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

[MrBarnett]

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.

But this is a cricket thread.

Could Druitt have fitted the murders in with his cricketing schedule?

Is cricket boring?

[C. F. Leon]

Personally, I've never found crickets boring- they are amongst the most fascinating of insects.

Anyone want to get me started on a cricket lecture?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

And that’s 100% fair enough George.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi George,

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

Gary

I know that Mr Stow has commented on the school over on JTRForums Gary but I haven’t read back over the thread. Can we really dismiss his room at the school as somewhere that he might have used on the 21st? Even if it was closed for the summer I’d doubt if there was a 10 foot wall around with turrets and security guards with German Shepherd's patrolling? Are we 100% sure that it was completely closed and off bounds? Isn’t it possible that whilst not living there full-time until the start of the next term he might easily have retained his key (alternatively it wouldn’t have been difficult to get a second key made) I really can’t imagine any great difficulty in him accessing his room?

[FISHY1118]

Calling Ally, enter stage left please.

[harry]

I do not believe cricket to be the issue.What is questioned is getting from one location to another.Now accepting that Druitt,or anyone for that matter,could have made the journey in a given time,the issue is,did he,not could he.
He has been discussed,George,at great length.The possibilities have been raised several times.Unfortunately those possibilities cannot,by evidence,be turned into realities.It isn't a case of dismissing Druitt out of hand,but affording him the legal right of being considered innocent untill proven guilty.If there is evidence of guilt,it has yet to be given.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

The alternative to at least considering Druitt is to completely ignore him Harry. Would it be responsible in an examination of any historical case to not give consideration to a suspect mentioned by the Chief Constable Of The Met just 6 years after the event? Especially when other sources mention him too although not by name. As Wickerman has said, there’s no evidence against any of the suspects so should we dismiss them all?

On the subject of the word ‘suspect,’ we’ve discussed this before Harry as you know. I really can’t see the slightest issue with using the word for these reasons:

1. Whilst the Police certainly need to be more specific on who can be called a suspect or not because they have to assign man-hours to investigations for example plus they run the risk of further murders being committed if they get it wrong so they have to prioritise, we have no such need or pressure Harry. If I call Druitt a suspect it in no way hinders the subject or the hunt for the killer. People can choose whether or not to discuss him. Discussing Druitt isn’t preventing valuable research into other avenues going on. So we just have no reason to nitpick over meaningless terms.

2. If we did decide to be more specific on terminology how would we, as a group of people who spend most of our time disagreeing on various matters, decide how it would be done? It’s been suggested that we should have ‘person of interest,’ ‘suspect’ and prime suspect,’ for example but who decides who goes into which slot in a subject where there’s no solid evidence against anyone? Would one person be arbiter? Would we elect a committee to decide? Would we all agree to anything close to a consensus? Even if it were a worthwhile exercise (which it wouldn’t be) it’s totally impracticable.

Terms can mean different things in different circumstances of course so I see no issue with the term ‘suspect’ in regard to Ripperology being used to mean ‘someone who has been suspected by someone?’ There’s no alternative and it causes no problems.

….

As far as Druitt is concerned we can’t assess the private information so all that we have is the memorandum and anything else that Macnaughten written or said. We therefore have four options: That Macnaughten lied and Druitt wasn’t guilty, that Macnaughten’s information was incorrect and Druitt wasn’t guilty, that the information was correct but he misinterpreted it or misjudged it’s significance and Druitt wasn’t guilty or that the information was actually correct and that Druitt was guilty.

Why dismiss one option in favour of another when we have no way of assessing them? Isn’t the fairest, most reasonable approach to say, well it’s interesting that someone in Mac’s position should name such an ‘unlikely’ person as Druitt as a likely ripper? Might there be some truth in it? Or should we say, as some appear to believe, Macnaughten was probably lying so we should dismiss Druitt as a potential suspect?

I know which option I go for Harry.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I do not believe cricket to be the issue.What is questioned is getting from one location to another.Now accepting that Druitt,or anyone for that matter,could have made the journey in a given time,the issue is,did he,not could he.
He has been discussed,George,at great length.The possibilities have been raised several times.Unfortunately those possibilities cannot,by evidence,be turned into realities.It isn't a case of dismissing Druitt out of hand,but affording him the legal right of being considered innocent untill proven guilty.If there is evidence of guilt,it has yet to be given.

Of course he’s innocent until proven guilty Harry. No one could dispute that. By saying that someone might be a suspect it doesn’t mean that are guilty. Just that they might have been.

[GBinOz]

He has been discussed,George,at great length.The possibilities have been raised several times.Unfortunately those possibilities cannot,by evidence,be turned into realities.It isn't a case of dismissing Druitt out of hand,but affording him the legal right of being considered innocent untill proven guilty.If there is evidence of guilt,it has yet to be given.

Hi Harry,

If we are to limit our discussions to those for whom there is a level of evidence of guilt to establish a legal case then there will be very few posts on casebook at all. As Jon said "There isn't any evidence against anyone, so Druitt is no more, but no less viable than every other suspect."

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Harry,

If we are to limit our discussions to those for whom there is a level of evidence of guilt to establish a legal case then there will be very few posts on casebook at all. As Jon said "There isn't any evidence against anyone, so Druitt is no more, but no less viable than every other suspect."

