What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[The Baron]

"According to Killeen, the focus of the wounds were the breasts, belly, and groin area. In his opinion, all but one of the wounds were inflicted by a right-handed attacker, and all but one seemed to have been the result of an "ordinary pen-knife." There was, however, one wound on the sternum which appeared to have been inflicted by a dagger or bayonet (thereby leading police to believe that a sailor was the perpetrator)."


This is a little for you today Herlock!


The Baron

[Wickerman]

And if Druitt had lodgings at Kings Bench Walk, which seems to be likely, then there were areas within a very short walk, namely Covent Garden, and the Strand, which would have had those same "dreggy" individuals in abundance.

How do you know he didn't sample the nightlife around KBW?

[Wickerman]

The general consensus of the leading officers in charge of the inquiry believe a local man was responsible, I have no reason to doubt them

Do you have a copy of this consensus, I don't recall reading one before.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"According to Killeen, the focus of the wounds were the breasts, belly, and groin area. In his opinion, all but one of the wounds were inflicted by a right-handed attacker, and all but one seemed to have been the result of an "ordinary pen-knife." There was, however, one wound on the sternum which appeared to have been inflicted by a dagger or bayonet (thereby leading police to believe that a sailor was the perpetrator)."


This is a little for you today Herlock!


The Baron

I assume that you mean soldier?

So.....

Two weapons
Either two killers or an ambidextrous one
No throat cutting
No abdominal mutilations

Yup. Pretty much identical to a ripper killing I suppose.

[The Baron]

I assume that you mean soldier?

So.....

Two weapons
Either two killers or an ambidextrous one
No throat cutting
No abdominal mutilations

Yup. Pretty much identical to a ripper killing I suppose.

9 Stabs to the neck!

try counting them Herlock 1,2,3.... 9!


The Baron

[seanr]

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?

It may not be in isolation a massive coincidence that the murders of Emma Smith, Nichols, Eddowes, McKenzie, Coles and the dumping of the Pinchin Street torso all took place within a short time frame on a police beat and in each case the perpetrators managed to make a clean getaway without being seen, all in the space of three years - and in that time not a single murder where someone is caught by officer on the beat. In every case, except Coles, the police saw no-one.
Did the perpetrators definitely know the beats, watch for it or have a look out - no, we don't know that. But we can consider it - I think the police considered it to be a possibility at the time and this was part of the reason a pardon was offered to an accomplice.

In the case of the McKenzie murder, if this was a crime of passion or a robbery that went wrong, not only was the attacker in luck with the time window this all happened in, but they took an astonishing risk by sticking around to try to disguise the crime as something else.

The beat officers certainly seem to have a knack of just missing the action.

As was the Eddowes murder.

Yes, it may have been pure dumb luck but given he's sticking around to make mutilations, he does seem very lucky indeed, if he was under the illusion he had plenty of time.

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.

Which is precisely my point. In the recognised Ripper crimes, no-one hears anything much as with McKenzie. Possibly the killer over-powered the victims before they could cry out or he managed to convince them to stay somewhat quiet by some ruse until it was too late. In the case of Annie Chapman a witness may have heard her gently say 'No' during the attack and some believe Mary Kelly said 'Oh Murder' not very loud. If these women thought they were being murdered, one might expect them to fight for their lives, scream or try to defend themselves. Yet there's scant evidence of that in all these cases - including McKenzie.
Which reminds me of another point of evidence with McKenzie. The cuts to the throat were made whilst she was on the ground. Her killer already had her in a compromising position.

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.

He did not make two not very deep cuts. He made two deep cuts to throat starting from the same wound. He made a 'not very deep' long wound along the abdomen. He also made seven or eight scratches from the navel towards the genitals and there was a cut to the mons veneris, which does seem to indicate a sexual attack. I assume the seven or eight scratches are the ones you mean? - as these are made around the genitals, these may well be sexual mutilations. Notably, a shorter knife is used which may account for superficial nature of the injuries.
It's assumed that in the Ripper crimes, the intent was to mutilate but we don't 'know' this. The desire may have been simply to cut. We don't know the reasons for the mutilations and may never know.

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.

We can't be certain and may never be certain. I'm applying a form a Bayesian logic though and based on the attack on McKenzie being a Ripper murder, being connected to the previous crimes but carried out by another hand, some form of copycat or the similarities being purely a coincidence there are four possibilities.
I guess I put like 75% likelihood it is a Ripper killing, 10% a related other hand, 5% it's a coincidence and about 10% it's a copycat. Overall I consider it more likely it is connected and therefore Druitt is unlikely.

Maybe I can't rule out Druitt but I can't rule out Lewis Carroll either. Can't rule out isn't evidence and there isn't much actual evidence against Druitt. Macnaghten claimed he had it but destroyed it, a claim I consider with some scepticism.
Each of senior officers on the case when asked all gave an answer broadly like ‘sure, we know exactly who he was, he was {different suspect} and we couldn’t close the case because reasons’ and given they each suggest different suspects and for example an officer who clearly worked the case, William Thick, was willing to state they had no idea who the Ripper was, it is surely reasonable to treat the claims of the likes of Macnaghten and Anderson with some scepticism.

