Rating The Suspects.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I think another possibility is that the killer may have had more time with Eddowes than what we think that he most likely had.

Hi Lewis,

I agree. But the obvious dissection technique remains which can only be aided by more time.

Cheers, George

[Lewis C]

Hi Fishy,

I'm not sure that we know so much about Chapman's murder. Phillips said that he estimated around 15 minutes to visit the injuries upon Chapman. But he also said that he thought those injuries were inflicted under the cover of darkness. Fifteen minutes is a long time to be exposed in broad daylight subject to an amphitheatre of potential witnesses.

That said, I agree that the time generally supposed for the Eddowes injuries seems to be insufficient. Resort has to be made to either Trevor's theory, to which I am not opposed, or that the perpetrator was skilled and very experienced in dissection procedures. I believe that this level of required competence exceeds that possessed by popular named suspects.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I think another possibility is that the killer may have had more time with Eddowes than what we think that he most likely had.

[Lewis C]

Was Druit playing cricket somewhere when one of the murders were committed.
If my memory serves me well it was pretty much drawn to a conclusion that If he was at cricket then he couldn’t be Jack.
No one produced conclusive evidence that he was or was not at said cricket match.
So inconclusive evidence to his where abouts for a particular murder but he’s allowed in.
who’s setting the bar here , what are the rules ?

Hi Paul,

Druitt played cricket a few hours after one of the murders. The possibility of him committing the murder and then playing cricket cannot be ruled out, but each of us must assess for ourselves how likely it is that this is what happened.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Fishy,

I'm not sure that we know so much about Chapman's murder. Phillips said that he estimated around 15 minutes to visit the injuries upon Chapman. But he also said that he thought those injuries were inflicted under the cover of darkness. Fifteen minutes is a long time to be exposed in broad daylight subject to an amphitheatre of potential witnesses.

That said, I agree that the time generally supposed for the Eddowes injuries seems to be insufficient. Resort has to be made to either Trevor's theory, to which I am not opposed, or that the perpetrator was skilled and very experienced in dissection procedures. I believe that this level of required competence exceeds that possessed by popular named suspects.

Cheers, George

I'm inclined to agree George.

It would seem likely that between murders, the killer was actively learning and progressing his particular skill set, which would in turn imply that he was actively working as either a butcher or a doctor/surgeon.
It have always seemed to me that the killer was learning as he went along; hence the level of progression between Chapman and Eddowes.

I would even go so far as to suggest that any women who went missing between Chapman and Eddowes, may have been kept captive in a bolt hole somewhere, and then dispatched accordingly so that he could practice on their bodies between murders.

He may have kidnapped women, and then used their bodies for practice for when he went out on the streets for real; hence my belief that he may have also been the Torso killer.

Macabre, but a viable hypothesis IMO.

[GBinOz]

Sure thing George ,but I thought it was obvious given what we know about Chapmans murder and what Phillips said how long it would take him to inflict all her injuries. Now compare that to Eddowes 7 to 10 mins tops to do what was an obvious medical technique / procedure, which murder with all the said injuries should have taken more time ?

Hi Fishy,

I'm not sure that we know so much about Chapman's murder. Phillips said that he estimated around 15 minutes to visit the injuries upon Chapman. But he also said that he thought those injuries were inflicted under the cover of darkness. Fifteen minutes is a long time to be exposed in broad daylight subject to an amphitheatre of potential witnesses.

That said, I agree that the time generally supposed for the Eddowes injuries seems to be insufficient. Resort has to be made to either Trevor's theory, to which I am not opposed, or that the perpetrator was skilled and very experienced in dissection procedures. I believe that this level of required competence exceeds that possessed by popular named suspects.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Was Druit playing cricket somewhere when one of the murders were committed.
If my memory serves me well it was pretty much drawn to a conclusion that If he was at cricket then he couldn’t be Jack.
No one produced conclusive evidence that he was or was not at said cricket match.
So inconclusive evidence to his where abouts for a particular murder but he’s allowed in.
who’s setting the bar here , what are the rules ?

