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

[Chris]

Greatly appreciated, but long though my list of faults may be, an inability to explain or articulate myself clearly using appropriate terminology has never been one of them, and I wasn't drinking at the time either. I would, perhaps, have specified "tight" in terms of plausibility, but even so, none of my learned fellow podcasters seemed to think my observation was significantly awry.

What exactly were you describing as "very tight", if it wasn't the timing?

[Ben]

The timing as it impacts on the plausibility of Druitt murdering Chapman, Chris. For reasons outlined, we wouldn't be having this conversation if the cricket match took place two days after the murder.

[aspallek]

Well, Ben, we are getting close to some sort of agreement but we have a few dents to "hammer out" yet.

First of all, I obviously meant Sept 8 in my earlier post, not 9, which just goes to show how easily mis-statements can enter the record.

As to the cricket performance on Sept 8, let me make a few observations. We agree that there is not a logistical problem. The issue is whether Druitt would be able to compete or would choose to compete after being out all night. Several things here as I try to speak from personal experience. I will admit that I have never played a game of cricket competitively but I have watched it and I have "fooled around" with it. It strikes me as being somewhat less physically demanding than baseball or softball, which I have a great deal of experience playing. While at age 48 I have difficultly playing any sport competitively I fervently believe that at age 31 (Druitt's age) I could have competently performed in a game of softball after being out all night. I might not perform well but I could perform. I direct your attention to the scorecard of the Sept. 8 cricket match and you will see that Druitt in fact did not perform at all well. As to whether or not he would choose to play, I don't think he had much choice. He had an obligation to his club and he would have fulfilled that obligation, not to mention that sitting it out could arouse suspicion.

Regarding movements that are likely or unlikely I think we just completely disagree. But what I hope to persuade you of it that there is a middle ground where movements are merely possible and plausible but neither likely nor unlikely. For example, Druitt is playing cricket in Dorset on August 11 and then again on Sept 1. Does that make it unlikely that he made the three hour rail journey back to London and returned to Dorset in between those dates? I see nothing "unlikely" about that whatsoever. And when it is remembered that Druitt had a law practice in London and the courts were in session in August, it becomes all the more plausible. Does this make it "likely?" No. But neither is it at all "unlikely."

You do seem to misunderstand my position on Druitt, however. I hold that he is more that a merely "interesting" suspect. I think he is a "likely" suspect but I have to define what I mean by "likely" because that is a relative term.

I believe that the chances of Druitt being Jack the Ripper are far less than 50% because I believe the far most likely scenario is that JtR was a completely unknown individual. However, I believe Druitt is the "most likely" of all the named suspects to be JtR. I say this, however, with the caveat that my preoccupation with Druitt in recent years has precluded me from being well-read on the more recent suspects to emerge.

[Chris]

The timing as it impacts on the plausibility of Druitt murdering Chapman, Chris. For reasons outlined, we wouldn't be having this conversation if the cricket match took place two days after the murder.

But in English the adjective "tight" has a perfectly simple and straightforward meaning in relation to timing. If you say timing is "very tight", it means there is very little time to spare.

On the current railway timetable, there would be more than 5 hours to spare. In fact, Druitt could clearly have walked all the way home without using public transport at all, and he would still have had a couple of hours to spare.

What you seem to be saying (though I admit I find it difficult to make sense of it) is that psychologically speaking you find it difficult to believe Druitt would have played cricket 6 hours after killing Chapman. That may or may not be true, but it is nothing to do with the timing being "tight" or otherwise.

[Ben]

If you say timing is "very tight", it means there is very little time to spare.

Indeed, little time to spare in the context of Druitt killing Chapman and playing cricket shortly afterwards being considered a plausible theory; not "tight" in the sense that the timing made it impossibe.

On the current railway timetable, there would be more than 5 hours to spare

How do we know how much of that was "spare"?

When we take into account the time required to murder, eviscerate, escape, conceal any trophies, compose onesself (presumably), walk a not inconsiderable distance, wait for train, return home on the train, walk to his home from the station, divest himself of any bloodstained garments, eat, stash his organs, get into his cricket whites, go to cricket and so forth and so on, that's a significant amount of "spare" time being consumed. So no, I wouldn't agree that he have five hours "to spare".

So no, my views on the implausibility of Druitt killing Chapman do not primarily concern "psychology".

