Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Again…..you’re making deductions from things that aren’t true. What’s the point?

Contrary to your allegations, I did not make any untrue statements.

Furthermore, I believe you are confusing the London-Blackheath schedule with the London-Dorset schedule.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

However we, as individuals, rate Druitt as a suspect the fact remains….he had no alibi for any of the murders.

(Herlock Shomes, # 331)

It is factually correct to say that Druitt did not have an alibi.

(Herlock Shomes, # 363)

Druitt doesn’t have an alibi

(Herlock Shomes, # 371)


We are not living in 1888, investigating Druitt for five recent murders.

Your statements are invalid.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I explained in a recent post, I do not make categorical statements about Druitt's alibis.

We do know, however, that he was in Dorset at the time of the first murder - unless he was commuting between London and Dorset during a trip to Dorset, and doing so in such a way as not to arouse any suspicion.

Absolutely untrue.

We do not know why he was sacked, but we do know it was not for being the Whitechapel Murderer

Absolutely untrue. You are making things up PI.

.

We categorically don’t know that Druitt was in Dorset at the time of Nichols murder. He was there on the 30th and would have had ample opportunity of catching any one of the available trains. Simple stuff.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Contrary to your allegations, I did not make any untrue statements.

Saying that you know that Druitt’s sacking wasn’t connected in any way to the murders is untrue. It’s something that you cannot know.

Furthermore, I believe you are confusing the London-Blackheath schedule with the London-Dorset schedule.

What has the London-Blackheath schedule to do with Druitt playing cricket in Dorset?

[Herlock Sholmes]

However we, as individuals, rate Druitt as a suspect the fact remains….he had no alibi for any of the murders.

(Herlock Shomes, # 331)

It is factually correct to say that Druitt did not have an alibi.

(Herlock Shomes, # 363)

Druitt doesn’t have an alibi

(Herlock Shomes, # 371)


We are not living in 1888, investigating Druitt for five recent murders.

Your statements are invalid.

More weirdness.

Druitt categorically doesn’t have an alibi.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We categorically don’t know that Druitt was in Dorset at the time of Nichols murder. He was there on the 30th and would have had ample opportunity of catching any one of the available trains. Simple stuff.

Once again, I did not make any 'absolutely untrue' statement and I did not make anything up.

I suppose if I point out that you are baiting me, you will then allege that I am playing the victim.

The one who is making absolutely untrue statements is you - about me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Once again, I did not make any 'absolutely untrue' statement and I did not make anything up.

I suppose if I point out that you are baiting me, you will then allege that I am playing the victim.

The one who is making absolutely untrue statements is you - about me.

Saying that Druitt has an alibi is untrue.

Your overthinking PI. I’ll simplify things by making a request in light of your ‘belief’ that Druitt has a ‘cast-iron’ alibi……

Could you please provide the thread with the proof that Montague John Druitt was in Dorset at between 3.30 and 3.40 am on August 31st or, failing that, could you provide evidence that either, a) he was elsewhere earlier and couldn’t physically have got to Bucks Row by 3.30 - 3.40 am, or b) that he was at such a location during the day of the 31st of August that he couldn’t have arrived at if he’d been in Bucks Row at 3.30 - 3.45 am.

If you can provide proof of the above I’ll never post on this forum again. I can’t say fairer than that can I?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Saying that Druitt has an alibi is untrue.

It is not untrue.

We cannot know how strong the alibi was, but I believe that it was cast-iron because Druitt went on that trip with companions.

There are no grounds for suspecting Druitt nor for speculation that he went to Dorset to provide himself with an alibi.

I have seen similar arguments about Wallace, Luard, and Sickert.

It is all far-fetched nonsense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is not untrue.

We cannot know how strong the alibi was, but I believe that it was cast-iron because Druitt went on that trip with companions.

There are no grounds for suspecting Druitt nor for speculation that he went to Dorset to provide himself with an alibi.

I have seen similar arguments about Wallace, Luard, and Sickert.

It is all far-fetched nonsense.

A definition of an alibi from a solicitor:

“Having an alibi while being accused of different serious crimes in the UK, might release you from the received accusations. In simple words, the alibi is an excuse to avoid the blame, a person who can guarantee you have been elsewhere when a crime was committed.“

The CPS adds:

“It is important for investigators and Prosecutors to scrutinise potential alibi evidence properly and, where appropriate, to take steps to fully investigate such evidence and to interview any witnesses put forward by the Defence.”

