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

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I recognised your good point at the time, but then you had to keep plugging away"

,,,which you did not do, of course? You tried to point me out as being wrong, and I thought I was right. In such occasions, I debate, happily unwary of the fact that I am actually not allowed to challenge you.

"you're going to get called those things if you say, in effect "Haha, I'm right, you're wrong, and if you don't accept it I'll just keep relentlessly repeating it" because that sort of antagonism is simply maddening"

There is never any need for expression like "subhuman", Ben. And why is it wrong to state that I am right when I can actually prove that I am? The moment you admit I am right on this topic, the discussion ends. I couldnīt care less if that annoys you, since I favour truth over prestige.

"Of course I didn't mean - and didn't say - that powerful light in general couldn't be generated"

No, Ben, you said that there were no powerful gas lamps about in 1888. Read the thread, it is all VERY obvious. The element of those lamps not having been about in Dorset Street back then (and we canīt tell if they were or not) was introduced by you, to distort the discussion and lead it away from the fact that you had been effectively disproven.

"And they weren't. Not on the streets of 1888 London, which was what we were discussing"

No. No. No. No. NO! That was NOT what we were discussing. It was introduced by you LATER in the discussion, appropriately enough when you realized that it could be proven that there WERE powerful gas lamps about and that you had lost an argument out of ignorance. THAT, and that only, was what the discussion was about. You donīt get to change the rules in retrospect. It does not work that way. You were emphatically, and I have quoted you a number of times, denying that there were powerful gas lamps about in 1888, and you were wrong. W-r-o-n-g.

Which is why I have to ask you again: Were there powerful gas lamps around in 1888? Had they been invented years before that? And leave out the streets of London, since they never belonged to the discussion in the first place. All you have to do is to undo your assertion "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". As you can easily see, the question we were arguing was NOT whether they were around in Dorset Street (and once again, we cannot tell if they were). It was whether there were powerful gas lamps on the market by then.

Fisherman
(who will move the discussion to the Hutch thread where it arose if Ben keeps on arguing the inarguable)

[Ally]

(who will move the discussion to the Hutch thread where it arose if Ben keeps on arguing the inarguable)

Why didn't you just do that to start with?

[aspallek]

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.

Ben, the appearances from 3 August to 11 August are essentially one appearance since I am conceding that he apparently spent that week in Dorset. Furthermore, since I have said all along that I do not count Tabram as a Ripper victim, I am dealing only with the time frame from Druitt's Dorset appearances of 11 August to 1 September. His whereabouts before 11 August are irrelevant if Tabram is not a Ripper victim. This leaves us with a three week period in which Druitt must make one round trip between Dorset and London, a scenario quite reasonable.

Now you want to attach a great deal of importance to the exclusion of Tabram. I will simply respond by saying all along that I have made that caveat. My contention is that if we are limited to the C5, Druitt is the most likely named suspect. If Tabram is included he becomes far less likely. Obviously, if any of the post-1888 victims are included Druitt is exonerated.

So what we have boiled this down to Ben, is that you want to discount Druitt on account of Tabram. That's fine but then you are not addressing my conclusions about Druitt at all. And, as a matter of fact, the onus is on you to show why Tabram should be included as a Ripper victim since she is still generally excluded.

What you are saying is that Druitt is not a flexible suspect because he loses his status if Tabram is included. With that I would agree.

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.

No we don't know that. We know that's what he said. Now you criticized me for accepting Macnaghten's word concerning the Druitt family suspicion so you must apply the same skepticism to your own reasoning.

Furthermore, Klosowski was not, insofar as we know, a "police suspect" at all. He was suspected by an ex-officer many years after the Ripper crimes were committed. Druitt, on the other hand, was the leading suspect of a serving police official and was first made known to police as a suspect barely two years after the conclusion of the murders.

[Ben]

Ben, the appearances from 3 August to 11 August are essentially one appearance since I am conceding that he apparently spent that week in Dorset. Furthermore, since I have said all along that I do not count Tabram as a Ripper victim

Which is a rather large problem for me, Andy, when it comes to considering Druitt a plausible suspect. Since I believe Tabram to have been a ripper victim, I'm disinclined to consider any suspect who in all probability was away from the murder district at the time of her death, doubly so when we consider that a good deal more police officials included her than excluded her.

Then again, the fact that he was also away from London on 1st September and possibly the 22nd August too lends more weight, to my mind, to the conclusion that he was probably in and around Dorset for the period spanning 3rd August to 1st september, and that's it's no coincidence that he arrived back in London at the start of a school term.

And, as a matter of fact, the onus is on you to show why Tabram should be included as a Ripper victim since she is still generally excluded.

Absolutely no way.