Regards,
Ben

[Bailey]

Not to be all argumentative, and with all due respect to Ben, but need Monty have been out prowling around all night? Travel time aside, I'm not sure it necessarily would have taken that long to find a victim, and the murder itself would have most likely been over fairly quickly.

As for great exertion - a brief grapple with a weak, unwell and possibly drunk woman, followed by a few minutes of hacking and chopping? Putting aside the fear factor, from that much exertion, the heart rate would be back to level in no time. Then, if he was really tired from being up browsing, a nap on the train on the way home...

Not being pro-Druitt here (nor anti for that matter), but it struck me during the podcast and again when reading Ben's comment, that perhaps the up all night and tired thing is possibly not much of a factor at all.

However, I'm currently in one of my insomnia mornings, running on less than five hours sleep, about to hit the gym, with a full day of work and a staff party after - let's see how well I get on today, and maybe I'll disagree with myself tomorrow...

Cheers,
B.

Edit: It seems that to some degree Ben has inadvertantly addressed my point while I was typing...

[Ben]

Hi Andy,

While at age 48 I have difficultly playing any sport competitively I fervently believe that at age 31 (Druitt's age) I could have competently performed in a game of softball after being out all night

I guess it depends what you were doing the previous night. If you were up late watching a good film and then appeared on the cricket pitch the next day, that's a little less unlikely, but if you'd been physically active for pretty much the entirety of the night, searching for victims, and then dispatching one in the most brutal fashion before mutilating the corpse, and then effecting a successful escape (thence to walk to Cannon Street, on top of all the walking you've already been doing), then you're left with a very strong disincentive to go cricketting the next day.

Given the number of reserves in an average village or town cricket club match, one man's absence is very unlikely to present an obstacle to the completion of the match, nor would it have been a loyalty issue. I can speak from personal experience as both my brothers play for similar cricket clubs. As for arounsing suspicion, I'm strongly disinclined to think so as few people would infer a paralell between an absent cricketer and a series of murders of prostitutes in Spitalfields.

For example, Druitt is playing cricket in Dorset on August 11 and then again on Sept 1. Does that make it unlikely that he made the three hour rail journey back to London and returned to Dorset in between those dates?

It becomes unlikely by virue of its contrast with the more parsimonious and workable explanation; that he can only be placed in the historical record (whenevr he crops up on it, which was 3rd, 4th, 10th, 11th August and 1st September) in Dorset because that was where he was staying for that period of time, which neatly dovetails with the summer holiday period of a schoolmaster of an English public school. The "popping back and forth" hypothesis is less likely by contrast, in my view. You highlight the fact that the law courts were in session in August, but he can only be placed in Dorset in August. Also problematic for me is the fact that the "popping back" theory is predicated upon the exclusion of Tabram.

I think he is a "likely" suspect but I have to define what I mean by "likely" because that is a relative term. However, I believe Druitt is the "most likely" of all the named suspects to be JtR. I say this

Thanks for clarifying. In which case, I'd have to disagree pretty strongly on both counts.

Best regards,
Ben

[Chris]

Indeed, little time to spare in the context of Druitt killing Chapman and playing cricket shortly afterwards being considered a plausible theory; not "tight" in the sense that the timing made it impossibe.

So you are really claiming that there was "little time to spare", in some sense, not simply that you don't believe, psychologically, Druitt would have played cricket as soon as 6 hours after committing a murder?

You are claiming that there was "little time to spare" in the sense that 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]

Hi Bailey,

Not to be all argumentative, and with all due respect to Ben, but need Monty have been out prowling around all night?

For many serial killers, victim selection is often a cautious affair. It wouldn't be uncommon for many knocks and rejections and "near misses" before a suitable victim is located and dispatched, and when one serial killer (I forget which) was asked how often he want on the prowl in search of victims to kill), he responded that he did so all the time, but was not always successful.

The later time of death, in contrast to the other victims, may also hint at an initial lack of success on the part of the killer. The ripper fear-frenzy occasioned by the Leather Apron factor (which was almost at its peak around this time) may have led to many rejections on the part of the prostitutes, which in turn would have resulted in more "walking around" in search of a more willing victim.

As for physical exertions, it was observed by Dr. Bond that the killer would have been possessed of great physical strength, a view borne out by the nature of the mutilations to Kelly's corpse. As we learn from the Chapman crime scene, she suffered rather more than hacking and chopping. I doubt very much that any killer interested in self-preservation would allow himself to fall asleep on the train after mutilating a corpse and stashing away freshly extracted human viscera.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

You are claiming that there was "little time to spare" in the sense that 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?

