What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Sam Flynn]

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?

There were "dreggy" places south of the Thames, and there was plenty of lowest-of-the-low people in the docks areas to the north and south all of which were closer to Blackheath than Whitechapel was.

[Observer]

There were "dreggy" places south of the Thames, and there was plenty of lowest-of-the-low people in the docks areas to the north and south all of which were closer to Blackheath than Whitechapel was.

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.

[Observer]

It's a statement that accords with the evidence. And no serial killer, or other offender, in history, has ever behaved in the way you suggest. Thus, we're talking about an incredibly small area, just one square mile. There's no reason whatsoever why someone from outside of the Whitechapel district would enter Whitechapel, spend time familiarizing himself with the area, and then just confine his activities to that one tiny location, despite a dramatically increased police presence.

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,

Good post

I find it amazing that rather than realise the obvious, that the killer lived and worked locally, certain posters continue to shoehorn Druitt by suggesting he had a bolt hole in the heart of the murder zone. 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

[miss marple]

Indeed the whole of London was a brothel. Class distinction with the whores too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There were "dreggy" places south of the Thames, and there was plenty of lowest-of-the-low people in the docks areas to the north and south all of which were closer to Blackheath than Whitechapel was.

Again true. We have no way of knowing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

~

Good post

I find it amazing that rather than realise the obvious, that the killer lived and worked locally, certain posters continue to shoehorn Druitt by suggesting he had a bolt hole in the heart of the murder zone. 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

If it was someone that lived within the narrow confines it doesn’t shine a very good light on the police that they never caught him. Much more chance of remaining undetected if the killer didn’t live on the doorstep. Don’t murder in your backyard.

~


You have no reason to doubt certain officers but you have qualms about doubting Sir Melville Macnaghten? As long as you’re being fair then and not simply cherry-picking to suit.

Theres no ‘shoehorning’ going on here, in actual fact it’s the exact opposite that’s going on with some. We have posters saying-

Its a fact that the ripper was a local and so Druitt is exonerated.

Its a fact that Mackenzie was a ripper victim and so Druitt is exonerated.

There were some very minor errors in the MM so it should be completely disregarded despite the fact that Macnaghten was categorically talking about Druitt.

That we can still consider other suspects without existing evidence but not Druitt. Despite the fact that we have the second highest police officer in the land telling us that this evidence did exist.

We have posters dismissing books that they haven’t actually read.

We have a poster who’s suspects candidacy is based on an uncorroborated confession from a known compulsive liar that we can’t even prove was in the country at the time!! But hey that’s reasonable but Druitt isn’t.


All of this and more to try and show that the ones being unreasonable are the ones that, whilst asserting absolutely nothing for certain, are simply saying that we cannot just assume that Macnaghten was a liar or a gullible moron. The ones that are simply keeping an open mind. Has it come to this?


You really couldn’t make it up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. if he was interested in women, he may have been gay,

Kosminski might have been gay. I don’t see how that’s really an argument specifically against Druitt?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. You can only frame Druitt if you leave Martha Tabrum out.

No one is trying to frame Druitt Miss Marple - the problem with that sentence is that it sounds like I’m being sarcastic. Like saying “ a brilliant point Sherlock” - anyway what I’m saying is that no one is trying to dishonestly make Druitt fit as the ripper. Though I get accused of it by someone doing the exact opposite.

The only problem with Tabram and Mackenzie is that opinion is pretty much divided across the board. Anyone can believe that either or both of them were victims or not. And because it’s not definite we can’t use an unknown to prove or disprove anything.

[miss marple]

If he was gay, why would he go to dirty old Whitechapel to murder random alcoholic whores, he would have no reason to. Gay murderers tend to murder other gay men, or get murdered by straight men. I just don't see Druitt who appears quite fastidious, living in a comfortable middle class world, playing cricket, going to the country murdering in the East End . It does not fit his profile, feels wrong, and no one has discovered he has any connection or time spent in the East End. His profile suggests the opposite, that it was a place he never went to. Many middle class people avoided it like the plague.

miss Marple

[miss marple]

Herlock, Tabrum is more like to the canonical five, than any of the others, the silence of the murder in a public area,the timing ,the day, the month the location, the position of the body. The attacks on the lower parts of the body. Pearly Poll may have been lying about the soldiers, they were invisible I think Tom Westcott's book is very revealing on this subject.Poll is very dodgy character.

Miss Marple

[rjpalmer]

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.

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.'

[Herlock Sholmes]

If he was gay, why would he go to dirty old Whitechapel to murder random alcoholic whores, he would have no reason to. Gay murderers tend to murder other gay men, or get murdered by straight men. I just don't see Druitt who appears quite fastidious, living in a comfortable middle class world, playing cricket, going to the country murdering in the East End . It does not fit his profile, feels wrong, and no one has discovered he has any connection or time spent in the East End. His profile suggests the opposite, that it was a place he never went to. Many middle class people avoided it like the plague.

miss Marple

The problem is that there’s not a single shred of evidence that Druitt was gay? We do know however that many well off people went slumming. There’s nothing at all to suggest that he never went to the East End but of course there’s no evidence that he did. But if he did visit the East End on some nights what evidence could we expect to find. There would be none.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, Tabrum is more like to the canonical five, than any of the others, the silence of the murder in a public area,the timing ,the day, the month the location, the position of the body. The attacks on the lower parts of the body. Pearly Poll may have been lying about the soldiers, they were invisible I think Tom Westcott's book is very revealing on this subject.Poll is very dodgy character.

Miss Marple

She surely cannot be considered more ripper-like than Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes And Kelly. Tabram was a frenzied stabbing, and as far as I can recall, with two knives being used. For me she is by far the least likely ripper suspect. I just think she was killed by someone in a drunken rage.

[Sam Flynn]

I don't think the Ripper was motivated by convenience.

Neither do I, but he was surely constrained by the logistics of finding and killing his victims, quickly mutilating them in public, and getting away without being caught. All a bit tricky if all you have is a "psychological" attachment to an area, and you're "domestically" attached to another area many miles away.

[Wickerman]

Hi Simon,

I think Dr. Bond's "3 or 4 hours only" statement is him indicating a maximum time range based solely on the information contained in the medical notes.

I think thats correct Jeff, Dr bond is not taking into account any witness statement as to how the body was found or its condition when found. He is purely interpreting the Post Mortem notes.