What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Wickerman]

There is no evidence that he rented rooms in Whitechapel during the terror.

Seriously Obs, what kind of evidence would you expect for renting a room for a night in a local pub?

[Wickerman]

I'm afraid it's up to you to prove he did, if you want others to believe that was the case. However, are you seriously suggesting that Druiit, should he want to rent a room, with his plum in the mouth accent in the volatile East End during the terror would not be a figure of suspicion. No one was above suspicion. Druitt would have stuck out like a sore thumb in that environment. Whats-more the East End murderer knew that area like the back of his hand, I doubt Druitt did.

Stuck out?, like the well-dressed man outside the Britannia pub on Nov. 9th?, like the well-dressed man with Stride at the Bricklayers arms?, like the well-dressed man again with Stride in Berner St.seen by PC Smith?

There's also the testimony of Mr's Long who stated that the man she saw with Chapman was a foreigner, bear in mind that she heard the man talk to Chapman, she obviously did not detect an upper classaccent.

I think you'll find the coroner was asking how he was dressed - "did he look like a working man?" - Long replied, "he looked like a foreigner".
That being how he was dressed. The most common well-dressed people to frequent Whitechapel were Jews.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A question mark would have helped, I'm not a fan of those smilie faces, they're a bit childish. However you're not know for your sense of humour around these parts.

Your comments are tainted by some personal dislike which is strange because I can’t even recall exchanging posts with you on the Forum. I’m pretty certain that you’ve done this before. My sense of humour is as normal as anyone’s so again I can’t see where these biased comments are coming from?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I challenge you to show me where I did said Williams theory is valid or if I ever supported it.


The Baron

You are correct Baron. I apologise, I mixed you up with another poster.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He was disrespectful? I'd say you were a little too sensitive in reality.

And you shouldn’t let a personal dislike cloud your posts. Firstly, I confused The Baron with another poster on the subject of Williams for which I’ve apologised. Secondly, the reason I had issues with some of his posts on Druitt as a suspect was the effect of treating Druitt’s candidacy as if it was some kind of brainless, wacky conspiracy theory that anyone who wasn’t an idiot (unlike me apparently) could see through. I’ve repeatedly said that I have no issue with anyone who doesn’t feel that Druitt was the ripper (which would be the majority of posters) The issue is when people say that he couldn’t have been and should be dismissed as a suspect. If this is an unreasonable viewpoint then I don’t see any point in saying anything further.

[Observer]

I believe you meant the poster Stacker, not the Baron. and whos Dr Williams as a candidate for the ripper? Williams is the THEORIST not the suspect, no?

Indeed Abby I saw Stacker provide a link to a theory in which Williams was mentioned, I didn't look at the link, so assumed it was a reference to the gynecologist Dr Williams. Just had a look and it was the theorist Randy Williams who was being recommended by Stacker.

Herlock Sholmes seems to have mis-plonked, and is under the illusion that The Baron favored Randy Williams theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No it couldn't be simpler, a win win situation for Druitt enthusiasts.

What are you talking about?

Do you therefore think that we should say “let’s assume that Coles was definitely killed by the ripper and, hey presto Druitt cannot have been the ripper?” Or should we simply state the obvious. That we cannot exonerate Druitt on the grounds that he couldn’t have killed women that we can’t be certain were part of the series.

To call it a win win situation implies that someone that believes that Druitt might have been the ripper is taking some kind of unfair advantage? Surely you can’t really believe that? I don’t see how this is a controversial issue and I’m surprised that anyone would bother to question it. It smacks of desperation to be honest. A willingness to try anything to eliminate Druitt in fact.

[Observer]

Seriously Obs, what kind of evidence would you expect for renting a room for a night in a local pub?

Not a lot. However if it's a question of Druitt casually renting a room for a night, how do you equate this with the fact that the killer knew the East End like the back of his hand. How would Druitt acquire such a knowledge?

[Abby Normal]

Indeed Abby I saw Stacker provide a link to a theory in which Williams was mentioned, I didn't look at the link, so assumed it was a reference to the gynecologist Dr Williams. Just had a look and it was the theorist Randy Williams who was being recommended by Stacker.

Herlock Sholmes seems to have mis-plonked, and is under the illusion that The Baron favored Randy Williams theory.