So it couldn’t be clearer that you cannot simple assume, speculate or imagine that someone has an alibi or that he/she might have had an alibi. It needs to be fully backed up with evidence. We can’t simply say that someone might have had an alibi because they were elsewhere at some point when it would have been easily possible for them to have travelled to the location by the required time as was the case with Druitt.

The ‘likeliness’ of Druitt making the decision travel to London is down to individual opinion and someone might think that this would be less likely but it definitely cannot exonerate him, therefore by definition it isn’t an alibi.

…..

You then say that: “Druitt went on that trip with companions.”

There is absolutely no evidence for this but if you think that there is I’ll be glad to hear it. He had companions/friends in Dorset (and family of course) but we have nothing to suggest that he travelled to Dorset with him. In fact it’s far more likely that his teammates were local men that Druitt knew via his own Dorset connection.

……

Then you make this rather surprising claim: “…nor for speculation that he went to Dorset to provide himself with an alibi.”

Im unaware of anyone speculating anything like this. The only thing that I’ve speculated about in regard to this is that it’s possible that Druitt had fully intended to return all along if he’d had some kind of meeting arranged in London. Roger has pointed out that Druitt was in the habit of going to Dorset during the holiday period and so it would have been unlikely that he’d have entirely abandoned his Dorset trip just for one unavoidable appointment in London when he could easily have travelled back by any number of trains. I’m not stating this as a fact btw just as a reasonably possibility to show that we can’t just assume that he’d have had to have returned purely to kill (although that’s not impossible either.)

…..

Im afraid that the only thing that’s ‘far-fetched’ is your strange ideas about what constitutes an alibi.

If an alibi cannot be verified it isn’t an alibi. It’s nothing more than baseless speculation.

Druitt didn’t have an alibi and I can’t help noticing that you’ve ignored my request to provide evidence of this alleged alibi.

[ohrocky]

Perhaps someone who understands cricket can tell me how well or poorly Druitt played at that match.

Tbh, impossible to tell from that incomplete scorecard. He only scored 2 but then so did two of his teamates and two others got ducks (nothing) and it can't be that those low scores were because they had all been out murdering the night before. MJD took three wickets but was he a quick bowler which would involve a lot of physical exertion or a spinner walking in a couple of paces?

IMO you cannot attribute an individual's performance in a cricket match to what they were doing the night before. I have seen some truly shocking sights turn up for cricket matches and many of them have performed well enough despite the exertions and excesses of the previous evening.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my reply below.

So it couldn’t be clearer that you cannot simple assume, speculate or imagine that someone has an alibi or that he/she might have had an alibi. It needs to be fully backed up with evidence. We can’t simply say that someone might have had an alibi because they were elsewhere at some point when it would have been easily possible for them to have travelled to the location by the required time as was the case with Druitt.


The question you need to answer is this: if an alibi has to be cast iron or unshakeable in order for it to be called an alibi at all, then how can it be possible for someone to be said to have a weak alibi?



The only thing that I’ve speculated about in regard to this is that it’s possible that Druitt had fully intended to return all along if he’d had some kind of meeting arranged in London.


All your speculation about Druitt having an appointment in London or pretending that he had one is far-fetched.

No-one goes on a three-day trip to the coast and then commutes between London and the coast because of an appointment.



Your argument that Druitt had no alibi for the first murder suggests to me that you deny also that Walter Sickert had an alibi for the next murder in the series, even though there is evidence that he was on holiday in France two days before it and still on holiday in France later that month.

To the best of my knowledge, the only person who denies Sickert an alibi is Patricia Cornwell, but if you enjoy being in her company then that is your prerogative.

I suppose the fact that his travelling companions might have provided him with an unshakeable alibi would not count with you, either, any more than the fact that Druitt of necessity spent his trip with companions of his own.

I suppose that the evidence that Druitt was playing cricket on the late morning of the day of that same murder would not cause you to reconsider your position either.

The idea that after Druitt had spent a sleepless night stalking prostitutes, and murdered and mutilated one, taken her uterus and kidney back to his school lodgings, without anyone noticing anything unusual about him, and then hours later produced a sterling performance on the cricket field, might seem farfetched to almost anyone.

But I suppose you would argue that Druitt could have done it, there is no proof he did not, and he had no alibi.

On the day of Chapman's murder, he played cricket in Blackheath, and the day after the murders of Stride and Eddowes, he was in the West Country defending a client in a court case.^[96] While writers Cullen and Andrew Spallek argue that Druitt had the time and opportunity to travel by train between London and his cricket and legal engagements, or use his city chambers as a base from which to commit the murders,^[28][97] others dismiss that as "improbable".^[98]

(Wikipedia)


The only way Druitt could have committed those two murders is if he had had appointments with both victims.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please see my reply below.

