Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Post # 361 from you.

“As I have stated before, I believe that Druitt did have a cast iron alibi for the first murder.”

I do believe that Druitt had a cast iron alibi, but I have never claimed that he did have one.

There is a difference between believing something and knowing it.

I have stated repeatedly - which according to one of my other critics here means obsessively - that I believe that had Druitt been challenged to produce an alibi, he would have been able to produce a cast-iron alibi because he was not in Dorset alone but with many companions.

I also believe that a time may come when people stop attributing to me statements I have never made, but I am not claiming that it will ever happen.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no evidence that Druitt had an alibi. There is plenty of evidence that Sickert had an alibi.

(Fiver # 411)


There is no evidence that has been produced here that Sickert had and alibi .

(FISHY1118, # 414)


They were both on trips to the coast and with companions at the same time - Druitt on the English coast and Sickert on the French coast.

There is no evidence that either of them was in London on the date of the first murder.

You can argue about the quality of the alibis, but they both had alibis and had they been questioned, it is likely that companions of theirs would have provided cast-iron alibis.

Druitt had no alibi. If he had an alibi PI then please explain it to us. Where was he proved to have been at around 3.30-3.45 on August 31st? And I do mean proved PI because saying that he might have remained in Dorset isn’t even close to good enough.

There is nothing to prove that he wasn’t in London and it would have been easily possible for him to have got to London requiring no remarkable, difficult or unusual behaviour. Simply a man going to the railway station and getting on a train to go to the city that he lives and works in.

Would anyone else consider the use of the railways as a means of getting from A to B as science fiction?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Druitt had no alibi. If he had an alibi PI then please explain it to us. Where was he proved to have been at around 3.30-3.45 on August 31st? And I do mean proved PI because saying that he might have remained in Dorset isn’t even close to good enough.

There is nothing to prove that he wasn’t in London and it would have been easily possible for him to have got to London requiring no remarkable, difficult or unusual behaviour. Simply a man going to the railway station and getting on a train to go to the city that he lives and works in.

Would anyone else consider the use of the railways as a means of getting from A to B as science fiction?

Then by the same argument you are obliged to deny that Sickert had an alibi.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then by the same argument you are obliged to deny that Sickert had an alibi.

If we cannot prove that he was in France at the time of the murder then clearly yes. He has no alibi. But given the distance and the travel arrangements required then the chances of him coming back to England and then immediately returning to France are remote. But if they aren’t impossible then we cannot exonerate him on those grounds because he could have returned.

Druitt’s situation is considerably different. A simply train journey with no difficulties involved.

[FISHY1118]

There is general agreement among art experts that it was dated 1888, so presumably at least some of them have seen the original and seen the year 1888 on it.

The letter in question is, furthermore, one of three letters dated 1888, which place Sickert in France on 6 September, 16 September, and 21 September 1888.

An entry in the diary of Daniel Halevy mentions a visit by Sickert to his mother during the summer of 1888 - supposedly in Paris.

There is general agreement among art historians that Sickert's holiday in France in 1888 lasted from early August until late September or early October.

His painting called 'October Sun' is generally dated 1888 although sometimes dated circa 1888.

According to Michael Palin, who bought the picture, it was painted in 1888.

We cannot see the dates on the letters but that does not mean that the art historians are wrong or that they are trying to deceive us!

The experts may well agree it was dated 1888, however its still remains the original is yet to be produced so us mere mortals can judge for ourselves.

until then his still on the list imo

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then by the same argument you are obliged to deny that Sickert had an alibi.

A point that I made previously that, as far as I’m aware, you made no response to is this.

Put generally, you said that there was no evidence that Druitt had none of the issues in his childhood (violence, abuse etc) that are often found with serial killers.

At the same time, you said that just because Druitt didn’t have. Proven alibi it didn’t mean that he couldn’t have had one.


My question/point was that if you can apply your line of thinking on the lack of a provable alibi then why isn’t it equally valid to say - yes we have no proof of childhood issues but that doesn’t mean that those issues might not have occurred but we ar just not aware of them. (Even though these issues aren’t a given for any killer of course)

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If you deny that Druitt had an alibi, then you deny that Sickert had an alibi.

The case against both men is ridiculously farfetched.

You are entitled to your opinion about what is remote and what is simple.

Others may disagree.

The idea that Druitt was murdering a prostitute in Whitechapel during a visit to Dorset or that Sickert was doing the same during a holiday in France would not, I suggest, have even been taken seriously by the police, but somehow gets treated seriously by some here.

The fact that both men were with companions during their respective trips would have settled the matter.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

A point that I made previously that, as far as I’m aware, you made no response to is this.

Put generally, you said that there was no evidence that Druitt had none of the issues in his childhood (violence, abuse etc) that are often found with serial killers.

At the same time, you said that just because Druitt didn’t have. Proven alibi it didn’t mean that he couldn’t have had one.


