Ep. 38- Killers on the Loose: Eliminating the Suspects

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I absolutely cannot believe that you can be so obsessively entrenched in your stalkerish battle to "prove me wrong"."

Well, Ben, calling your opponent a wilful liar although you are patently wrong produces such things.

Interestingly, you bring up this:

"You then did my work for me and proved yourself wrong with the quote you provided: "British gas companies responded to the threat from electric lighting by developing a number of brighter gas lamps, such as Sugg's lamp of 80 c.p., Siemen's regenerative gas lamp of 130 to 400 c.p., and Bray's lamp of 500 c.p. While this helped recapture the streets, in London a test using these lamps to replace the rejected electric lighting systems was also in turn rejected, because it cost 3-4 times more, despite the much brighter light obtained [7, X, pp. 380, 507]. The well-lit London of 1881-82 became dark again, such that one traveller commented in 1884 "I know nothing more dismal than to be transplanted from the brilliantly illuminated avenues of New York to the dull and dark streets of London"

This, Ben, is sooo typical of you. You thanked me in an ironic fashion when I published that text, thinking me an idiot for doing so. But my purpose lies less in thrashing your back than in revealing as much of the truth as I can possibly do, and since the text emphatically belonged to the discussion, I shared it. Your reaction was to gloat in it, and you should have refrained from that - for the discussion was about whether there were bright gas lamps about in 1888, and there was. You denied it out of ignorance, and I proved you wrong, once again not for the pleasure of seing you loose an argument (though at that time, I did not mind that part very much) but for the benefit of the boards and the collected knowledge.

Now, please explain once again to me how your sentences ”Powerful lamps did not exist until 1891 with the distribution of the gas mantle, which was more powerful. No naked open flame can be described as "powerful". Some many be more powerful than others, but none of them can be considered powerful in isolation. There were not powerful lamps available.”
...can tie in with your later assertion ”No, with respect Fish, I didn't say that.
I said they weren't "around" in 1888, i.e. not in use for street lighting.”

You did no such thing – you were, as anybody can see, totally ignorant of it, thinking that powerful gas lamps were not available in 1888, and you know what, Ben? It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

Big Bad Ben, eh? I´d say that dead scared little Bennie applies better – your disability to admit when you are wrong is more typical of a toddler in the bedwetting stages that of a man who will take the consequences of his mistakes. And if I am not mistaken, you are trying to do something along the same lines to Chris and Andy right now. Tight, huh? I know what´s tight here Ben, but you can´t see it for physical reasons.

Fisherman

[Ben]

Yes, Ben, that is exactly what your logic dictates if you are consistent. You extrapolate from one week to a month. So why not extrapolate to six years?

Because you need examine the time frame in relation to the number of times Druitt can be pinpointed to a specific location. We have done so and noted that he appears five, porssibly six times on the historical record within the space of a month. If you consider that evidence in terms of a ratio - the length of time against the number of references - that isn't bad material to work with, especially in a 120 year old case. Yet none of those happened to coincide with him staying in London where he lived, but rather all happened in Dorset Street.

I'm confident of the simplest explanation to that connundrum, but I'll cheerfully agree to disagree.

And to use your argument: are we certain that Abberline really remained in close communication with those in SY after he left the force as he claimed?

Yes. We know he was in communication with Macnaghten from his 1903 Pall Mall Gazzette article, and we learn from Abberline's own words that he was appraised of all the information pertaining to the case. If he claimed to know "all about" I see little reason to doubt him. I don't think Abberline did pick an inexplicably unlikely suspect. I'm not a big Klosowski fan by any means, but he's one of the better police suspect to my mind.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

So here they are again, the deploring exchanges over the coat and the gas lamp, in excerpts (I realize that you will say that I have chosen all the wrong excepts to make you look bad, but there is really not the space to copy and paste it all here. Anyways, those who need to check can easily do so – it is all on the boards).

You really are a zealot, Fisherman.