The question you need to answer is this: if an alibi has to be cast iron or unshakeable in order for it to be called an alibi at all, then how can it be possible for someone to be said to have a weak alibi?

I’d say that a ‘weak alibi’ is an alibi that is provided which has flaws or issues. Perhaps someone provides a witness saying that he or she was elsewhere but that witness was a close friend or relative. If you take a weak or unproven alibi to court it will get torn to shreds. If Druitt had been taken to court the ‘alibi’ that you suggest would have been dismissed instantly because he could easily have returned by train. The fact is that he could very, very easily have returned with more than ample time to have killed Nichols and that’s all that we need to know.



All your speculation about Druitt having an appointment in London or pretending that he had one is far-fetched.

Yes, because people just don’t have appointments do they. I wish I’d have thought of that. Doh!



No-one goes on a three-day trip to the coast and then commutes between London and the coast because of an appointment.

You really do keep piling unwarranted assumption upon unwarranted assumption don’t you PI. Please provide us all with the evidence that Druitt went on a three day trip. Let’s us know how you discovered that it was only a three day trip please. Or….and I’ll do you a favour her and save you a bit of time….don’t bother, because there’s no reason to believe that. You made it up and I tend to think that you won’t bother responding to this part of the post.



Your argument that Druitt had no alibi for the first murder suggests to me that you deny also that Walter Sickert had an alibi for the next murder in the series, even though there is evidence that he was on holiday in France two days before it and still on holiday in France later that month.

To the best of my knowledge, the only person who denies Sickert an alibi is Patricia Cornwell, but if you enjoy being in her company then that is your prerogative.

You forgot your pal Fishy. He doesn’t accept the Sickert alibi but he accepts the invented Druitt alibi so…what can you do eh?

Sickert is irrelevant of course. Druitt had no alibi and anyone that says that he had is not telling the truth. The evidence was provided on the thread on JTRForums and can be attested to by any number of researchers, none of whom can be labelled as Druittists (Steve Blomer, Roger Palmer, Chris Phillips, Gary Barnett etc) If you have discovered something that they all missed then could you please provide it PI? Until then, you really should stop digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole.


I suppose the fact that his travelling companions might have provided him with an unshakeable alibi would not count with you, either, any more than the fact that Druitt of necessity spent his trip with companions of his own.

What travelling companions? Have you also found evidence that Druitt travelled from London to Dorset with someone else? Please share it.


I suppose that the evidence that Druitt was playing cricket on the late morning of the day of that same murder would not cause you to reconsider your position either.


If it was possible to have travelled from one to the other in sufficient time, and it easily was, then the point is moot. If facts won’t alter your position PI why should I change mine on your belief that you can read minds?


The idea that after Druitt had spent a sleepless night stalking prostitutes, and murdered and mutilated one, taken her uterus and kidney back to his school lodgings, without anyone noticing anything unusual about him,


How do you know that Druitt didn’t have lodgings elsewhere? How do you know where he stored body parts? He would you know if he could or couldn’t return unseen? How do you know how long he spent looking for a prostitute? Can I borrow your crystal ball please?


and then hours later produced a sterling performance on the cricket field, might seem farfetched to almost anyone.


Was it a sterling performance? Evidence? Just a little bit? There’s nothing far-fetched about any of this. If Druitt was guilty (and I’m not saying that he was) then he was a serial killer and serial killers aren’t exactly known for their reasonable behaviour yet you keep imposing your ‘he wouldn’t have done this’ thinking. None of us know what a serial killer would have thought or done and to keep suggesting that you do is an indication of desperation I’m afraid. You should stick to what we know….like Druitt having no alibi.


But I suppose you would argue that Druitt could have done it, there is no proof he did not, and he had no alibi.

You’re right, he did have no alibi.


On the day of Chapman's murder, he played cricket in Blackheath, and the day after the murders of Stride and Eddowes, he was in the West Country defending a client in a court case.^[96] While writers Cullen and Andrew Spallek argue that Druitt had the time and opportunity to travel by train between London and his cricket and legal engagements, or use his city chambers as a base from which to commit the murders,^[28][97] others dismiss that as "improbable".^[98]

(Wikipedia)

Exactly, he had ample opportunity to get around. ‘Others’ dismiss it as improbable. So what? Opinions differ, I have no issue with differing opinions as long as they aren’t biased. He had no alibi. I’m 100% right on this issue and you are 100% wrong. There are no half measures on this very specific point. Druitt has no alibi. Fact.