My question/point was that if you can apply your line of thinking on the lack of a provable alibi then why isn’t it equally valid to say - yes we have no proof of childhood issues but that doesn’t mean that those issues might not have occurred but we ar just not aware of them. (Even though these issues aren’t a given for any killer of course)

I am saying that Druitt did have an alibi, that I believe it was cast-iron, but because he was never accused, it appears to be impossible to prove it.

It is quite obvious that Druitt did not come from a violent, sadistic background.

As far as I am aware, 'those issues' invariably or almost invariably do come to light.

Druitt did not come from a broken home, did not have a violent parent, did not display any signs of sadism, was not a juvenile delinquent, had no criminal record, and was a teacher and barrister who spent most of his spare time playing cricket.

He was on a cricketing tour of Dorset when the first murder occurred and was playing cricket hours after the next murder occurred.

There is no evidence even that he ever visited Whitechapel.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am saying that Druitt did have an alibi, that I believe it was cast-iron, but because he was never accused, it appears to be impossible to prove it.

Then how can you ‘believe’ it was cast iron when we have no evidence of that. I’m struggling to understand how you can make such a solid claim for something that there is no evidence for?

It is quite obvious that Druitt did not come from a violent, sadistic background.

Again, we have no evidence of Druitt’s childhood so there’s a huge blank. Look at how many victims of childhood abuse keep that terrible information to themselves for years. Many undoubtedly never mention the subject again because the memories are so traumatic. These people often go on to have what, on the surface at least, appear to be normal lives. If one such victim came forward would it be legitimate for any of us to say to them “well I’m afraid that I don’t believe you because you appear to have had a normal life and you can provide no evidence that such abuse ever occurred?”

Not every killer had a violent, sadistic background so the points is invalid on those grounds too. We can’t assume generalities.

As far as I am aware, 'those issues' invariably or almost invariably do come to light.

Do they? What do you base that opinion on? And in the case of a serial killer it could only come to light if he was identified. The ripper was never identified.

Druitt did not come from a broken home, did not have a violent parent,

True enough but are those 100% reliable prerequisites?

Druitt’s father died in 1885. His mother attempted suicide and was committed to an asylum earlier in 1888. Couldnt these have been triggering factors?

did not display any signs of sadism, was not a juvenile delinquent, had no criminal record,

And as I’ve said we have no real information about his childhood apart from his education so apart from the criminal record the rest are unknown to us.

And despite the fact that he had no history of violence, criminality or any kind of wrongdoing which might have brought him to the attention of the authorities we still have the fact that the Assistant Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police named him as the likeliest suspect. Just out of thin air.


and was a teacher and barrister who spent most of his spare time playing cricket.

Which, as evidence of innocence, is about as weak as it gets.

He was on a cricketing tour of Dorset when the first murder occurred and was playing cricket hours after the next murder occurred.

Simply false. The first murder occurred at around 3.40 am. Prove that Druitt was in Dorset at that time or that he physically couldn’t have got there or back. Until you can do that (and you can’t) then your efforts to exonerate him on these grounds are pointless and in vain.

There is no evidence even that he ever visited Whitechapel.

Could you let us know what evidence you would expect to find of an upper class barrister entering the slums of Whitechapel had he done so? It’s hardly something that he’d have broadcast I’d have thought. “I’m sorry Mr. Valentine I can’t come to dinner with you and your wife this evening as I’m planning a jaunt down to Whitechapel for a bit of fun with a prostitute.” “Ok Monty old chap. Have fun.”

On a slightly more serious note, I seem to recall Howells and Skinner saying that the route from Blackheath to the asylum where Druitt’s mother was confined went straight through Whitechapel. That Druitt was in Blackheath is proven. That he’d have payed numerous visits to his mother is not only possible but probable. Therefore he could have been in Whitechapel numerous times. So who knows - his saintly mother in torment in an asylum and those drunken prostitutes seemingly in good health. Who can say how the human mind works and what could trigger terrible consequences. Conjecture and speculation of course but there’s nothing wrong with that as long as we acknowledge that that’s what it is. And I do.

We also have solid proof that the conservative politician JG Talbot held a meeting at Kings Bench Walk in 1886 (where Druitt’s chambers were - he was called to the bar and rented chambers on 29th April 1885) to recruit men to do charitable work at Oxford House in Bethnal Green. Of course we can’t prove that Druitt volunteered but it’s hardly a far-fetched possibility.

‘Slumming’ was also a well known pastime for upper class men and none of the men who did this would have left evidence for this or want it known.

[Ms Diddles]

It is quite obvious that Druitt did not come from a violent, sadistic background.

Druitt did not come from a broken home, did not have a violent parent, did not display any signs of sadism, was not a juvenile delinquent, had no criminal record, and was a teacher and barrister who spent most of his spare time playing cricket.

Hi PI,

I suspect that growing up with a mother who suffers from mental health issues is no bed of roses (although to qualify that, I'm not sure how profound her issues were whilst Monty was growing up. I just know that ultimately she was confined to a sanitorium).

I do think there is evidence that something was going a bit awry with Druitt despite his auspicious start in life.

He won his scholarship to Cambridge (but finished with only a third class degree), got sacked from his teaching job and ultimately committed suicide.