I absolutely cannot believe that you can be so obsessively entrenched in your stalkerish battle to "prove me wrong". For someone who gets so twitchy about being accused of having vendettas against certain posters, you really aren't helping your cause. The accepted dictionary definition of a cutaway refers to a garment with tails. Remove the tails, and it isn't a cutaway in the coventional sense and certainly wouldn't be referred to a such by anyone noticing a tail-less garment at a distance. You certainly didn't demonstrate any fashion in tailless cutaways. When you quote me as having said:

A morning coat is a single-breasted coat, the front parts usually meeting at one button in the middle, and curving away into a pair of tails behind

That is because it derives from an actual dictionary definition, but then of course that was quickly discarded because it was inconvenient to your theory. Then you wonder why I get a little a angry when you keep regurgitating something that I couldn't possibly agree with until I "give in". It's an insipid, bullying and desperate tactic, and I'm not surprised that I responded with hostility. If you'd spoken to me in that manner to my face, I would have injured you.

which was of course plain silly – a cutaway is, as I stated in the beginning, given away NOT by any tails, but by the cutaway portions of cloth on the front.

...Which runs contrary to the definition of a cutaway, which states that the tails are a distrinctive characteristic of the garment. But by all means keep claiming that you've "proven me wrong" like it's your crowning goal in life, despite your not having done anything of the sort, keep ruining threads by introducing earlier threads that you're paranoid you failed to get the last word in at the time, and keep wondering why people get irritated.

But you had no problems championing the opinion that the man Marshall saw on the same East end streets would have worn a jacket with tails on it...?

That's because you could easily wear hand me-down cutaways and convey a shabby genteel appearance. Just think of Fagin and the Artful Dodger in Oliver! They wore shabby morning coats with tails. This isn't remotely comparable to the recorded physical particulars of Mr. Astrakhan. Again, you say you're rubbing salt in my wounds - besdies making me giggle mirthlessly, this goes back to the sort of "I've won the argument" gloating that myself and others have noticed. It isn't going to wash, because I disagree with you. Really "wounded", Fish. In agony actually. Uh huh.

I took your advice and added the word ”Bray lamp” to my terminology, providing you with a clip from Youtube that showed you that there WERE gas lamps around in 1888, providing great light

Haha.

Fisherman, if you think I was the only one to appreciate the sheer absurdity of the suggestion that your youtube example provided "great light", you're as deluded as you'll ever be. The "great light" you were referring to couldn't even illuminate the room. All you could see was a small light with darkness all around it, and at its largest "flicker" you could see the outline a room. Good luck sticking that on a pole on a rainy night in Victorian London.

You then did my work for me and proved yourself wrong with the quote you provided: "British gas companies responded to the threat from electric lighting by developing a number of brighter gas lamps, such as Sugg's lamp of 80 c.p., Siemen's regenerative gas lamp of 130 to 400 c.p., and Bray's lamp of 500 c.p. While this helped recapture the streets, in London a test using these lamps to replace the rejected electric lighting systems was also in turn rejected, because it cost 3-4 times more, despite the much brighter light obtained [7, X, pp. 380, 507]. The well-lit London of 1881-82 became dark again, such that one traveller commented in 1884 "I know nothing more dismal than to be transplanted from the brilliantly illuminated avenues of New York to the dull and dark streets of London"

Street lamps were not bright in 1888, as your sources informed us, but you didn't have the good grace of the humility to acknowledge this. You were horn-locked, far too determined to try to get one over on Big Bad Ben, and it resulting in your overlooked the fact that bright gas lamps were not on the streets of London in 1888.

And there ends THAT particular saga – one more time showing the deplorable antics you resort to when you realize that the game is up.

These statement are to painfully embarrassing to behond, Fisherman. Really they are. This is what I mean about injuring your credibility so badly all the time "Haha, I've won the argument because I say so and I demand that you acknowledge it". No, Fisherman, I don't get angry because I "realize the game is up". I get angry because of your antagonistic style, as exhibited most beautifully here.

And for a final hilarious illustration of your paranoia:

Now, Ben, there are two ways open to you on the issue of who was right and who was wrong on the topics....admit that I actually WAS right in both cases.

Well no because, shattering to your underserved ego this may be, I thought I was right and you wer wrong. The fact that you've reintroduced two earlier acrimonious debates on a thread addressing a recent podcast is frankly more damning evidence in support of my "Fisherman has an ego, and is obsessed with people acknowledging that he is proven right when he isn't so follows certain people around" theory.

And now here we are again. Another tiresome Ben versus Fisherman war, and I forsee many a long irrelevent anger-filled post to come.

Shame, and all because of one little word.

