims genitals with a knife. Oh, and also whilst doing this, in what should have been a fearful and heightened emotional state, the medical evidence is he got down onto the ground to the right of the body and inflicted the injuries from that position - not on his feet ready to run away if he needs to, no, he exactly replicates the strategy employed by the killer of Katherine Eddowes.
Either he had perfect recall of these details and was able to remember them at that heightened emotional moment or he happened upon each of these details by pure luck.

This is hardly someone with total recall. He makes 2 not very deep cuts. You’ve neglected to mention the pointless scratches Sean. Where were the scratches in the other victims? They would have taken time too. Whilst he was scratching he could have been cutting and much deeper than the shallow ones that he did make. To me this looks like the work of a man that simply couldn’t bring himself to go the whole hog.

I don't conclude this is impossible, but I do think it improbable, possibly implausible. Especially when there is the far more plausible explanation that this murder was connected to the previous crimes. On balance, I think it is far more probable that there is a connection to the previous Ripper murders - and therefore Druitt is an unlikely suspect.

I don’t think it’s remotely unlikely Sean. And it’s certainly something that we cannot be certain about as I’m sure you’d agree? I have no issue at all with your posts but I just disagree. But what I will say Sean is that you’ve certainly not done what others have done and stated that Mackenzie was a ripper victim as a fact simply to exonerate Druitt.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

Uh ho. I'm relieved you don't want to turn this into a profiling thread, because when people play the geographical profiling card you kinda sorta know it's time to poke hot needles in your eyes.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Why would someone like Druitt - or any outsider, really - have chosen the filthiest, most rundown part of London to procure the services of prostitutes? There were pockets of prostitution throughout the city, some of them "south of the river" and/or closer to Druitt's home than Whitechapel, without actually being on his doorstep.

But Gareth, I thought you had read all about the 'slummer'? They not only chose to live in the filthiest parts of London but also taste all the realities of living there, including the local nightlife.
Many slummers were people just like Druitt.

[Wickerman]

I honestly can’t answer that one Sam. Maybe for whatever reason he wanted to target the dregs of society; the lowest of the low? Maybe he felt that god (or the voices in his head) were telling him to rid the streets of these women?

Druitt did have a connection to Whitechapel, he donated to The Peoples Palace....

The Times (1 Apr. 1886) published a list of donors that included Montague J. Druitt esq. who donated a £1.00.
At that time The Peoples Palace had temporary offices in Toynbee Hall at 28 Commercial Street East (Between Wentworth & Whitechapel Road).

Did he ever make the occasional personal visit?, he apparently had a degree of sympathy for the down trodden of society..

[The Baron]

Druitt did have a connection to Whitechapel, he donated to The Peoples Palace....

The Times (1 Apr. 1886) published a list of donors that included Montague J. Druitt esq. who donated a £1.00.
At that time The Peoples Palace had temporary offices in Toynbee Hall at 28 Commercial Street East (Between Wentworth & Whitechapel Road).

Did he ever make the occasional personal visit?, he apparently had a degree of sympathy for the down trodden of society..

Thats why he went cutting and mutilating them!


The Baron

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Uh ho. I'm relieved you don't want to turn this into a profiling thread, because when people play the geographical profiling card you kinda sorta know it's time to poke hot needles in your eyes.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

ha ha! Yes, well, I think the problem is that most people don't really understand what these sorts of analyses are. The press makes them out to be some sort of incredibly precise and accurate magic that pinpoints an offenders home, which they are not. And people end up either viewing them as the press reports, or thinking they're entirely useless and just random squiggles. They're neither of those extremes, they provide some information, but it needs to be viewed as a suggestion, and certainly one that better quality information should over-ride. In the end, it's really what detectives and police have been doing by putting pins in a map, it's just the mathematical description of "what one sees". The benefit is really more along the lines of it gets everyone to at least "see" a common pattern, after that, interpretation and evaluation can be debated. But most importantly, they are not "solutions to a case" and they definitely are not always right. And what they extract in terms of "hot spots" is entirely dependent upon what the locations are, and in the JtR case, those locations are not just where JtR chose to commit murders, but also where the victims appear to be soliciting. So, the analysis could very well be extracting spatial information more closely tied to the victim's choice of soliciting locations than to JtRs choice of murder locations.

And, that's enough from me on this as it's going off topic, but sometimes I can't help myself.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Great post! Great reasoning!

As if you could recognise reasoning.

As if he was afraid to be charged only for McKenzie murder, he wanted to be charfed for all the other ripper crimes too! yes that makes perfect sense!

Ill type this slowly so that you’ll understand. If the killer of Mackenzie could be linked to her in any way then by making the murder resemble a ripper killing the killers thinking would have been something like “even if they question me they will want to try and link me to the other ripper murders and so if I have an alibi for them they would be less likely to think that it was me that killed Mackenzie.” Because they wouldn’t think that this was an isolated murder.

And as for your statement about wanting to be charged with the other murders. That couldn’t have been a danger if he’d had alibis for them.


The Baron

Have a day off Baron.

[Wickerman]

You can only frame Druitt if you leave Martha Tabrum out. I have always been convinced that Tabrum was a ripper victim and the only interesting thing that came of of the BBC doc was the HOLMES computer placing Tabrum as a victim, .......

Miss Marple

When last seen alive in the company of soldiers, the wounds on Tabrams body were consistent with a bayonet dagger & penknife - both standard issue for the soldier of the period.

If it walks like a duck, and if it quacks like a duck, then......

[The Baron]

When last seen alive in the company of soldiers, the wounds on Tabrams body were consistent with a bayonet dagger & penknife - both standard issue for the soldier of the period.

If it walks like a duck, and if it quacks like a duck, then......

And the man seen with Eddowes Jon, hadn't he the apperance of a sailor too?!

If it looks like a duck, then.....


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Druitt did have a connection to Whitechapel, he donated to The Peoples Palace....

The Times (1 Apr. 1886) published a list of donors that included Montague J. Druitt esq. who donated a £1.00.
At that time The Peoples Palace had temporary offices in Toynbee Hall at 28 Commercial Street East (Between Wentworth & Whitechapel Road).

Did he ever make the occasional personal visit?, he apparently had a degree of sympathy for the down trodden of society..

Also his brother-in-law The Reverend William Hough worked for 10+ years amongst the poor on The Old Kent Road but I don’t think that we know exactly when? At the time of the murders though he only lived 2.5 miles away from Monty. Monty might have done some charitable work with him in the East End.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And the man seen with Eddowes Jon, hadn't he the apperance of a sailor too?!

If it looks like a duck, then.....


The Baron

If Druitt was guilty he’d hardly have walked around looking like Bertie Wooster. What does a sailor look like? Eye patch, parrot? Or did he just wear the type of hat that a sailor might wear plus some old clothes?

The difference is that Tabram was actually seen with soldiers unless they’d just been to a fancy dress party. As Wick says, the injuries were consistent with a bayonet and a penknife. We’re not stating absolute certainly, like you do when you think you read something that clears Druitt, but a bayonet doesn’t really hint at a ballerina does it?