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

[Ben]

Hi Andy,

We know Druitt was a visitor in Bournemouth in Autumn 1888 yet the Bournemouth visitor's guide has no record of it. Does that mean he wasn't there?

No, because we know from other sources that he was in Dorset that Autumn, and yet there is no evidence anywhere that Druitt spent any time in the town in which he lived in August of 1888. Personally, I find that unusual and the result of some odd quirk of coincidence that all the extant historical recordings of his movements just happened to coincide with his stay in Dorset, but that all the potential recordings of him spending time where he lived around that same time just happened to have all fallen into the "unreported or lost" catergory.

Quite odd for it to work out that way, I'd say, unless he can only be pinpointed to Dorset because that's where he was.

OK, there isn't a record of it that we know of but that doesn't make it unlikely

It only becomes less likely when set against the aforementioned "coincidence" of him only being placed in Dorset over several dates and the far more likely explanation that he was there for the duration rather than to-ing and fro-ing, but kept being "missed" by the record whenever he went to London (supposedly). You acknowledge that there's a very slim chance that Druitt killed Tabram on account of the fact that he can be placed in Dorset on consecutive weekends; the 3rd/4th and the 10th/11th, and was unlikely to have made a trek home in between. All I'm doing is arguing that case on a larger scale.

Druitt's cricket match of 8 September confirms that he was in fact in the London area on that date

Yep, which neatly corresponds with the beginning of the Michaelmas term, and I speak from experience here. It was always early September that the term started, and it surely it's a rather neat little coincidence that Druitt must have returned to London at around that time.

1st September - Still summer holidays

8th September - Term has begun, or is about to begin (the former, probably)

3. Druitt's performance on 8 Sept is consistent with a man who was out all night.

No, it isn't. It's simply consistent with a bloke who didn't play very good cricket, and you can be fresh as a daisy, have years of professional experience, and still be crap at cricket sometimes. Not turning up when he knew he was going to perform poorly would be more consistent with someone who had been out ripping prostitutes all night.

4. The absence of a killing in late October fits with Druitt's being in Bournemouth at that time.

And the totality of the dates where he can be placed in Dorset during August and September unfortunately sit most comfortably with Druittt being in Dorset at the time of the Tabram and Nichols murders.

5. Druitt's family would have known when he was in Dorset and yet they were convinced he was JtR.

Have we heard it directly from Druitt's family that they were "convinced" he was the killer?

Not only Druitt's family but their MP and the Chief Constable of Scotland Yard were convinced that Druitt was JtR.

Which is offset very heavily indeed by the fact that other senior professional policeman (not someone brought in with no investigative experience from a tea plantation) who did not believe that Druitt was the ripper, with Abberline stating in so many words that Druitt was found when he did was the only factor which could possibly be considered of incriminating value.

All of them together begin to make an argument that he is a very plausible suspect indeed

I disagree.

Regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Not turning up when he knew he was going to perform poorly would be more consistent with someone who had been out ripping prostitutes all night.

... perhaps he felt he needed the extra cover

(Apologies for use of cricketing jargon!)

[Ben]

I am fully aware that we share common wiews on many a thing in this case. But these are discussion boards, Ben - not a place to pat each others backs and congratulate one and another to sharing wiews.

I know, and I honestly don't mind, but 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.

Again, no problem for me. I'm happy to exchange views with you anytime, but I don't thin I'm being wholly paranoid or susperstitious here.

Yes, I understand your point, but human beings can be agitated and anxious for several days, but that doesn't mean they're energized or adrenalised for prolonged periods of time. Often, during long stage runs, I'm continually yawning before my first entrance - that is a by-product of anxiety. The effort spend making you "anxious" or "excited", or "adrenalised" is also contributing to exhaustion.

Hope you can see what I'm getting at here, Fish.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"it can get a little predictable when you choose to target my observations specifically"

Let´s get this crap overwith once and for all, Ben, and quickly too.

Since I returned from my Christmas holidays, I have posted thirteen times. This is my fourteenth post.
In my posts, I have debated three different people´s wiews on different matters.
I have challenged Chava on two different threads, bot the McCarthy thread and the "Could Kelly read" thread.
For some reason, she seems not to have regarded this as some sort of sniping on my behalf, or some malicious attack aimed at her instead of at the subject debated.

This, however, does not hold true for you, Ben. I bring up a point that I think has been overlooked in the debate, and you initially call it a good point, only to later settle for regading it all as an attempt to have a go at your own good self. It is baffling, mildly put.

We have had a deal of ugly exchnages on these threads. Two of the more ugly ones were when you initially stated that I could not argue that Marshalls man in the Stride case could have worn a cutaway jacket without tails, since you emphatically claimed that ALL cutaway coats have tails.
Another time was when I argued that there were powerful gas lamps around in 1888, whereas you stated that there were not - they were all open flame lamps, you claimed, and thus they could not be powerful.