That is emphatically not the case. Tabram is not "generally excluded" and as such there is no onus whatsoever on me to show why she should be included. The majority of contemporary police officials included her in the tally, and certainly the majority of experts in criminology.

Now you criticized me for accepting Macnaghten's word concerning the Druitt family suspicion so you must apply the same skepticism to your own reasoning.

Macnaghten never stated as fact that the family were "convinced" Druitt was JTR; only that he didn't have much doubt that his own family believed him to be the ripper. That's not the same as claiming that Abberline must have been lying.

Furthermore, Klosowski was not, insofar as we know, a "police suspect" at all. He was suspected by an ex-officer many years after the Ripper crimes were committed

And the person suspected him actually worked on the case at the time and was a professional policeman, with neither being true of Macnaghten. Two years after the murders is still rather a long time for assessing suspect candidature.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ally asks:

"Why didn't you just do that to start with?"

Because when the original disagreement between Ben and me emerged on this thread, it was connected to a thread-related issue; would the Ripper be too tired to go through with the Cricket game?
From there on, it escalated and drifted away, and it would have been better if it all was moved earlier. Conceded point, Ally.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

From there on, it escalated and drifted away,

And the person who decided to introduce cutaway coats and gas lamps into a discussion that had absolutely nothing to do with either was...?

Ah yes.

[aspallek]

Well then Ben it appears that the real point of contention between us is the inclusion or exclusion of Tabram. However, this is different from the statement you made in the Podcast about the "tightness" of Druitt's cricketing schedule in relation to the murders.

As to the "onus" to show why Tabram should be included I will leave that to the rest of the group to comment on. It is certainly my perception that she is generally excluded. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that it is unreasonable to hold that Tabram was a Ripper victim. It's a reasonable position. In my opinion, however, the preponderance of evidence suggests that she was not and I believe this is still borne out by the majority of scholarship. Incidentally, I have been studying the Ripper murders for 20+ years and have never considered Tabram to be a Ripper victim. I have only favored Druitt for the last 4-5 years, so my view of Tabram is not shaped by my view of Druitt as a suspect.

But back to your original Podcast statement which Christ transcribed thus:

"it's argued that he [Druitt] could have made it back from cricket matches, but they reinforce the fact that it would have been very tight ..."

As I understand this you are saying that the arguments of people like me who take pains to show that there is no direct conflict between Druitts known schedule and the canonical murders actually emphasizes the unlikely status of Druitt's candidacy. This is not true. My "arguments" are prompted by erroneous statements that have been made regarding Druitt's schedule. One such statement that was recently in print is "it is now known that Druitt was away from London playing cricket that the time most of the murders took place" (slight paraphrase but that's more than the gist). That's, in fact, patently impossible since "most of the murders" took place after the cricket season had concluded. When I see something like that in print I feel the need to set the record straight by saying that there is no evidence that Druitt was outside of Greater London on 31 August or 8 September (a date for which there is in fact evidence that he was in Greater London), let alone 30 September or 9 November. Responding to and correcting a factual error does not lend credence to argumentation based upon that error.

Furthermore, your own argument can be turned against you. If Druitt spent all of August in Dorset ostensibly to play cricket, then why is there no mention in papers that covered cricket in Dorset of him competing between 11 August and 1 September (the ambiguous "Druitt" on 22 Aug could have been any of the cricketing Druitts)? In other words, why are several fixtures mentioned in that one week and then nothing thereafter until 1 September? One might conclude a plausible reason could be that he wasn't in Dorset playing cricket during those three weeks at all.

Ben, for Druitt to be Jack the Ripper does indeed require quite a bit of travel on his part and there is not a lot of "extra" time for him to have made these journeys. That is a valid critique of any Druitt theory. It is one of the points that mitigates against him. All suspects have such mitigating points. However, Montague Druitt was a man who made frequent trips between Greater London and Dorset both for professional and social reasons. I don't see this mitigating point as any sort of crushing blow whatsoever.

[Ben]

It's a reasonable position. In my opinion, however, the preponderance of evidence suggests that she was not and I believe this is still borne out by the majority of scholarship

Fair enough, Andy, but I honestly believe the reverse is true on both counts. The preponderance of evidence suggests very strongly that she was a victim of the miscreant that did for the others, and indications from other serial cases lend huge weight to this view from my perspective. I'd also argue that the majority of modern scholarship is also inclined to include her.

As I understand this you are saying that the arguments of people like me who take pains to show that there is no direct conflict between Druitts known schedule and the canonical murders actually emphasizes the unlikely status of Druitt's candidacy

Not at all. I've never challenged the argument that there is no known conflict between the murder dates and the movements of Druitt. The number of references to Druitt being away from London and in Dorset for the month spanning early August to early September would tend to suggest, as the most logical and parsiminious explanation, that he was there for the duration of that month, in my humle opinion. That's not the same as arguing that his presence in Dorset conclusively points to his being there for the duration.