Cheers, George

But the evidence those reserchers seek to rely on to show he could have been the ripper namely the MM has been proven to be unsafe, its littered with basic errors, so the balance of probabality of him not being the ripper is greatly enhanced and that in my book reduces him fomr a suspect to at best a person of interest.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

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

Cheers, George

Sorry George, for the way it came across.
These are murders of circumstance & opportunity, it was well known where to find prostitutes in the East End or in Leeds/Bradford. The idea a SK should start murdering the nearest prostitute regardless of the circumstances or whether the opportunity can safely (from his perspective) present itself will always play a significant role in the mind of the perpetrator.

[GBinOz]

Sorry George, for the way it came across.

Hi Jon,

No apology is necessary. I made a statement that I now realise was uninformed, am happy to stand corrected, and am genuinely pleased that you provided me with knowledge on the topic.

Best regards, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

But the evidence those reserchers seek to rely on to show he could have been the ripper namely the MM has been proven to be unsafe, its littered with basic errors, so the balance of probabality of him not being the ripper is greatly enhanced and that in my book reduces him fomr a suspect to at best a person of interest.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

For the 4,756th time……

How many bloody times do I have to keep repeating this Trevor. If we are going to discus the case we should do it fairly and yet you keep repeating the untruth. It doesn’t look good. Again…..

I ACCEPT THAT THE INFORMATION MIGHT HAVE BEEN FALSE.
I ACCEPT THAT MACNAUGHTEN MIGHT HAVE MISINTERPRETED THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IT.

I AM SIMPLY SAYING THAT WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT EITHER OF THE ABOVE TWO ARE CORRECT.

SO TREVOR, PLEEEEEEESE TELL ME, HOW AM I IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, RELYING ON THE MEMORANDUM. IM SIMPLY EXPLORING POSSIBILITIES. I THOUGHT THAT YOU WERE ALL FOR THAT.

[Ally]

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.

And any well-read student of serial killers would understand there's a SLIGHT difference between a guy driving around in a car, and choosing a spot and someone walking for a mile from a train station, passing multiple areas and potential victims along the way.

You do get the SLIGHT difference between trolling for a victim from the privacy and comfort of a motorized vehicle and that of taking multiple trains, traveling for 3 hours on a public conveyance, then walking at night from a train station, AFTER a day of playing cricket, and then going to a random spot for no reason?

We aren't talking about Sutcliffe or any modern serial killer who has the benefit both having a car for privacy, and the ability to travel long distances in relatively short periods of time.

If you want to point to Sutcliffe or any other modern traveling serial killer, they didn't select ALL their victims from the same few blocks, because they had the ability to spread it out, and therefore not make it as noticeable.

One could as easily ask, if Druitt was a traveling serial killer, why would he focus all of his attention and tie all his victims together, by doing them all in the same spot, when he had options? If we're going to compare him to Sutcliffe, let's really compare and talk about the spread of Sutcliffe's victims, over completely different towns.

Jack the Ripper concentrated his victims in the same small geographical area. Which means, he lived in that geographical area. He wasn't a traveling serial killer.

[Wickerman]

....

You do get the SLIGHT difference between trolling for a victim from the privacy and comfort of a motorized vehicle and that of taking multiple trains, traveling for 3 hours on a public conveyance, then walking at night from a train station, AFTER a day of playing cricket, and then going to a random spot for no reason?

First of all, we are not talking about all the murders, only one of the murders required considering the above circumstances. Arguing that a one-off could not happen is a much weaker argument, and then to say he went "to a random spot for no reason", is merely your assumption.

We do not know the reason is the honest answer. Remember, the "random spot" is not where the body was found, it is where he met the victim. And, in all the cases (Nicholls, Chapman, Stride?, Eddowes, & Kelly), we do not know where he first met the victim. Ergo, we do not know the location of this "random spot", or even if it was random.

If you want to point to Sutcliffe or any other modern traveling serial killer, they didn't select ALL their victims from the same few blocks, because they had the ability to spread it out, and therefore not make it as noticeable.

Fair enough, but Sutcliffe et. al. all have the benefit of history to look back on and have learned that too many bodies in one area may tip off the police. This was not the case in 1888, there was no real historical trace to learn from. Most murders were between family members or people who knew each other. As long as his victims were not related to him by family or by social connections, he would be clean away with it. Distance being irrelevant.

Jack the Ripper concentrated his victims in the same small geographical area. Which means, he lived in that geographical area. He wasn't a traveling serial killer.

This is where your opinion is subject to bias. It simply is not true that the killer had to live in the one part of London where his preferred victim-type were so readily available.
I wont bother reminding you where Sutcliffe lived, compared to where he found his victims.

Some will argue you should never $hit on your own doorstep, and others will say a SK's first victim is the one nearest where he lived. Or, it could be where he worked, that circumstance all depends on where the killer would be when he was readily available. Whether it was being at home, or leaving work, or leaving a late night theatre, or when his local pub closed, or following some recreational event where, after which he would be the most wound-up emotionally.
My point here is to show that opportunity is always subject to circumstances, and the killer does not need to always set off on his murderous spree from home.

My last point here always seems to be forgotten, that is we have no idea how many times this killer roamed the streets looking for the right victim, at the right location, at the right time, only to be faced with sunrise after a failed night on the prowl.

Finally, my suspect is not Druitt (I believe my suspect had an 'awkward gait', which I doubt Druitt could have had), but I readily admit Druitt is of the same social type that I believe the Ripper belonged, and more to the point here, to date he has not been and cannot be, so easily dismissed.