I’m trying to do you a favour on this subject PI. You are simply digging a hole because you are determined to try and ‘prove’ what can’t be proved. Druitt doesn’t have an alibi for any of the murders and the ‘well he might have had an alibi that we don’t know about’ argument doesn’t cut the mustard for anyone. There’s nothing wrong with believing Druitt to be a weak suspect PI. We all have different opinions and interpretations but there’s no point in getting carried away in trying establish something that’s none existent. Pretty much every suspect has no alibi. Why the effort to create one that doesn’t exist as far as any of us know?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Your # 387 achieves the remarkable feat of being both insulting and evasive in the same post.

You accuse me of making up a three-day trip by Druitt to Dorset, you deny that he necessarily spent all three days in Dorset, and then you claim that I am wrong because he could have been in Dorset for more than three days!

I suppose I should have written '≥ 3' instead of 'three', so as not to set you off.

Sickert is not, as you claim, 'irrelevant'.

If you deny Druitt an alibi, then you have to deny Sickert an alibi, and that puts you in the same camp as Patricia Cornwell and, possibly - because, unlike Cornwell, he may have changed his mind by now - Fishy, who it seems from your remarks is not your friend.

That's too bad.

It is also too bad that you took my remark about Sickert's 'travelling companions [who] might have provided him with an unshakeable alibi' to be about Druitt, but then you obviously do not wish to deal with the issue of Sickert's alibi, which is so inconvenient.

You talk about my allegedly 'digging a hole' for myself, but that is just what you have done for yourself, when you write, 'Pretty much every suspect has no alibi.'

That is not true!

Pretty much every suspect can have an alibi when he is asked to produce one.

When I challenged you to produce evidence of a single Polish Jew in the East End of London having attacked a Gentile woman, you responded - and I'm quoting you from memory but if necessary I will find the post and quote it exactly - 'That's easy. John Pizer.'

When I then pointed out that there is no evidence whatsoever that John Pizer ever assaulted a Gentile woman and that the only court record we have of John Pizer having been involved in an assault records that one of the women who accused him assaulted him, you just shut up.

You never wrote another word on the subject.

THAT is an example of digging a hole for yourself.

Pizer produced alibis for the first two murders.

We know of those alibis because he was challenged to produce them.

If that had not happened, and there had been insufficient evidence to charge him, you would likely be writing now that he had no alibis - and I suppose one of the eminent people to whom you refer would be doing likewise and perhaps suggesting that he was Anderson's suspect and was identified at the Seaside Home.

There is no reason to suppose that the outcome would have been any different had Druitt, Lechmere, Sickert, or Kosminski been challenged to produce alibis.

The fact that we do not know exactly what alibis they had does not mean that they 'had no alibi'.

[Lewis C]

You argue that the omission by Anderson and Swanson of any mention of Kosminski's failure to produce an alibi is no more significant than their omission of any mention of his having had an alibi.

They were claiming that a certain Polish Jew was the Whitechapel Murderer.

If he was investigated and questioned, then he must have been asked what his whereabouts were on the nights of the murders.

Either he was able to produce an alibi or he was not.

If he was not able to produce an alibi then one can reasonably expect Anderson or Swanson to have mentioned it.

The fact that neither of them did so supports my contention that there never was any case against Kosminski or the 'Polish Jew'.

If Kosminski had been able to produce an alibi, Anderson would not have thought that he was JtR, at least not at the time. Admittedly, 20 years later, his memory seemed to not be completely reliable.

I disagree with that last sentence, because it could be that there never was any case against Kosminski or the 'Polish Jew' even if he didn't have an alibi. To have a case against someone requires more than just that they don't have an alibi.

[Fiver]

To have a case against someone requires more than just that they don't have an alibi.

That is a key point. I don't think Druitt was the Ripper, but there probably were no more killings after he committed suicide.

In Kosminski's case, there's a good chance his mental condition kept him from being coherent enough to provide an alibi even if he had one.

Police at the time did check alibis, for example John Pizer. But even Druitt wasn't suspected until after he was dead. He might have had an alibi, but the witnesses are dead and the records are lost.

Contrary to PI's claims, Druitt's cricket playing does not give him a "cast-iron alibi". But he if he had been investigated at the time, he might have had one. For example, it's unlikely Druitt would have gone to London on the day before his September 8th game against the Brothers Christopherson on the Rectory Field at Blackheath. If he had done so, he probably would have taken the train home well before Chapman was killed. If asked at the time, he might have been able to produce evidence and/or witnesses that prove he could not have killed Chapman.

Or maybe he had no alibi. But as you point out, a lack of alibi does not prove guilt, it merely means they cannot be eliminated as a suspect.