Yep, Chris, that's a good deal nearer the mark.

Again, not impossible, just not very plausible.

[Chris]

Again, not impossible, just not very plausible.

But "not very plausible" because the amount of time Druitt would have had to spare would have been so short - not because of the psychological factor or because of other considerations that make Druitt an unlikely suspect?

[Ben]

Not very plausible for a whole host of reasons, to be honest, Chris - those ones included. As I mentioned on the podcast, none of this gives him an abili, and I expressed the (possibly) forlorn hope that one may be uncovered in the fullness of time.

[aspallek]

Uhm..again, we must pay attention not merely to the fact that Druitt played cricket on Sept 8 but also how well or poorly he played. Did you even look at that? Druitt's performance is consistent with one who had been out all night. Oh, and in my younger days I would sometimes spend the night partying and drinking and then play softball -- or work at a physically demanding job (or both!) -- the next day. Though I confess that I was a bit younger than 31 then.

You keep mentioning Druitt's "popping back and forth" between London and Dorset as being unlikely. In fact, it would require only one such round trip in a three week period. I simply fail to see where this is unlikely merely because we have no record of it. Particularly so when we consider Druitt's law practice.

And your argument regarding Salisbury is to me similarly insipid. If that is Montague who appeared on Aug 22 in Salisbury, and I stress that there is really no reason to believe it is, I see no particular unlikelihood to his making the trip from London to Salisbury, particularly if the Blackheath club was on hiatus. Your reasoning seems to be that traveling a distance of 25 miles (Bournemouth to Salisbury) to play a game is completely likely but traveling an additional 70 miles (London to Salisbury = 95 miles), an additional two hours at most on a train to a destination at which he has a relative living, to play a game is completely unlikely. I just don't see the logic here.

Regarding Tabram, I've made that the caveat all along. The prevailing opinion, however, remains that she is probably not a Ripper victim.

[Ben]

Hi Andy,

Uhm..again, we must pay attention not merely to the fact that Druitt played cricket on Sept 8 but also how well or poorly he played. Did you even look at that?

Well, he couldn't realistically have expected anything better if he'd been out seeking prostitutes into the small hours, killing them, making good his escape etc etc. Which leads me to conclude that he was unlikely to have had the mental or physical wherewithal to bother with cricket, especially if it wasn't part of his paid work routine. Players can deliver a poor performace without having engaged in butchery the night before, even established professional players, which Druitt wasn't.

I simply fail to see where this is unlikely merely because we have no record of it.

We have no record of him being anywhere near London for the whole of August. We only have him recorded as being in Dorset at the time, and the same is true of 1st September. It doesn't prove anything, and of course we could argue that it just accidentally happened that way, and it was just an odd quirk of coincidence that the only records of his presence for that month just happened to originate from Dorset and not London where he lived, but I don't consider that likely. If he was engaged in the law courts in August when you say they were active, why is it that no records of this have survived, but the odd cricket match have survived the historical records to expose his whereabouts in Dorset?

Your reasoning seems to be that traveling a distance of 25 miles (Bournemouth to Salisbury) to play a game is completely likely but traveling an additional 70 miles (London to Salisbury = 95 miles), an additional two hours at most on a train to a destination at which he has a relative living

When I used to holiday in rural Devon, we'd often make the trip to Torquay which was also about 20 or so miles away from where we were staying because there was more to do there. That's not weird at all. In fact, limited travel of that nature is precisely what people do get up to on their summer break. That didn't mean I frequently went all the way back home on several occasions.

The prevailing opinion, however, remains that she is probably not a Ripper victim.

No, it's not the prevailing opinion.

The majority of contemporary police officials were inclined to include, rather than exclude her (Anderson, Abberline, Reid etc), and the same is true of the majority criminologists who have studied the case. As for "ripperologists" I've seen no evidence that Tabram-excluders are in the majority, far from it. I'm personally very wary of any theory that is too strongly dependent on the exclusion (or inclusion) of certain victims.

Regards,
Ben

[Chris]

But "not very plausible" because the amount of time Druitt would have had to spare would have been so short - not because of the psychological factor or because of other considerations that make Druitt an unlikely suspect?

But I'm asking specifically about what you mean when you say the timing was "very tight". 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?

You are not talking about the psychology of playing cricket so soon after committing a murder, or the fact that he would have been tired after being up all night?