As you well know, I could prove that there WERE cutaway jackets with no tails in 1888, just as I could prove that there were 700 watt gas lamps around.
I took terrible thrashings from your side during these exchanges, being called "subhuman" among other things of the same, not very flattering character.

I think that somebody who has been proven wrong in this fashion at a number of occasions ought to learn from it. To point me out as a stalker, more or less, when I am merely pointing at debatable points or - as the cases of the cutaway jacket and the gas lamps - obvious misconceptions is a sad thing to do.

tedious though I find it, as I have done it before, I can only urge you to use the valuable insights and knowledge you have of this case in a better and more productive manner. If you persist to claim that I am after you personally instead of debating perfectly legitimate points, you are moving in the opposite direction altogether.

My overall experience of Casebook has been that of generosity and goodhumoured exchanges. Three posters have chosen other paths to travel by, resulting in ugly exchanges - Mr Poster, Tom Wescott and you. Two of the three have claimed that I have been stalking them, more or less. I´ll leave it up to anybody to deduct why such claims arise from legal and constructive criticism.

Fisherman

[aspallek]

rather than to-ing and fro-ing

You keep talking about to-ing and fro-ing. Ben, for Pete's sake we are talking about ONE round trip.

You acknowledge that there's a very slim chance that Druitt killed Tabram on account of the fact that he can be placed in Dorset on consecutive weekends; the 3rd/4th and the 10th/11th, and was unlikely to have made a trek home in between.

First, I never said it was "a very slim chance." I said I would concede it to be rather unlikely. And actually, I was talking about a time period even narrower: between 7 August and 10 August. Had it been two consecutive weekends I would not consider a trip to London in the intervening week to be unlikely.

All I'm doing is arguing that case on a larger scale.

Ben, you don't see it do you? That's the entire problem with your approach. This line of thinking is not able to be extrapolated because the extrapolation destroys its viability. So how long a time period is sufficient for Druitt to make one round trip to London? Apparently not three weeks in your thinking. What if we only had mention of Druitt in Dorset in two consecutive Augusts? Would you then extrapolate to the conclusion that he spent a whole year there? It just doesn't follow.

Yep, which neatly corresponds with the beginning of the Michaelmas term, and I speak from experience here. It was always early September that the term started, and it surely it's a rather neat little coincidence that Druitt must have returned to London at around that time.

I know quite well when Michaelmas term begins and ends. What I don't know is that Druitt returned to London then. I only know that he was in London on that day. He may have returned to London on September 1 after his cricket fixture for all I know.

No, it isn't. It's simply consistent with a bloke who didn't play very good cricket, and you can be fresh as a daisy, have years of professional experience, and still be crap at cricket. Not turning up when he knew he was going to perform poorly would be more consistent with someone who had been out ripping prostitutes all night.

Oh golly! Ben it is consistent with his being out all night. It may also be consistent with other scenarios but it is also consistent with his being out all night. "Ripping prostitutes all night"? I won't even dignify that with a rebuttal. Furthermore, I've already told you that I have voluntarily chosen to play softball after being up all (or virtually all) night carousing and Monty has explained that other cricketers in his experience have chosen to play with no sleep. Your argument here holds no water.

Have we heard it directly from Druitt's family that they were "convinced" he was the killer?

Come on, Ben. We have to deal with the information we have.

Which is offset very heavily indeed by the fact that other senior professional policeman (not someone brought in with no investigative experience from a tea plantation) who did not believe that Druitt was the ripper, with Abberline stating as that the fact that Druitt was found when he did was the only factor which could possibly be considered of incriminating value.

Ah, the canard that Macnaghten was a buffoon of a policeman. Nowhere have I said that Sir Melville used any policing abilities to solve the crime. What is suggested is that he was in effect given the solution to the crime by Farquharson and by Druitt's family or whoever supplied the "private information" regarding the Druitt family's suspicions. Macnaghten was not a professionally-trained policeman but he was a man's whose education and administrative experience should enable him to sift through information and reach an intelligent conclusion.

Others had their reasons for disagreeing with him perhaps because they were not privy to Macnaghten's private information. Which of the other police officials named a more likely suspect? Abberline's Klosowski? Anderson's Polish Jew whoever he may be? Littlechild's Tumblety? Which of them is the better suspect than Druitt?

I disagree.

I know you do.

[aspallek]

Let me try one more time.

