What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Wickerman]

You have to ask Lawende.

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


The Baron

Not at all, it's a matter of taking what Swanson said verbatim - he said Lawende saw a woman in black clothes, but all women wore black. Eddowes jacket was black, but her dress was dark green with flowery pattern.
McWilliam/Swanson was not certain Lawende saw Eddowes, so why should you be?

[Wickerman]

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?

All we can say is the killer didn't appear to want to sample what his victims had to offer. All except Kelly, her being killed while 'dressed to entertain' suggests a different approach - but then she was young and attractive compared with the earlier victims.

[Wickerman]

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.

Which is a subjective analogy.
You obviously want to find an example to back your argument. I'm not surprised.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

The same problem applies. Why only Whitechapel and not any other slum?

[Sam Flynn]

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

Sutcliffe's possession of a van, and legitimate reasons for using it, partly answers that question.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Not at all, it's a matter of taking what Swanson said verbatim - he said Lawende saw a woman in black clothes, but all women wore black. Eddowes jacket was black, but her dress was dark green with flowery pattern.
McWilliam/Swanson was not certain Lawende saw Eddowes, so why should you be?

Lawende inquest testimony - She had on a black jacket and bonnet. I have seen the articles at the police-station, and believe them to be those the deceased was wearing.
He then is asked a question about what the man was wearing.
Seems to me since Lawende was not pressed on the woman's attire the coroner was satisfied with his answer.
Regards Darryl

[Sam Flynn]

Seems to me since Lawende was not pressed on the woman's attire the coroner was satisfied with his answer.

Not that men are particularly fine-grained in their descriptions of colours, even at close range and in normal lighting conditions. A dark green dress, even if patterned, might as well be "black" in dim light at a distance of several yards. Assuming Lawende even noticed her dress; his gaze seems to have stopped at the jacket, as well it might.

[Herlock Sholmes]

9 Stabs to the neck!

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


The Baron

Stabs in the neck does not constitute a throat cutting Baron. Please stop being desperate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Im tired of wasting time explaining the obvious to you Baron. In fact.....I’m not even going to bother. The response to this is so obvious that it shouldn’t require effort.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have to ask Lawende.

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


The Baron

For Christ’s sake!!!!!

it was you that mentioned Lawende Baron not Jon. All rules of logic fly out of the window as soon as your fingers hit the keys.

Why can’t you discuss the case reasonably, open-mindedly and honestly instead of making these annoying, meaningless posts?

[Sam Flynn]

Stabs in the neck does not constitute a throat cutting Baron.

Unless he was intending to connect the dots at some stage

(Apologies for the dark humour.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Unless he was intending to connect the dots at some stage

(Apologies for the dark humour.)

Maybe Tabram’s murderer knew her and there was one stab for every year of her life.....39?

[Joshua Rogan]

Not that men are particularly fine-grained in their descriptions of colours, even at close range and in normal lighting conditions. A dark green dress, even if patterned, might as well be "black" in dim light at a distance of several yards. Assuming Lawende even noticed her dress; his gaze seems to have stopped at the jacket, as well it might.

Morris the warehouse watchman had the opposite problem when he described her clothing (in the MA); "She wore a dark skirt and a black bonnet". No mention of a jacket at all, though it was probably obscured by the mutilations.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I still come back to this question:

Why did Sir Melville Macnaghen name Druitt as a very likely suspect if he didn’t genuinely believe that he had good reason to do so?

He wasn’t compelled to come up with three alternative suspects. Why not just leave it with Kosminski and Ostrog?
He could easily have come up with some poor unknown to sacrifice as a suspect.
Why pick a suspect that was, on the face of it, a very unlikely suspect as he wasn’t a known criminal or known to be violent?
Why would he make this horrible accusation against someone that was connected by family to one of his best friends.
In such a rigidly class conscious society why would Mac make a baseless accusation against someone from that class when the prevailing view within that class would have been that no gentleman could have committed the crimes.
Why pick a suspect that died before Mackenzie when Monro, a man that he had the utmost respect for, felt that she was a ripper victim?
Why pick a suspect from a class of society when, by doing just that, he was increasing the chances of him having an alibi?

If the answer is “he was just a liar,” or “he was just a fool who would believe anything,” then ok because those arguments carry no weight.

Druitt remains a suspect.

[The Baron]

I still come back to this question:

Why did Sir Melville Macnaghen name Druitt as a very likely suspect if he didn’t genuinely believe that he had good reason to do so?

Why did he name Ostrog when he had no good reason to do so?!


The Baron