Oh, Dear Boss: Druitt's on a Sticky Wicket

[jmenges]

Oh, Dear Boss

Druitt's on a Sticky Wicket

with Steve Blomer, Mark Ripper, Ally Ryder and Jonathan Menges

Available now to Stream or Download at the following link:

https://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=331

Also in Apple & Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, TuneIn Radio, and anywhere discussions about the incredible diminishing candidacies of Jack the Ripper suspects can be found.

Thank you for listening!



JM

[FISHY1118]

Thanks guys for this very informative podcast , if ever there was grounds to finally eliminate Druitt from being the Ripper its the reasoning thats put forward from 45.30 to 46.50 by Ally which i 100% agree with, its just a pity Druitt supporters dont to see it the same way .

All in all a really good listen, Thanks you all again.

[C. F. Leon]

Sounds like a good one, Jonathan. I'm going to download it as soon as I can and play it tonight.

BTW, thanks a lot for the recent flurry of activity on the podcasts! I, for one, very much appreciate the new material after such a drought for so long. Sherlock A2A is great and I do love it, but lately it almost seems like that's the only thing going on here.

Just a general question: is there any more material from the "Archives" available? Particularly, older Whitechapel Society programing? For example, I would dearly love to hear Linda Stratmann's talk "The Horrible History of Chloroform" from the June 2015 meeting, which is JUST before the first one that you made available.

Thanks again for all the work that you do on these.

[Losmandris]

Really look forward to this! Thanks for sharing. Keep up the good work guys. It was the podcast that really brought me over onto the site!

[MrBarnett]

Very enjoyable Jonathan and co!

I wasn’t aware of the exact source for the 1st September match.

It’s not clear in Sugden what his source was for that claim. It’s either the Bournemouth Guardian or Rosenwater. Does anyone know?

[MrBarnett]

Very enjoyable Jonathan and co!

I wasn’t aware of the exact source for the 1st September match.

It’s not clear in Sugden what his source was for that claim. It’s either the Bournemouth Guardian or Rosenwater. Does anyone know?

I found it. It was the Bournemouth Guardian of 8th Sept.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks guys for this very informative podcast , if ever there was grounds to finally eliminate Druitt from being the Ripper its the reasoning thats put forward from 45.30 to 46.50 by Ally which i 100% agree with, its just a pity Druitt supporters dont to see it the same way .

All in all a really good listen, Thanks you all again.

From a supporter of the Knight theory

Like every suspect Druitt will be eliminated when there’s evidence that eliminates him. To date, that evidence doesn’t exist. It’s black and white.

…..

I look forward to hearing the podcast btw. I hope to give it a listen tonight.

[FISHY1118]

From a supporter of the Knight theory

Like every suspect Druitt will be eliminated when there’s evidence that eliminates him. To date, that evidence doesn’t exist. It’s black and white.

…..

I look forward to hearing the podcast btw. I hope to give it a listen tonight.

Yes but were not talking about knight theory it Druitt thats being discussed. .

Good i hope you do and especially the point ally is making, which I tried making myself . So take it up with her now .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes but were not talking about knight theory it Druitt thats being discussed. .

Good i hope you do and especially the point ally is making, which I tried making myself . So take it up with her now .

So why do you want to eliminate Druitt when there’s no evidence for doing so and yet you want to retain the Knight theory which there is certainly evidence for dismissing it. That’s the point. And it’s a valid one.

[MrBarnett]

I understand the point Ally made and in fact I agree with her. But whatever the killer’s background/movements were, you might look at them and argue that they make it ‘improbable’ that he was the murder.

How many times have we heard that the idea that someone might kill women on his way to work in the morning is highly improbable?

I’ve been told that it’s highly improbable that a blind man could have carried out the attack on Tabram.

[MrBarnett]

I rarely look into FB these days, but I did so shortly after listening to the podcast and found this.

It’s a classic demonstration of how ad hoc rural cricket matches can be.

The electric fence is presumably there to deter cattle or sheep. :-)

[Herlock Sholmes]

I enjoyed the podcast. Worth mentioning that apart from the later train it’s also possible that he could have caught the 4.55 and arrived in London even earlier.

As Steve said, and much to the annoyance and disappointment on here and elsewhere no doubt, Druitt’s cricket playing doesn’t come close to providing him with an alibi. Unless more info comes along, that shop has sailed. And of course.

For Fishy:

On likelihood…..I see nothing particularly unlikely (although some will disagree of course) Would It be ‘unlikely’ if we simply said that one of the cricketers had to return to London for a meeting? Druitt could have had a meeting at 2pm for example which meant that he ‘could’ have killed Nichols had had a good nights sleep and still made it to his meeting with ease. It’s also worth noting that Druitt perhaps might not have initially intended to have returned to play the second game but then changed his mind? He could have either caught a train later in the day on the 31st or there might even have been an early train on the 1st that would have got him back well in time. Serial killers (if he was one of course……and yes it’s a huge ‘if’) don't think or behave as we do so if we try to compare them to ‘normal’ people then some behaviour certainly might appear strange. Most believe that Nichols was the killers first victim so how can we know that he didn’t just decide to go to Whitechapel to pick up a prostitute (he might have selected Whitechapel because he’d been there before and had a better knowledge of the area) and something triggered his first murder. He might not have actually planned to do it (it could just have been something that he’d fantasised about doing which would have occurred eventually)

Ill mention one thing that I think unlikely and unlikely to the point that personally I just can’t accept it…..that MacNaghten just chose Druitt at random because he committed suicide after Kelly was murdered. I don’t accept that for a second. I believe that MacNaghten genuinely felt that there was good reason for suspecting Druitt. He absolutely could have been mistaken though of course.

[Scott Nelson]

It was the combination of his suicide after the Kelly murder and the personal information Macnaghten received from Druitt's family or friends that made him a suspect.

[erobitha]

It was the combination of his suicide after the Kelly murder and the personal information Macnaghten received from Druitt's family or friends that made him a suspect.

Hearsay your honour, no evidence was ever provided such information was given.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why would MacNaghten have made it up? And even more unlikely, why of all people would he have named Druitt?