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

[Wickerman]

...... Like her I wonder why he would have passed by potential victims to make the 50 minute each way walk to Bucks Row from Kings Bench Walk?

Just to emphasize Herlock's point, Sutcliffe by-passed numerous red-light areas to kill where he chose to kill.
There is absolutely no significance to that question, in fact I would go so far to suggest any well-read student of serial killers wouldn't even ask that question.

[MrBarnett]

Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
There is no nitpicking the MM has been proved to be incorrcet and therefore is unsafe to rely on its as simple as that

www.trevormarriott.co.uk



To be fair Herlock, of the information MM provided on his three suspects, almost all of it was wrong for all three. I listened to the podcast and agree that there is nothing in the content to exclude his having been able to be in London for Nichols and Chapman, but I think Ally made a good point in saying that while the possibility exists, the probabilities accumulate against him. Like her I wonder why he would have passed by potential victims to make the 50 minute each way walk to Bucks Row from Kings Bench Walk?

Cheers, George

How many suitable victims might there have been between the Temple and Whitechapel at 2/3 a.m.?

Half of the journey would have been through the City.

[MrBarnett]

If one man was responsible for all of the WM, then, Kelly aside, he had a type. The type that might still be hanging around long after the pubs had closed and before the early markets started getting busy. How many of those would there have been in the Strand,
Fleet Street, Ludgate Hill, Queen Victoria Street etc?

Some, possibly, but far less than in the East End. And even there I doubt there would have been hundreds of them parading the streets at that time in the morning.

So the idea that Druitt (or whoever) might have forayed from the Temple looking for a tipsy doss house drab and not found one in suitable circumstances until he got to Whitechapel is entirely plausible.

[MrBarnett]

Charles Dickens described the way the city entered its quietest period an hour or two after the pubs closed:

The restlessness of a great city, and the way in which it tumbles and tosses before it can get to sleep, formed one of the first entertainments offered to the contemplation of us houseless people. It lasted about two hours. We lost a great deal of companionship when the late public-houses turned their lamps out, and when the potmen thrust the last brawling drunkards into the street; but stray vehicles and stray people were left us, after that. If we were very lucky, a policeman’s rattle sprang and a fray turned up; but, in general, surprisingly little of this diversion was provided. Except in the Haymarket, which is the worst kept part of London, and about Kent-street in the Borough, and along a portion of the line of the Old Kent-road, the peace was seldom violently broken. But, it was always the case that London, as if in imitation of individual citizens belonging to it, had expiring fits and starts of restlessness. After all seemed quiet, if one cab rattled by, half-a-dozen would surely follow; and Houselessness even observed that intoxicated people appeared to be magnetically attracted towards each other; so that we knew when we saw one drunken object staggering against the shutters of a shop, that another drunken object would stagger up before five minutes were out, to fraternise or fight with it. When we made a divergence from the regular species of drunkard, the thin-armed, puff-faced, leaden-lipped gin-drinker, and encountered a rarer specimen of a more decent appearance, fifty to one but that specimen was dressed in soiled mourning. As the street experience in the night, so the street experience in the day; the common folk who come unexpectedly into a little property, come unexpectedly into a deal of liquor.
At length these flickering sparks would die away, worn out—the last veritable sparks of waking life trailed from some late pieman or hot-potato man—and London would sink to rest. And then the yearning of the houseless mind would be for any sign of company, any lighted place, any movement, anything suggestive of any one being up—nay, even so much as awake, for the houseless eye looked out for lights in windows.

That was when Polly was picked up by the Ripper - when the streets were at their emptiest.

[MrBarnett]

One last point on this. Imagine yourself in London at 2/3 o’clock in the morning in need of a black cab. How far might you have to walk to find one?

If you knew the city, you’d probably have an idea of where the best places to go would be, but that might be a fair old trek from where you started. A couple of hours previously you’d have had a much better chance of finding one nearby.

130-odd years in the future, people might be arguing that it was improbable that you had to wander about for half an hour to spot one and attract the driver’s attention. The streets were full of black cabs, weren’t they?

[Wickerman]

People today in a strange town should know where to find a bus stop, on a main road. Likewise, in the East End cab stations were, at the very least, on the main road - Aldgate through to Whitechapel road.
In fact, if I recall, it was Sims who mentioned the very point himself.

[MrBarnett]

People today in a strange town should know where to find a bus stop, on a main road. Likewise, in the East End cab stations were, at the very least, on the main road - Aldgate through to Whitechapel road.
In fact, if I recall, it was Sims who mentioned the very point himself.

Are you missing my point or agreeing with it?

For cabs read prostitutes. At midnight they were widely available on the streets. At 2/3, far less so.

And if your particular taste was for middle-aged, drunken, destitute women, you might have a problem finding one on the steps of St Paul’s Cathedral or outside the Bank of England.

If JTR had just wanted to kill ‘prostitutes’, why didn’t he seek them out in the Ratcliffe Highway when the pubs were chucking out? The simple answer to that is that it would have been too dangerous - too early, and his prey wouldn’t have been so easy to overcome. So he looked for lone vulnerable women on the streets where they could be found and at a time when there weren’t too many other people around.