The reality is Paul that the evidence of the cricket match doesn’t even approach exonerating Druitt and can safely be dismissed as such. People tend to jump on any old excuse to try and dismiss Druitt and the fact that it doesn’t do so is the cause of annoyance. The game finished early (most likely due to rain) and only around 90 or so runs were scored in the two innings that they managed to play. We don’t know what time the game started but when researchers checked train times it was obvious that he could have got to London. For all that we know he could have left the ground by 2pm.

Then we have ‘likelihood’ with people saying well why would he have travelled all the way back to London to murder? Firstly, if guilty, he was a serial killer and serial killers don’t think as we do, so we can’t claim to know what was in a persons mind or how he would or wouldn’t behave in any given situation. Secondly, Druitt was a Barrister, he was Treasurer of the Blackheath Club, he was a schoolteacher. He would have had appointments and meetings to attend. So as Druitt was going to Dorset for a summer break during which time he had agreed to play cricket for a local team what does he do? Postpone his entire holiday for a week and let the team down? Or go to Dorset, play the game, and return by train for his meeting. It could have been the case that he intended to return on an early train on the 31st for a midday appointment but when the game finished early he decided to go to London that evening to avoid an early start. We just don’t know, but to try and dismiss Druitt on these grounds is feeble to say the least.

There’s one other thing that we did find out though Paul. After researching the cricket matches it no appears that, despite what DJ Leighton wrote, Druitt no longer has an alibi for Tabram either.

[FISHY1118]

Now then Fishy. Try to refrain from attempting to be inscrutable and elaborate.

Cheers, George

Sure thing George ,but I thought it was obvious given what we know about Chapmans murder and what Phillips said how long it would take him to inflict all her injuries. Now compare that to Eddowes 7 to 10 mins tops to do what was an obvious medical technique / procedure, which murder with all the said injuries should have taken more time ?

[The Rookie Detective]

Hello Paul,

Sugden does a nice job of discussing this very issue in his The Complete History of Jack the Ripper. After a very thorough analysis involving game times, train schedules etc. his conclusion is that Druitt cannot be ruled out based on his cricket match. Memory is fuzzy but there is evidence he did play.

c.d.

Francis Thompson was also obsessed with cricket and often bunked off his anatomy classes to go and watch his beloved Lancashire play at Old Trafford.

He favoured cricket over cadavers.

[GBinOz]

There's a much bigger puzzle if thats the case George, ......TIME.

Now then Fishy. Try to refrain from attempting to be inscrutable and elaborate.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hello Paul,

Sugden does a nice job of discussing this very issue in his The Complete History of Jack the Ripper. After a very thorough analysis involving game times, train schedules etc. his conclusion is that Druitt cannot be ruled out based on his cricket match. Memory is fuzzy but there is evidence he did play.

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

The "cannot be ruled out" relates to probabilities rather than possibilities, and the possibility of miracles..

Examples:
1. In the Charlie Kirk murder the official story is that he was shot in the neck from 140 yards with a 30-06, and there was no exit wound. This calibre has been used to hunt deer, buffalo, bear and elephant, and there is always a catastrophic exit wound. But the possibility of a steel spinal column or a miracle "cannot be ruled out".

2. I was sitting at a traffic light when a fully loaded Mac 18 wheeler travelling at 60mph had a brake failure and crashed into the back of my Volkswagen Beetle. Miraculously my steel tow bar stopped the truck in its tracks and the only damage was a broken tail light. This has the same credibility of being "unable to be ruled out" as example 1.

The Druitt "cannot be ruled out" fits in the same genre. A desperate attempt to retain a theory that has zero credibility. That said, I find Druitt, and his surrounding circumstances, to be an extremely interesting player in this mystery. I don't think he was JtR, but consider he is "unable to be ruled out" as a player in the jigsaw.

Cheers, George

[c.d.]

Hello Paul,

Sugden does a nice job of discussing this very issue in his The Complete History of Jack the Ripper. After a very thorough analysis involving game times, train schedules etc. his conclusion is that Druitt cannot be ruled out based on his cricket match. Memory is fuzzy but there is evidence he did play.

c.d.

[paul g]

Was Druit playing cricket somewhere when one of the murders were committed.
If my memory serves me well it was pretty much drawn to a conclusion that If he was at cricket then he couldn’t be Jack.
No one produced conclusive evidence that he was or was not at said cricket match.
So inconclusive evidence to his where abouts for a particular murder but he’s allowed in.
who’s setting the bar here , what are the rules ?