Thats because in your “““cover your mouth””” post you alluded to herlock ridiculing the Baron, when you meant to say Stacker. Herlock assumed you werent mixed up, so also thought it was Baron, which almost started a **** storm between him Baron. Now Herlock is apologising to the Baron on YOUR screw up! Yeeesh.

ok thats cleared up lol. Now back to fighting over druitt!

[Herlock Sholmes]

That the killer knew the East End like the back of his hand is not a fact it’s an assumption. How do you know that Druitt didn’t visit the area regularly to pick up prostitutes as many upper class men did?

[Observer]

What are you talking about?

Do you therefore think that we should say “let’s assume that Coles was definitely killed by the ripper and, hey presto Druitt cannot have been the ripper?” Or should we simply state the obvious. That we cannot exonerate Druitt on the grounds that he couldn’t have killed women that we can’t be certain were part of the series.

To call it a win win situation implies that someone that believes that Druitt might have been the ripper is taking some kind of unfair advantage? Surely you can’t really believe that? I don’t see how this is a controversial issue and I’m surprised that anyone would bother to question it. It smacks of desperation to be honest. A willingness to try anything to eliminate Druitt in fact.

Who mentioned Coles? I was referring to Mackenzie, whose killer remarkably conformed to traits exhibited by the killer of the C5. Certain police officers at the time believed Mackenzie to have been a Ripper victim. Do you categorically dismiss Mackenzie as a Ripper victim? And yes you are trying to gain an unfair advantage by excluding Mackenzie from the series.

[Observer]

Thats because in your “““cover your mouth””” post you alluded to herlock ridiculing the Baron, when you meant to say Stacker. Herlock assumed you werent mixed up, so also thought it was Baron, which almost started a **** storm between him Baron. Now Herlock is apologising to the Baron on YOUR screw up! Yeeesh.

ok thats cleared up lol. Now back to fighting over druitt!

No I'm afraid you have the wrong end of the stick, it was Herlock Sholmes who initialy got the two mixed up not I. Confusing yes but those are the facts. But I agree yes lets get back to fighting over Druitt.

[Observer]

That the killer knew the East End like the back of his hand is not a fact it’s an assumption. How do you know that Druitt didn’t visit the area regularly to pick up prostitutes as many upper class men did?

Many upper class men visited the area to pick up prostitutes, many? That's is most definitely an assumption. And even if there were a few who did, I can't see many of them visiting the area during the terror of 1888.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Who mentioned Coles? I was referring to Mackenzie, whose killer remarkably conformed to traits exhibited by the killer of the C5. Certain police officers at the time believed Mackenzie to have been a Ripper victim. Do you categorically dismiss Mackenzie as a Ripper victim? And yes you are trying to gain an unfair advantage by excluding Mackenzie from the series.

Christ this is like pulling teeth!

Yes, you only mentioned Mackenzie. In an earlier post though Stacker included Tabram, Mackenzie, the c5 and the Torso’s. And so my point was, again, that we cannot be anything like certain that these women were killed by the ripper.

Do I categorically dismiss Mackenzie as a ripper victim - no I don’t.

And so your statement that I’m trying to gain unfair advantage by excluding Mackenzie is obvious nonsense. If she was a victim then Druitt is innocent. If she wasn’t a victim then Druitt might have been the ripper. We cannot be certain of either so we cannot use Mackenzie purely to exonerate Druitt. This is simply a fact of logic. To deny it is to be less than honest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Many upper class men visited the area to pick up prostitutes, many? That's is most definitely an assumption. And even if there were a few who did, I can't see many of them visiting the area during the terror of 1888.

Ok so you’re nitpicking on my choice of the word ‘many’ now. I suppose that you have a set of statistics to hand? Some, a few, several, many, three! The fact that there was a name for it ‘’slumming’’ tends to assume that it was more than a few. The fact remains that some (is ‘some’ ok?) visited the East End for ‘fun.’ Druitt ‘might’ have done the same. Note that I said ‘might’ not that he did or that he definitely did just that he might have. It’s a possibility.

And you think that they’d have given it a miss during the ripper scare? In case the ripper decided to branch out from bedraggled prostitutes to upper class men?