[Fisherman]

What I would do to understand the riddle of cricket...! Alas, it is something we Swedes will never do.
I actually saw a game of cricket once, in Scotland; Spean Bridge to be exact. Afterwards, me and my girlfriend had a turkey dinner at the local hotel.
I never understood either of the two, the cricket or the turkey. One of them was stuffed, but I´m damned if I can remember which.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

I really enjoyed listening to the podcast. You all sound lot less scarey than you sometimes do in print. That's a compliment, by the way.
Druitt starting a cricket match at 11.30? That's a bit more doubtful. Was his team batting or fielding first, or don't we know? Unlike football, you can manage quite well until you're needed. Having played a lot of amateur cricket, it's quite usual for at least one player to be late on parade. If you're batting first, he might not have been needed for an hour or two. If you're fielding first, a 12th man will usually be found to hang around the outfield. There is no guarantee Druitt was there from the start, even tho his name appeared on the scorecard.
Not that I believe Druitt was JTR for a single moment.

Jez,

I agree, staring at 11.30am is indeed unsual. We only did it towards the end of the season, when the nights were drawing in. Which is roughly the time of year this game was held.

Blackheath batted first, and Druitt seems to have been promoted up the order, in at 3 or 4 is memory serves me right. Judging by the early order collapse Id say he was there from the begining. He made only 2 and, relying on memory (I saw the scorecard only last night), there seems to be a bit of a tail wag towards the end of the innings.

Anyways, Blackheaths score of just over a hundred odd, combined with Christophersons score of 90 odd, makes it a low scoring and quickly dealt with game of around 50 overs per side.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Right, Ben, since you now write:

”You did nothing of the sort on either count, and it was your annoying insistence that you were right on both instances that led to the ugliness in the first place”, I will gently walk you through what expired on the threads we are talking about. It does not belong to this specific thread, but I thought I´d save you the embarrasment of creating a ”Is Ben pathologically disinclined to realize that he can be wrong-thread”.

So here they are again, the deploring exchanges over the coat and the gas lamp, in excerpts (I realize that you will say that I have chosen all the wrong excepts to make you look bad, but there is really not the space to copy and paste it all here. Anyways, those who need to check can easily do so – it is all on the boards).

When I stated that a cutaway was a garment that got it´s name from the fact that the lower portion of cloth on both sides of the front of a jacket are cut away, leaving a rounded shape, and NOT from the garment being equipped with tails, you responded:

”A morning coat is a single-breasted coat, the front parts usually meeting at one button in the middle, and curving away into a pair of tails behind”
(Whats the compelling feature-thread, post 351)

...and followed it up with...

”No tails = no cutaway. Fact.”
(Whats the compelling feature-thread, post 351)

Thus you locked yourself in a position where you claimed that there HAD to be tails on a cutaway jacket. This was not true: anybody looking at the facts would soon realize that fashion actually prescribed the use of a tight-fitting cutaway jacket with NO tails back in 1888. But you would have none of it, which is why I stated that I would keep posting evidence until you saw sense. You retorted with the interesting phrase:

”Don't you dare threaten me, you hateful subhuman sickening disgrace.”
(Whats the compelling feature-thread, post 361)

...adding:

”Even if an expert turned up and told me that a panda costume counts as a cutaway, you still don't get to place a cutaway on the suspect because the evidence is 100% not there. Bad luck for you. Rotton beastly luck.”
(Whats the compelling feature-thread, post 361)

...and to make matters worse, you wrote:

”If a cutaway doesn't have tails, then a Victorian man observing it at a distance in darkended conditions will not refer to it as a cutaway.”
(Whats the compelling feature-thread, post 361)

...and:

”If my auntie had bollocks, she'd be my uncle, and if that coat had tails, it would be a cutaway as accepted convention defines.”

Some posts later, you wrote:

”Because if it didn't have a tail, it wouldn't be a proper cutaway.”
(Whats the compelling feature-thread, post 389)

Interestingly, this seemed to allow for the existance of an ”improper” cutaway, with no tails, showing that you were finally seeing some sense, something that was born out in a later post when you wrote:

”It could have lacked tails, Fish, I grant ye”
(Whats the compelling feature-thread, post 412)

...but you could not resist adding:

”but given that Marshall was able to specify "cutaway" in very poor lighting conditions and from a distance, my guess is that the garment must have been rather obviously a cutaway”
(Whats the compelling feature-thread, post 412)

...which was of course plain silly – a cutaway is, as I stated in the beginning, given away NOT by any tails, but by the cutaway portions of cloth on the front.