Of course none of that makes him the Ripper, but I find it indicative of something being amiss, and interesting in it's own right.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI,

I suspect that growing up with a mother who suffers from mental health issues is no bed of roses (although to qualify that, I'm not sure how profound her issues were whilst Monty was growing up. I just know that ultimately she was confined to a sanitorium).

I do think there is evidence that something was going a bit awry with Druitt despite his auspicious start in life.

He won his scholarship to Cambridge (but finished with only a third class degree), got sacked from his teaching job and ultimately committed suicide.

Of course none of that makes him the Ripper, but I find it indicative of something being amiss, and interesting in it's own right.

I agree, but none of those events is indicative of psychopathy.

Most serial killers have not been bright enough to get even a third class Oxbridge degree.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Could you let us know what evidence you would expect to find of an upper class barrister entering the slums of Whitechapel had he done so? It’s hardly something that he’d have broadcast I’d have thought. “I’m sorry Mr. Valentine I can’t come to dinner with you and your wife this evening as I’m planning a jaunt down to Whitechapel for a bit of fun with a prostitute.” “Ok Monty old chap. Have fun.”

On a slightly more serious note, I seem to recall Howells and Skinner saying that the route from Blackheath to the asylum where Druitt’s mother was confined went straight through Whitechapel. That Druitt was in Blackheath is proven. That he’d have payed numerous visits to his mother is not only possible but probable. Therefore he could have been in Whitechapel numerous times. So who knows - his saintly mother in torment in an asylum and those drunken prostitutes seemingly in good health. Who can say how the human mind works and what could trigger terrible consequences. Conjecture and speculation of course but there’s nothing wrong with that as long as we acknowledge that that’s what it is. And I do.

We also have solid proof that the conservative politician JG Talbot held a meeting at Kings Bench Walk in 1886 (where Druitt’s chambers were - he was called to the bar and rented chambers on 29th April 1885) to recruit men to do charitable work at Oxford House in Bethnal Green. Of course we can’t prove that Druitt volunteered but it’s hardly a far-fetched possibility.

‘Slumming’ was also a well known pastime for upper class men and none of the men who did this would have left evidence for this or want it known.

I think that what it comes down to is that unless I can prove that Druitt was not the Whitechapel Murderer, in particular that he could not physically have been in Whitechapel when Nichols was murdered, then he remains a suspect.

I cannot do either of those things, but fail to see why Druitt should even be considered a suspect.

Large numbers of people may have been on holiday at that time - including Walter Sickert in France - and physically capable of being in Whitechapel instead.

Does that make them suspects?

Macnaghten wrote about private information.

Maybe if we could see it, we would laugh at it.

Druitt did not live with his family at the time of the murders, so how could Macnaghten have received convincing information from Druitt's relatives that pointed to his guilt?

Abberline dismissed the idea that Druitt could have been the Whitechapel Murderer.

Druitt was obviously tall, as fearsome fast-bowlers invariably are - far taller than the suspects reported by witnesses.

When I made this point previously, someone said that they knew of a fast bowler who was not tall.

It is always the same: every point in favour of the so-called suspect is dismissed on the ground that somewhere there is an exception that goes against him.

He had a dark moustache, unlike the suspect seen by Lawende.

I suppose if I say that he obviously was not the man seen by Schwartz, someone will retort that there's no proof that Druitt never got drunk and threw women about.

Druitt does not need to be posthumously proven innocent.

What is needed is some serious reason to suspect him - and some reason to think that he would commit a murder during a cricketing tour in Dorset.

If that was his intention, why is it that the next time he played cricket, he did so hours after the murder, at a time when his cricketing could not provide him with an alibi?

[Mark J D]

This is supposedly a Lechmere thread, but it seems to be dominated by people shrieking about Druitt, Maybrick and Sickert.

Perhaps I can bring it back on topic by posting the long awaited fourth episode in the House of Lechmere 'Evidence of Guilt' series...

https://youtu.be/tqhckimhD4s

I've had nothing to do with its content; but I do feel obliged to mention that it further reinforces my conviction that, while all serial killers are unique, Lechmere is the uniquest of the lot...

M.

[Ms Diddles]

I agree, but none of those events is indicative of psychopathy.

Most serial killers have not been bright enough to get even a third class Oxbridge degree.

Yeah, I'll concede that there's nothing to indicate psychopathy in Druitt's case, but I do feel that there's something a bit off going on beneath the surface.

I'm not sure how useful it is to categorise the relative intelligence of serial killers based on what we know.

We only have the ones who were caught as a sample.

[Ms Diddles]

This is supposedly a Lechmere thread, but it seems to be dominated by people shrieking about Druitt, Maybrick and Sickert.

Perhaps I can bring it back on topic by posting the long awaited fourth episode in the House of Lechmere 'Evidence of Guilt' series...

https://youtu.be/tqhckimhD4s

M.

Well, I'm not sure that I've engaged in any shrieking, but point taken!

Apologies for participating in the derailment!