From 1870 to 1875 the only place we have record of Montague Druitt being present is Winchester College. He appears there in the 1871 census. He is mentioned in the school newspaper numerous times. There is photographic evidence of his being there. Ben, according to your logic we are to conclude it to be unlikely that Montague Druitt was anywhere other than Winchester for these six years or so. He didn't go home to Wimborne. He didn't visit family in London or at Christchurch. He never went on holiday.

In your own words, "All I'm doing is arguing that case on a larger scale."

[Ben]

You keep talking about to-ing and fro-ing. Ben, for Pete's sake we are talking about ONE round trip.

That's based on the rather too confident exclusion of Tabram as a ripper victim, though. If she was a ripper victim, it wouldn't have been one round trip. It would have been to-ing and fro-ing.

So how long a time period is sufficient for Druitt to make one round trip to London? Apparently not three weeks in your thinking. What if we only had mention of Druitt in Dorset in two consecutive Augusts?

There's no evidence that he made any trip to London, so isn't the onus rather upon the Druittists (or at the very least those championing him somewhat controversially as "a very plausible suspect") to prove or at least demonstrate that he did, rather than expecting everyone else to accept that he's "very plausible" on the basis of an "he could have", or the classic "There's no evidence that he didn't". There is nothing wrong with the "approach" of someone who observes that Druitt appears on the record on five, possibly six occasions, between 3rd August and 1st Septmeber, and arrives at the logical and parsimonious assumption that he was probably in August for the duration of that period.

A month really isn't that long a time, and yet it is supposedly a mere "coincidence" that he was only ever recorded as being in Dorset over that crucial time-frame, and not where he lived. Now, I'd find that odd, unless it could be explained away most plausibly by Druitt's absence from the Capital over that time period - a time period that coincides neatly with the school holidays of a public schoolmaster.

What I don't know is that Druitt returned to London then. I only know that he was in London on that day. He may have returned to London on September 1 after his cricket fixture for all I know

No? I'm surprised. If you know they Michaelmas term usually starts in early September, and we know that Druitt was in Dorset on the 1st, and we know he had returned to London by the 8th, isn't a bit churlish to dismiss the fact that he had clearly returned to London for the new school term?

Oh golly! Ben it is consistent with his being out all night.

And yet it is also consistent with so many other plausible reasons for being crap at cricket that the validity of the "He was crap because he was out a 'butcherin" is markedly reduced. A failure to show up to cricket at all given the night's exertions is arguably much more consistent with the behaviour os someone who had killed Chapman the night before. I'm not accusing you of lying, by the way, but claiming another person's arguments hold no water because they contradict your uncheckable claim to have played softball after a night of carousing is not a fair debating tactic.

What is suggested is that he was in effect given the solution to the crime by Farquharson and by Druitt's family or whoever supplied the "private information" regarding the Druitt family's suspicions

Which is a very poor suggestion, to my mind. I'm not saying you're making it, but the fact that other contemporary police officals were clearly unenthusiastic about Druitt as a suspect would tend to reduce the worth of whatever private information was made available. Personally, I consider it utterly beyond the realms of possibility that Abberline was not made privvy to such information, considering that he was working the case at the time, unlike Macnaghten.

Abberline stated that he knew "all about" the Druitt case and what it amounted to, and didn't believe there was anything to incriminate him beyond the fact that he was found at that time. This suggests very strongly that he was privy to the private information, but didn't consider anything therein to be of "incriminating" value. More likely by far that the notion that Macnaghten deliberately withheld the "solution" from his colleagues.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Ben, according to your logic we are to conclude it to be unlikely that Montague Druitt was anywhere other than Winchester for these six years or so.

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.

[Ben]

As you well know, I could prove that there WERE cutaway jackets with no tails in 1888, just as I could prove that there were 700 watt gas lamps around.

Utter nonsense, Fisherman.

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. The conventional, dictionary definition of a cutaway was a garment with tails, and gas lamps in the 1880s were dim and didn't emit much light. Honestly, how do you expect me not to lose my temper when you say, in effect "Haha, I'm right and I've proven you wrong" when I know you haven't?

You tried that tactic on a recent thread dealing with the Kelly crime scene photographs and once again churned out your "I've proven you wrong!" mantra, and it just tends to injure your credibility a bit.

There's no ugliness in this thread, and I have no intention of being abusive to you or anyone else here. As you noted, I believed yours was a good point and said so. I just didn't expect to find you disagreeing with me on a Druitt thread of all places. I thought there was other stuff here you might seize upon first. I was wrong. I'll get over it some day.

I think that somebody who has been proven wrong in this fashion at a number of occasions ought to learn from it.

Oh Lordy.

No, Fisherman.

Just don't.

Don't complain about your treatment in one breath and then try to antagonise me as much as possible in the other. You know that's complete nonsense. 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.

Ben

[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

[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!

[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]

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.

[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 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".