Yes, it is reasonable to take Druitt’s candidature as the basis for further research and perhaps new research might reveal something more tangible to connect Druitt with the crimes or with Whitechapel. But in the absence of new evidence, Druitt remains a weak suspect.

[The Baron]

I told you before that your arguments are not consistent, this is one example:

you said: " 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."

And you forgot completely that he needs first of all an alibi for the Mckenzie murder!

If he managed to find somehow an alibi for the Mckenzie murder, then why the hell should he then try to make it looks like the other murders too?!

And if he doesn't have an alibi for the Mckenzie murder, are they going to set him free because he has an alibis for the other crimes?!

How can you 'slowly' write such things ?!


The Baron

[Observer]

How do you know he didn't sample the nightlife around KBW?

I think we went through this earlier. There was no evidence of connection with regard to the Whitechapel victims. You're fond of drawing comparisons between JTR, and Sutcliffe, I believe he too had trouble in that direction also. Also, if he did sample the nightlife in close proximity to KBW, why no victims there?

[Wickerman]

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

How do you know it was Eddowes?

[Wickerman]

I think we went through this earlier. There was no evidence of connection with regard to the Whitechapel victims. You're fond of drawing comparisons between JTR, and Sutcliffe, I believe he too had trouble in that direction also. Also, if he did sample the nightlife in close proximity to KBW, why no victims there?

That's like asking "why no victims in Bingley?", is that an argument against Sutcliffe being the Yorkshire Ripper?

We know Druitt had a firm connection to Kings Bench Walk, just like Sutcliffe had in Bingley. So Druitt didn't kill around K.B.W., likewise Sutcliffe didn't kill in Bingley.
What is the relevance of the question?

[Observer]

Do you have a copy of this consensus, I don't recall reading one before.

It's quite simple, Anderson favoured a local Jew, Abberline Chapman apparently.

This from Arthur Harding Davis, who was accompanying Chief Inspector Moore on an escorted tour through Whitechapel.

"In two squares the inspector pointed out three houses where, he said, he had gone to find him.

He told the story to illustrate the degradation of the women of the district, but the point of interest in them to me was that, in a space of two hundred yards, he had found three houses where the murderer was supposed to be in hiding. This shows that there must have been hundreds of men suspected of whom the public have heard nothing"

However, I thought you would be in favour of the notion that the murderer was living locally, albeit temporarily in Druitt's case, as you have stated that it's possible he rented a room in Whitechapel during the period of the murders.

[The Baron]

How do you know it was Eddowes?

You have to ask Lawende.

Cherry picking Jon?! Is it so important for you to keep Druitt in the race ?!


The Baron

[Observer]

That's like asking "why no victims in Bingley?", is that an argument against Sutcliffe being the Yorkshire Ripper?

We know Druitt had a firm connection to Kings Bench Walk, just like Sutcliffe had in Bingley. So Druitt didn't kill around K.B.W., likewise Sutcliffe didn't kill in Bingley.
What is the relevance of the question?

The point I was making, which you've obviously missed, is that it seems JTR was not interested with having sex with his victims, as was Sutcliffe. So in effect why would he "sample" the prostitutes in close proximity to KBW?

[Observer]

That's like asking "why no victims in Bingley?", is that an argument against Sutcliffe being the Yorkshire Ripper?

We know Druitt had a firm connection to Kings Bench Walk, just like Sutcliffe had in Bingley. So Druitt didn't kill around K.B.W., likewise Sutcliffe didn't kill in Bingley.
What is the relevance of the question?

By the way Sutcliffe bludgeoned Tracy Brown in 1975 near Silsden a mere six miles from Bingley. In the age of the car this would equate to a ten minute stroll through Whitechapel.

[Wickerman]

It's quite simple, Anderson favoured a local Jew, Abberline Chapman apparently.

This from Arthur Harding Davis, who was accompanying Chief Inspector Moore on an escorted tour through Whitechapel.

"In two squares the inspector pointed out three houses where, he said, he had gone to find him.

He told the story to illustrate the degradation of the women of the district, but the point of interest in them to me was that, in a space of two hundred yards, he had found three houses where the murderer was supposed to be in hiding. This shows that there must have been hundreds of men suspected of whom the public have heard nothing"

However, I thought you would be in favour of the notion that the murderer was living locally, albeit temporarily in Druitt's case, as you have stated that it's possible he rented a room in Whitechapel during the period of the murders.

It's not always obvious what "living local" means with each poster. More than one has dismissed Druitt because he didn't live local. Having rooms at KBW & in Blackheath is not local in the eyes of some. Yet, as KBW & Blackheath are both in London, and the murders took place in London, then it could be said he did live local.
Some think it's necessary for him to live in Whitechapel. Whether Druitt rented a room in Whitechapel periodically is possible, but was not necessary.