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

[jmenges]

This is a discussion thread for Rippercast

Episode 38- Killers on the Loose: Eliminating the Suspects

Featuring the voices of Chris Scott, Howard Brown, Ally Ryder, Gareth Williams, Ben Holme and Jonathan Menges.

Available now in the Casebook Podcast section or in the iTunes Music Store, search word: Rippercast

Thanks to all who participate and all who listen!



JM

[Roy Corduroy]

Where exactly is the diary of Lewis Carroll, where the colors of ink changed on the murder days? Who is in possession of it?

[George Hutchinson]

Hmm... we have records of a lot of Lewis Carroll's possessions at Guildford Museum, where I work part-time (he died five minutes walk from where I live and is buried here) but we don't actually have much on site and I don't know if they'd give me access should the relevent diary be held in the Surrey County Archives.

PHILIP

[jmenges]

Hi Roy,

9 out of a total of 13 private journals (4 volumes have gone missing) were purchased by the British Library in 1969. I assume they still reside there.

catalogue numbers: Add 54340 - 54348
Manuscripts Room,
British Library
London

As far as Wallace's claims, he states in his book Jack the Ripper: Lighthearted Friend that Dodgson changed from his usual purple ink, to write in black on the dates of the Whitechapel murders.

Regardless, Dodgson had alibis (from wiki)

* On April 3, 1888, when Emma Elizabeth Smith was attacked in London, Carroll was in Oxford and was temporarily unable to walk due to health problems.
* From August 31 through September 30, 1888, when Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were killed, Carroll was vacationing in Eastbourne, East Sussex along with Isa Bowman, a child actress and personal friend of his. Meanwhile, Thomas Vere Bayne had severe back pain during the summer of 1888 and was barely able to move.
* On November 9, 1888, when Mary Jane Kelly was killed, both Carroll and Bayne were reportedly in Oxford.

Here is a link to an online resource concerning Carroll's diaries.

http://www.lewiscarroll.cc/diaries2.html

JM

[Roy Corduroy]

That dog won't hunt.

He gets the free alibi pass. No need for the diary and anagrams.

Thanks Jon and Phil,

Roy

[Roy Corduroy]

One more thing. This is a neat idea to have the Podcasts go through Casebook.

For anyone who hasn't tried it yet, it's free, just go to the left to Ripper Podcast and click and enjoy. And while you are listening, you can post about it on Casebook, as I did. Just click Discuss this episode. It takes you right to the discussion thread.

Thanks Jonathan and the folks at Casebook. And of course, the speakers.

Roy

[aspallek]

Hello there. Another good podcast but I would just like to make a slight correction regarding Druitt. There was nothing "tight" regarding the cricket schedule of Druitt and any of the canonical murders. There is 30 hours or so between Nichols' murder and Druitt's Sept 1 cricket match in Dorset. 30 hours to accomplish a three hour rail journey is not exactly tight. Chapman is murdered sometime around 6 am and Druitt is not on the cricket pitch in nearby Blackheath until somewhere around 10 am -- four hours to accomplish a 30 minute rail journey. Even granting time for a change of clothing this is not tight. There are no other cricket matches involving Druitt in any other canonical murder.

Tabram would present a bit of a problem, but I do not think that she was a ripper victim.

Also regarding Sickert -- Osbert Sitwell wrote about him not as a victim but relating a Ripper theory possessed by Sickert. This is significant in that Sitwell was a close friend of Cristabel Aberconway and a relative of his by the surname of Wilmot-Sitwell lived at The Osiers at the time of the murders. Sitwell also described a visit to Tuke Asylum.

[Ben]

I meant "tight" in terms of its plausibility, Andy (if it was me!).

I wanted to reinforce that important distinction between "evidence that he could" and "evidence that he did". And I would have been including Tabram.

Glad you enjoyed the show,

Ben

[Mike Covell]

Great show, with some well presented arguments and nice to see and hear everyones thoughts on those they think are more viable suspects.

[aspallek]

I meant "tight" in terms of its plausibility, Andy (if it was me!).

I wanted to reinforce that important distinction between "evidence that he could" and "evidence that he did". And I would have been including Tabram.

Glad you enjoyed the show,

Ben

OK, fair enough. However, I think "tight" in this context most naturally implies a lack of time so perhaps a different word, such as "implausible," would have been better. However, I know that in conversation one is not as able to pick one's words as carefully as in print.

Regarding plausibility, I see nothing implausible regarding Druitt's known schedule and the Nichols or Chapman murders. If you include Tabram, then yes, I concede there is a plausibility issue there.

I understand the point you are making. However, since we are not in a courtroom here we are not held to the standard of proving that a suspect was actually in the East End at the time or proving that a suspect did indeed make certain prescribed movements. The passage of 120 years renders this nearly impossible. Yes, we must be the judges of plausibility and clearly some of the claims regarding some of the more fanciful suspects are implausible. That is true.