Furthermore, your own argument can be turned against you. If Druitt spent all of August in Dorset ostensibly to play cricket, then why is there no mention in papers that covered cricket in Dorset of him competing between 11 August and 1 September (the ambiguous "Druitt" on 22 Aug could have been any of the cricketing Druitts)?

But there's no evidence of him playing cricket anywhere between those dates, with the possible exception of 22nd in Salisbury. What we do find is that on either side of those dates, we find him away from London and in Dorset, and that the time period that just happens to coincide with the holiday period before the Michaelmas term, just as his arrival back in the Capital just happens to concidence with the beginning of term.

However, Montague Druitt was a man who made frequent trips between Greater London and Dorset both for professional and social reasons.

Right, but that aspect of his candidacy is weakened quite markedly against suspects who can be shown to have lived and worked in the East End at the time.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"And the person who decided to introduce cutaway coats and gas lamps into a discussion that had absolutely nothing to do with either was...?

Ah yes."

Correct, Ben: The guy who was once again attacked and pointed out as an obsessive stalker, and decided to do something about it.

Fisherman

[Ally]

So you know what I thought was an AWESOME part of the show? The other 68 minutes and 56 seconds that had nothing to do with Druitt.


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[George Hutchinson]

Stop! Stop! You're breaking my scroll bar!

PHILIP

[aspallek]

But there's no evidence of him playing cricket anywhere between those dates

Right. Druitt could have been virtually anywhere in Europe between those dates. I'm being a bit facetious but we simply don't know where he was between 11 August and 1 September. There is no record of him being in any particular place then. It certainly does not stretch credulity in my mind to postulate that he was in Greater London on 31 August, particularly when he had a home and a business there.

I'm content to leave it at that. Do see my remarks on the Hanbury Street to Blackheath thread, however.

[John Bennett]

Sorry to butt in, but saw this today and couldn't resist...

[Ben]

There is no record of him being in any particular place then. It certainly does not stretch credulity in my mind to postulate that he was in Greater London on 31 August, particularly when he had a home and a business there.

It's neither impossible not wildly outlandish, Andy, I'll concede as much.

Given that he can only be placed in an around Dorset whenever he can be found on the historical record within the space of a the month spanning early August and early September, my money would be wagered on him having spend the duration of that time in that county.

I too am content to leave at that, immensely reassured by the fact that a suspect debate can be conducted respectfully and without insults.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

I must say, if I were a stressed up male lawyer, or teacher, in the autumn of 1888, who was torn between living with, and desperately trying to conceal, the effects of a condition such as manic depression from my Victorian employers, intellectual peer group and entire social circle, or just giving up the uneven struggle along with the faįade of 'normality' and chucking myself in the Thames with rocks in my pockets and a return ticket only to 'Moorstress', I'm not sure that a good old normal, harmless, innocent, sane-as-you-can-get game of cricket, followed by a nice soothing cuppa, wouldn't be just the ticket to keep my worst demons at bay for another day - regardless of what kind of manic, strenuous, socially unacceptable, even "sexually insane" behaviour I may have spent the previous night indulging myself in.

I mean, would men who spend the night nailing one another's scrota to the floor and thrashing each other senseless, for instance (not that I'm for one second suggesting Monty ever did any such thing), draw the line at any kind of normal physical activity a few hours later in a different location because it's just too 'tight' a schedule?

I realise I can't get into a mind like that (no really, I can't ), but from where I'm sitting, I'd imagine just the thought of doing something completely normal again, like sitting on a train with the newspaper, reading about other people's behaviour and problems, and meeting up with people who have no idea what you were up to a few hours ago, might actually have considerable appeal.

Times that by ten if what you were up to the night before was murdering and mutilating a woman - the exact opposite of playing a harmless ball game with men, and a hanging offence to boot. (Read that any way you like. )

And no, this isn't an argument for Monty the Ripper. It's an argument for not eliminating contemporary suspects for 'tightness' that the ripper need not have been concerned with in the slightest.

If Macnaghten's information was reliable concerning Monty's family suspecting him (and we just don't know either way), then it would stand to reason that the family didn't know he was playing cricket at the time any, never mind most of the murders were being committed.

The image is a delightful one actually: Fisherman wearing a cutaway jacket without tails, holding his bright light to illuminate the Dorset cricket pitch where Monty is bowling a maiden over at dead of night, while Ben is keeping his own lamps open for Hutch stalking his next menopausal woman in the vicinity of Dorset Street.

How 'plausible' are any of the suspect theories we discuss here, when you really shine a bright light on them? And yet someone was mutilating women and going about his everyday business in between.

Love,

Caz
X