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

[Tom_Wescott]

Mary Kelly was murdered on Prince Eddy's father's birthday, and Prince Eddy was, quite naturally, present for the festivities, which means he couldn't have killed Kelly. Of course, Kelly may have been murdered on this day strictly so that all royal persons would have an alibi. Is that what you're saying Ghoulstonstreet?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

You'd still have to explain how Prince Eddie was wondering around the East End in his sneakers not being noticed?

Contrary to popular belief there were witness about at the time of almost all the murders who would have heard or seen a carriage.

However there is not one report or siting.

You might be able to fudge reports of his movements, if you'll buy the government was capable of such a cover up...

But you cant hide something that big and loud in the Middle of the night in the East End?

Pirate

[ghoulstonstreet]

Court Calenders

As far back as the 70s folks have fallen back on the Court Calendars or Circulars to prove that Prince Eddy could not have been in Whitechapel at the times of the murders. Now, I have no reason to believe that he was the killer but I do question the integrity of the circulars. Really, I want to know more about them. Were they schedules, as in "His Royal Highness will be attending a Ceremonial Dinner.....", or were they summaries of what already ocurred, as in "His Royal Highness was seen with Miss Abigail....at the Ascot Races...." etc?
My suspicion is that government can fudge these accounts, right at the time they are printed, if they want to or feel a presssing necessity to do so. For instance, what if Prince So and So was staggeringly drunk when he was supposed to going to such and so event, then got into his private carriage and went off somewhere he wanted to go, telling no one... etc.
Any thoughts on these possibilities regarding court protocol (not asking for your opinion on Eddy's "guilt"). Thank you.

[Ben]

So your recipe for general good health and strength, and presumably a reasonably active three score years and ten, would be an enforced daily regime of manual labour, on a Victorian costermonger's diet, followed by a nightly bed in a crowded Victorian doss house.

No, Caz.

Just correcting the obviously fallacious notion that the killer could not have been a working class local from a lodging house because everyone fitting that description must have been too feeble and unhealthy to kill a few middle-aged prostitutes.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

I doubt very much that the average East End doss house dweller was likely to be unfit through malnutrition. If anything, their daily toil and manual labour was likely to have increased their general resilience. They might not have had access to the choicest cuts of meat, but even a costermonger's diet would have consisted of fish and meat, so they wouldn't have been total vagrants.

Hi Ben,

Interesting. So your recipe for general good health and strength, and presumably a reasonably active three score years and ten, would be an enforced daily regime of manual labour, on a Victorian costermonger's diet, followed by a nightly bed in a crowded Victorian doss house.

Well I must be doing something seriously wrong then and have absolutely no hope of making it to my Freedom Pass five years from now.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Hope you had an enjopyable holiday.

With regard to your latter paragraph, I'd argue that the latter ripper-model has a greater likelihood of reflecting the truth, and it tallies rather well with the image of an individual who made the most of his limited options. When you consider the serial offenders who had greater options in terms of comfort, food and accomodation, they tend not to be those who target particular circumscribed pockets of an impoverished region. Those who do exhibit a preference for the latter tend to be down and dirty with the masses, and generally belong to the same social class as their victims.

I doubt very much that the average East End doss house dweller was likely to be unfit through malnutrition. If anything, their daily toil and manual labour was likely to have increased their general resilience. They might not have had access to the choicest cuts of meat, but even a costermonger's diet would have consisted of fish and meat, so they wouldn't have been total vagrants.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

Hi Caz,

It was hypothesized that Druitt might have returned unnoticed and unrocorded if and when he returned to the legal side of his work, which is a great deal more worthy of note and record keeping than visiting Waitrose...

Yes I know, Ben, which is precisely why I explained that the point being missed was:

...obscured somewhat by the counter argument [made by Druittists, not by me] that he had legitimate reasons for going to and from London, therefore he could have been there anyway...

Don't faint, but I totally agree with you that if Monty the Ripper's primary reason for returning around a murder date had been official business, with his secondary reason being a bit of mutilation on the side, we might have expected some record of the former to have survived. I was merely observing that anyone arriving in Dorset St for a spot of serial murder would hardly have wanted to broadcast their arrival (unless perhaps they used the initials GH and relied on all the police being utter cretins - but that's another different ball game for another time and place ).

I do think there would probably be a slight difference between a well-fed, comfortable and relatively athletic ripper, who could please himself to a large degree and have a good power nap on his journey from a murder scene and then decide whether he wanted to turn up on the pitch to play one of the most leisurely ball games known to man, or plead a sprained wrist , and a poor ripper of no fixed abode, who may have had to walk about all night on little or no nourishment, before turning up at a lodging house at dawn with his knife and female innards, not knowing if he'll get a wink of sleep until the following night, or even five minutes peace, with God knows what daytime noises and comings and goings.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

It was hypothesized that Druitt might have returned unnoticed and unrocorded if and when he returned to the legal side of his work, which is a great deal more worthy of note and record keeping than visiting Waitrose...or playing cricket, for that matter.

If you have no problem at all envisaging that the killer may not have required several hours "shut-eye" after a murder, I have to wonder why you were inquiring elswhere into lodging houses, and whether they allowed their patrons to snooze in the later morning. If that wasn't a problem for you, that inquiry was rather moot. I wouldn't dream of "eliminating" a suspect based on the fact that they played cricket after a murder, but whether a cricket match was "just the ticket" is a different ballgame entirely.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

Oh and another thing...

A point that was missed, when it was argued that Monty had 'coincidentally' left us with no record of any London appointments, but only a record of a few Dorset ones, over the period in question, is a rather simple one, obscured somewhat by the counter argument that he had legitimate reasons for going to and from London, therefore he could have been there anyway, if he decided to pop over to Spitalfields for a bit of hunting practice.

While you might go to Waitrose with the wife on a weekend afternoon, and would almost certainly leave a record behind of what was bought, how much was spent, how payment was made and the date and time when Shane at the checkout served you, it would be no coincidence if there was no record of you handing over cash, without the missus present, for the occasional services of Shane's sister, Shannon, by the bins at the back of Weatherspoons at midnight.

Love,

Caz
X

[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 façade 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

[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

[John Bennett]

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

[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.

[George Hutchinson]

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

PHILIP

[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