On the whole, I think we are best leaving the more ridiculous claims to collapse under their own ridiculousness rather than trying to be the "thought police" regarding such claims. However, in cases such as Cornwell, were the appearance of scholarship is given and people are misled, there may be a responsibility on the part of those "in the know" to set the record straight.

[Ben]

Regarding plausibility, I see nothing implausible regarding Druitt's known schedule and the Nichols or Chapman murders.

Well, not to become entrenched in protracted Druitt debate, but I don't consider the prospect of Druitt dispatching an East End prostitute at 5:30 or 6 and then playing cricket at Blackheath a short few hours later to be particularly plausible, especially considering that Druitt the hypothetical ripper would have been sauntering the streets for victims for most of that night and early morning. "Distinctly unlikely" was the phrase Philip Sugden used, and I'm inclined to agree. Similarly, the fact that he can only be placed in Dorset between 3rd August and the 1st September would suggest, as perhaps the most parsimonious explanation, that he was there for the duration of that time-period which would, after all, have coincided with the school holidays.

I can't remember the context in which I used the word "tight", but I have a pretty good vocubulary, and don't think I would have used it unless I believed there were reasonably adequate grounds for thinking so. As far as East End connections go, I'd argue that it only becomes unnecessary to show strong and clear evidence of one if the suspect is good enough in isolation, and Druitt doesn't quite qualify on that score, in my view.

Regards,
Ben

[aspallek]

Very good, Ben. I'm not going to engage in a Druitt debate here either because there are more appropriate places to do so. Suffice it to say for now that there is nothing implausible at all about a murderer playing cricket hours after killing nor does being in one general location on two instances three weeks apart (Druitt actually played cricket in Dorset until Aug. 11, I believe) imply that he spent the intervening time there. Perhaps it was not you who used the word "tight" regarding Druitt's movements but someone on the podcast did.

Sugden's work is excellent but he may have made some errors, or perhaps rather mis-assumptions, regarding Druitt's movements. Since Sugden much more has been learned about Druitt.

This being said, yes Druitt is a rather implausible chap to be Jack the Ripper. Yet he is a contemporary police suspect, the preferred suspect of Melville Macnaghten. His own MP as well as his family were convinced he was the Ripper. Clearly, these people knew of his "implausible" character and yet he was a prime suspect within approximately two years of the murders (Feb. 1891 is the report of Farquharson's story). This is what makes Druitt such a compelling suspect. Whether he is guilty or not I confess I haven't the foggiest.

[Ben]

Suffice it to say for now that there is nothing implausible at all about a murderer playing cricket hours after killing nor does being in one general location on two instances three weeks apart (Druitt actually played cricket in Dorset until Aug. 11, I believe) imply that he spent the intervening time there.

Hi Andy,

The former premise becomes implausible when we consider that the killer would have spent virtually the entirety of the night and most of the early hours in pursuit of victims, and that he had then to make good his escape, dispose of any incriminating evidence, find a convenient means of conveying freshly extracted viscera on a train back home, get changed, have breakfast etc. Again, I stress that there's no known factor that militates against such an occurance being possible, but that's not the same as arguing that it is plausible or likely, and as far as I'm concerned, it isn't.

Same thing with his movements, several of them, being pinpointed only to Dorset over the time period mentioned. Yes, he could have kept popping back, just as Sickert could have kept popping back from Dieppe, but that doesn't mean either of them did or were likely to have done.

Do we know for certain that the family were "convinced" he was the ripper? The fact that he was a contemporary police suspect obliges us to take him seriously by not ruling him out and continue, as you have done, to conduct research into his background. That's entirely commendable, but that doesn't mean that any of the extant evidence increases the likilihood of his complicity in the crimes.

Cheers,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hi Andy,

I know that this has been discussed before but I think a lot of things hinge on the response of Macnaghten's superiors to his memo. Basically, he is pretty much saying I know who the Ripper is but I can't tell you because it is private information. How did that fly with those above him? Did they say, "damn I wish you could tell us but you gave your word, Victorian gentleman and all that" or did they say "we don't give a rat's behind about what you promised, who is the Ripper?" If it was the latter, then I think Macnaghten's information would have been checked out.

c.d.

[aspallek]

Folks, I'll be glad to continue this discussion on the Druitt threads if you like. It sounds like Ben and I have reached somewhat of an understanding even if we don't agree entirely on the issue of plausibility. The case against Druitt is not comparable, however, to that against Sickert. Druitt spent a week playing cricket in Dorset in early August. He appears in Dorset again for a day on Sept 1. He could have stayed in Dorset the entire time or he could have spent the intervening three weeks in London attending to his legal work, as court was most certainly in session at the time, and then returned for a day of cricket on Sept. 1. I think either scenario is quite plausible as it was only a three hour rail journey.

Where I think we now agree is that we need to watch what sort of standard of proof we are setting for ourselves. We are not trying to convict Druitt of a crime. We are stating that he was a "contemporary" (more or less) suspect for a reason and that he as of yet has no alibi or reason to be eliminated.