[FISHY1118]

Hi RD,

I beg to differ.

While the injuries to the two women were superficially similar, the finer detail is distinctly dissimilar.

The throat cut, opening of the abdomen and mobilisation of the intestines is common in both instances. The deviation around the navel was visible in Eddowes case, but that portion of the abdomen was absent in Chapman's case.

The uterus was removed in the Chapman case by a single sweep of the knife without regard to collateral damage. This is typical of a butcher's technique. In the Eddowes case the uterus was surgically removed without damaging the bladder. Prosector made this comment on the method used to gain access to the kidney:

a section of colon about two feet long (the exact length of the descending colon) was removed and the sigmoid flexure was invaginated into the rectum. That is exactly what surgeons and pathologists do if they have to excise the descending colon. Invaginating the sigmoid into the rectum (not easy, even with help - rather like trying to turn the finger of a very slippery glove inside out) is done to stop faeces, which is largely stored in the sigmoid and rectum, from oozing back into the abdominal cavity. Of course a surgeon would stitch it in place to stop it popping out again but it is not a manoeuvre that would instinctively occur to someone who had not previously observed it I think.

The Eddowes case also exhibited attacks to the face which were not evident in Chapman's case.

Were it not for the mobilising of the small intestine, which he did in both the Chapman and the Eddowes cases using the method that is used by medical students in dissecting the human body and by surgeons and pathologists, namely dividing the root of the mesentery, I might conclude that Chapman's murder may have been by someone LIKE Levy, and Eddowes by someone LIKE Thompson. There in resides the puzzlement.

Cheers, George

There's a much bigger puzzle if thats the case George, ......TIME.

[GBinOz]

I think in terms of comparing victims, the 2 most similar are Chapman and Eddowes.

The chances of 2 different men being responsible for the murders of Chapman and Eddowes respectively, is as close to zero as you can get.

Hi RD,

I beg to differ.

While the injuries to the two women were superficially similar, the finer detail is distinctly dissimilar.

The throat cut, opening of the abdomen and mobilisation of the intestines is common in both instances. The deviation around the navel was visible in Eddowes case, but that portion of the abdomen was absent in Chapman's case.

The uterus was removed in the Chapman case by a single sweep of the knife without regard to collateral damage. This is typical of a butcher's technique. In the Eddowes case the uterus was surgically removed without damaging the bladder. Prosector made this comment on the method used to gain access to the kidney:

a section of colon about two feet long (the exact length of the descending colon) was removed and the sigmoid flexure was invaginated into the rectum. That is exactly what surgeons and pathologists do if they have to excise the descending colon. Invaginating the sigmoid into the rectum (not easy, even with help - rather like trying to turn the finger of a very slippery glove inside out) is done to stop faeces, which is largely stored in the sigmoid and rectum, from oozing back into the abdominal cavity. Of course a surgeon would stitch it in place to stop it popping out again but it is not a manoeuvre that would instinctively occur to someone who had not previously observed it I think.

The Eddowes case also exhibited attacks to the face which were not evident in Chapman's case.

Were it not for the mobilising of the small intestine, which he did in both the Chapman and the Eddowes cases using the method that is used by medical students in dissecting the human body and by surgeons and pathologists, namely dividing the root of the mesentery, I might conclude that Chapman's murder may have been by someone LIKE Levy, and Eddowes by someone LIKE Thompson. There in resides the puzzlement.

Cheers, George

[Lewis C]

I have to ask how many of the 100+ suspects can be placed in London at the time of the murders?

Bury, Chapman, Levy, Cohen, Aaron Kosminski, Le Grand, Cutbush, Hutchinson, Hyams, Bachert, and I believe Buckley and Hanslope can be placed in London at the time of the murders.

Deeming, Druitt, and I believe Kelly can be placed in England at the time of the murders.

I don't think much of Tumblety, Barnett, Cross, or Richardson as suspects, but they were in the London area at the time.

Stephenson and Mann were in the London area at the time, but their circumstances make me think it very unlikely that either could have committed the murders.