That’s why it’s perfectly plausible that a Druitt or someone else with a base in the Temple might not have found a suitable victim before he reached Whitechapel.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good points Gary. Without knowing the exact events I think that many things can seem unlikely when looking back but were they really? It should go without saying of course but none of this even approaches evidence for Druitt’s guilt but just on the consideration of his returning to London I can’t really see an issue especially since we can’t conclude that he must have returned purely to commit murder.

If he had other reasons for returning, business-related for example, then he wouldn’t necessarily have had any restrictions which might seem to add unlikeliness. For example, if he had a meeting at say 2.00pm on the 31st, his thinking might simply have been that dependant upon the finishing time of the match (which is 100% unknown to us) he could either have caught the 4.55 or the 7.58 trains or he might have stayed overnight in Wimborne and caught an early morning train to London. So he’d have had options and been under no time pressure and with no limiting factors. If we add the “why would he have done all that just to commit murder,” then yes it ‘might’ be said to add unlikeliness but we can’t assume that.

Can we doubt that serial killers don’t simply think one day ‘I think I’d like to kill women,’ and then do it straight away? These feelings build up over time. A killer of prostitutes might use prostitutes for the obvious reasons long before he actually takes that step to murder. Can we be sure that he’d say “ok, todays the day?” Or could certainly circumstances have been the trigger? An argument for example or some comment by the woman? And it’s worth noting of course that Nichols is generally considered the Ripper’s first victim (subject to debate of course) So might not the first one have been unplanned?

Again, none of this is remotely evidence for Druitt’s guilt and the chances are that he wasn’t the Ripper. I favour an as yet unnamed killer but with Druitt of the named suspects (along with Koz and Bury as the better ones) This is just an opinion and nothing more. But when you have someone named by the Chief Constable Of The Met I think that’s irresponsible to the point of perversity to try and eliminate him without evidential reason for doing so. Especially when he sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb on Macnaughten’s list of three.

Its encouraging though Gary to see that there are still some posters who, whilst perhaps not considering Druitt a particularly good or strong suspect, still take an unbiased view and remain open-minded about possibilities. More evidence may still be out there and perhaps that piece of exonerating evidence exists but until then I think that the ‘Let’s Brush Druitt Under The Carpet Party’ should postpone their celebrations.

[MrBarnett]

What could be more improbable than the Whitechapel Murders?

I agree with the opinion that narrowing down Druitt’s window to a day or so to commute from Dorset and back to commit a murder severely weakens his candidacy, but it doesn’t completely invalidate it. And suggesting that he would have had his pick of Pollys long before he reached Whitechapel really doesn’t ring true.

[GBinOz]

I really can’t see why it’s such an issue when Macnaughten said that he was 41 when he was actually 31 or that he was a Doctor instead of the son of a Doctor. After all he wasn’t undertaking a full scale investigation into Druitt so when he was given his ‘private info’ why would he have needed to check Druitt’s age?

He also said that Druitt suicided immediately after the MJK murder, and he got everything wrong for his two others suspects, about whom he doesn't mention private info.
Be that as it may, Jon took the words of my next comment out of my mouth in his post #60:
"There isn't any evidence against anyone, so Druitt is no more, but no less viable than every other suspect."

Druitt imo is no less likely than other suspect.

As I said before, I don't think he was JtR but I think he is worthy of discussion and certainly should not be dismissed out of hand.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Just to emphasize Herlock's point, Sutcliffe by-passed numerous red-light areas to kill where he chose to kill.
There is absolutely no significance to that question, in fact I would go so far to suggest any well-read student of serial killers wouldn't even ask that question.

You got me there Jon. My knowledge of other serial killers is superficial at best.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

If one man was responsible for all of the WM, then, Kelly aside, he had a type. The type that might still be hanging around long after the pubs had closed and before the early markets started getting busy. How many of those would there have been in the Strand,
Fleet Street, Ludgate Hill, Queen Victoria Street etc?

Some, possibly, but far less than in the East End. And even there I doubt there would have been hundreds of them parading the streets at that time in the morning.

So the idea that Druitt (or whoever) might have forayed from the Temple looking for a tipsy doss house drab and not found one in suitable circumstances until he got to Whitechapel is entirely plausible.

Hi MrB,

I wonder if he would have risked foraying from his Temple office with the risk of being recognised. He could have had a bolthole somewhere else to preserve his anonymity.

Cheers, George

[MrBarnett]

Hi MrB,

I wonder if he would have risked foraying from his Temple office with the risk of being recognised. He could have had a bolthole somewhere else to preserve his anonymity.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Recognised by a sleepy Temple gatekeeper? How much of a risk would that have been?

Gary

[harry]

Problem,to me at least,when assessing Druitt,and other named persons,is the term 'Suspect'.What is the definition,from a law enforcement perspective,of the term.To me it means that an individual/s can,by evidence,be linked to the crime.What links Druitt,by evidence, to any of the Whitechapel murders?
Some may say that the term has no relevance when being discussed in the manner it is here,but the truth cannot be known unless there is some standard set.
Is family suspicion a link? Apart from a confession,it is hard to understand what other reason the family could have for belief.Now it might be argued that Druitt could have confessed.Yes he could have,some might say,it is a possibility and on that we have to accept the family's belief.Not so.
So my objection to Druitt being considered,is that none of the possibilities that have been expressed ,add up to one confirmed link to guilt.

[MrBarnett]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OhDS6W3HMts