This, effectively, shows that I did exactly what I said I did – I proved you wrong on the issue. There WERE cutaway jackets with no tails in 1888, and I proved it, end of story.

To add some salt to your wounds, I might add that your initial stance on the topic – that the jacket Marshalls man wore MUST have had tails – is very interestin when one listens to your arguments about Astrakhan man: Such a toff is an obvious invention, since fancy dressed people were very uncommon in the district. But you had no problems championing the opinion that the man Marshall saw on the same East end streets would have worn a jacket with tails on it...?

Right, having settled that, let´s move on to the next issue: The gas lamp stuff. I originally stated that there would have been bright gas lamps in existance in 1888. I never said that they would have existed in Dorset Street, but I suggested that since they were about, we could not rule that possibility out.

Your answer? You wrote:

”They were not powerful. They were open flames, not the gas mantles that appeared from the 1890s onwards. It doesn't matter how great the light intensity was. Positing the existance of "powerful" gas lamps when we know there were no such thing in 1888 renders you at best forgetful and at worst a wilful liar.
(George Hutchinson – a simple question-thread, post 353)

So, there I was, painted out as a wilful liar or simply ignorant, for stating the truth. Of course, I disliked this suggestion on your behalf, and insisted that you were wrong when you said categorically that powerful gas lamps did not exist at the time.

That did not stop you, did it? You raved on:

”Powerful lamps did not exist until 1891 with the distribution of the gas mantle, which was more powerful. No naked open flame can be described as "powerful". Some many be more powerful than others, but none of them can be considered powerful in isolation.
There were not powerful lamps available.
You need to revise your terminology.”
(George Hutchinson – a simple question-thread, post 356)

I took your advice and added the word ”Bray lamp” to my terminology, providing you with a clip from Youtube that showed you that there WERE gas lamps around in 1888, providing great light. You laughed the clip off the boards, stating:

”The Bray lamp does not shine brightly.”
(George Hutchinson – a simple question-thread, post 358)

I dug up the light force of the Bray lamp, and was able to tell you that it emitted around 700-800 watts of light, and where did that get me?

You wrote:

”Again, you are either delusional or a very wreckless, blustering liar, and all because you're pathologically desperate to score points. It's been recognised by others; you leach on to certain posters like some sickly stalker, following them around everywhere they post, and then try to deny it when its picked up upon by others.
I made the point that 800 watt braybuners were not in use on the streets of London, and I was right”
(George Hutchinson – a simple question-thread, post 384)

Whoa! What happened there? Exactly: When you realized that you had been caught with your pants down, you changed the premises, now no longer claiming that there were no bright gas lamps about in 1888.

I of course pointed this out to you, saying:

What you have been doing so far, Ben, is to say that bright gas lamps did not exist back in 1888.

Your answer this time? Guess what:

”No, with respect Fish, I didn't say that.
I said they weren't "around" in 1888, i.e. not in use for street lighting.”
(George Hutchinson – a simple question-thread, post 413)

And there ends THAT particular saga – one more time showing the deplorable antics you resort to when you realize that the game is up.
This brings us back to the last words of your latest post:
”No, I'm not accusing you of obsessing over my posts, but it really doesn't aid your cause to make those sorts of statements and then wonder why people lose their rag with you.”

Suddenly you are not saying that I am obsessive with your posts, but very little time has passed since you wrote ” it can get a little predictable when you choose to target my observations specifically for disagreement irrespective of subject matter. You're quite happy to leave people alone who argue with some vehemance that Tabram isn't a ripper victim, a point you would challange naturally, but you'd happily overlook that in favour of targetting one specific point I made about Druitt and cricket”, implying the exact opposite.

Incidentally, people do not generally ”lose their rag” with me, Ben. You do, but it only rarely happens with other posters.

Now, Ben, there are two ways open to you on the issue of who was right and who was wrong on the topics of the cutaway and the gas lamp. You can keep claiming that you were right all along and that it was my ”annoying insistence” that I was right that caused the uglyness of the exchanges, or you can admit that I actually WAS right in both cases.

But then again, you just can´t stomach the latter alternative, can you?

Fisherman

[aspallek]

Ah, but my logic dictated nothing of the sort. My logic tells me that that one month is a very short time, not comparable to six years, and that considering we're dealing with a 120 year old case, the fact that he appears on the historical record five or six times within the space of a month should enable us to make a persuasive case to the effect that; based on what we know of his movements over that month, the most parsiminious assumption is that he probably remained there for the duration of that month. I'm arguing on a larger scale, but a month still isn't a long time, and five reference to someone's movements within the space of a month ain't bad at all.

Yes, Ben, that is exactly what your logic dictates if you are consistent. You extrapolate from one week to a month. So why not extrapolate to six years?

Why is one round trip in a month implausible but trips hither and yon over six years plausible? At precisely what point does travel migrate from unlikely to likely?

Ben, your argument is so subjective that is has very little value.

And to use your argument: are we certain that Abberline really remained in close communication with those in SY after he left the force as he claimed? If so, why did he pick and inexplicably unlikely suspect?

[Ben]

Hi Jez,

You casual cricketer, you!

Where I used to play, it would have been unthinkable to turn up late, irrespective of who was batting or fielding first, and we might reasonably imagine that gentlemanly Victorian standards were loftier still. It would have been essential for both teams to be assembled prior to the start of the match to ensure even numbers and no drop-outs, which usually meant an arrival on the pitch well in advance of the scheduled start time.

I had no inkling that one tiny word would cause so much outcry in Druittdom, but there ya go.

Glad you enjoyed the podcast. I feel distinctly unillustrious in comparison to many of the other speakers, but I'm grateful to Jon for having me.

All the best,
Ben

[Jez]

You all came across really well. The printed word can seem harsh at times and can make us all seem too certain of our own opinion. These podcasts, and it's the first I've listened to, show far more the real person behind the keyboard.

[Ally]

I agree Jez, I've always thought that Chris Scott sounds a right evil baby killer on the boards, but he's all nice and self-effacing on "the phone".

[Jez]

I really enjoyed listening to the podcast. You all sound lot less scarey than you sometimes do in print. That's a compliment, by the way.
Druitt starting a cricket match at 11.30? That's a bit more doubtful. Was his team batting or fielding first, or don't we know? Unlike football, you can manage quite well until you're needed. Having played a lot of amateur cricket, it's quite usual for at least one player to be late on parade. If you're batting first, he might not have been needed for an hour or two. If you're fielding first, a 12th man will usually be found to hang around the outfield. There is no guarantee Druitt was there from the start, even tho his name appeared on the scorecard.
Not that I believe Druitt was JTR for a single moment.

[Ally]

I think it's less to do with any financial aspect and more to do with prestige. Unless you are Patricia Cornwell, and already have a readership of millions, you won't be making serious coin off the Ripper case. If money were there motive, they'd do better writing a Jack the Ripper novel or screen play than attempting to solve the real thing. But when it comes to our own small community, there would be a fair amount of prestige and kudos in being the one to "find" Jack the Ripper, and for people that can be an addictive pursuit. The bare fact that it's never going to happen doesn't derail them from this endeavor, because again, I think it's the same as with any faith based action. If you believe, then almost anything can be made to fit the parameters of that belief. You can see the virgin mary on cheese bread or UFOs where there is nothing but weather balloons.

This is one of the problems when there are matters of prestige on the line. People have a vested interest in being right, and when you have something to gain from being right, it is damn hard to admit that you are wrong, which leads to blindness.

[Howard Brown]

Ally:

Did anyone catch my oh- so wise statement about arguing with suspect-ists and otherwise rational people?

I sure did...and I'm glad you brought that up. By the way, I mentioned elsewhere what a yeo-lady job that you did repeating a long statement virtually verbatim which was lost due to technical problems that occured in the show. You being the second best looking person on the show,you're also damned good at that sort of thing.

Anyway...I wonder if you feel that theorists are more likely to be "deluded" due to their personna and how they "see" a suspect...or if you're like me in that you see financial gain being the grundlagen of the theorist's work.

Perhaps a combination of both...or maybe at times a massive deceit gets foisted amongst the cadre.

Talk to me woman.

[Ally]

Did anyone catch my oh- so wise statement about arguing with suspect-ists and otherwise rational people?

Everyone, look up.

There ya go.

So anyone for a rousing Hutchinson debate?

edited to add...the look up comment made more sense when I didn't realize I'd be starting a new page. Damned cursed timing!

[Chris]

I wrote:
You mean it would have been difficult for Druitt to do all that he would have had to do between the time of the murder and the time of the cricket match?

Ben replied:
Yes.


I've posted some estimates relating to the timings on a new thread here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2041