Ripper Notes #28 - "The Legend Continues"

[Ben]

Hi Andy,

I'm not advocating the dismissal of Macnaghten's views, but it is clear from his comments that his Druitt-related suspicions owed as much (if not more) to his personal theory as to why the ripper "stopped" killing as it did to anything specific that may have incriminated Druitt, and therein lies my problem. Macnaghten's "cessation theory" in that regard ought to be taken with a grain of salt. Without wishing to detract in the slighest from his intelligence or abilities, he had little experience of policing, let alone that which involves serial crime. Moreover, a century's worth if knowledge and experience of other serial killer behaviour has tended to diminish, not bolster, the likelihood of the offenders committing suicide over their "awful glut".

As for Druitt's being singled out over other suicides, it seems likely that the mistaken belief in his medical abilities coupled with a knowledge of his family mental issues may have placed the investigative spotlight over Druitt in particular.

We're left, ultimately, with the issue of the "private information", and whether it containd anything especially incriminating. In light of the above, and Abbeline's (etc) belief that the Druitt theory didn't amount to anything, I'd hazard an educated guess at "not much", but others' mileage may vary on that, and of course, this is where the pursuit of new information is to be encouraged.

Cheers,
Ben

[Stephen Thomas]

And meanwhile, back at Hanbury Street..............

I see what you mean about the underside of the staircase, Alan but there's no way it could show up so brightly. Here's the 'old' picture.


I do think that it's the top of the open back door, partially obscured because of the bend in the corridor, that is the patch of light. Also it could well be that there is somebody standing in the corridor and blocking out the light. In fact I do believe I can make out a top hat.

[Tom_Wescott]

Philip,

You should know by now that we're a 'seeing is believing' crowd. Telling people what you have but not showing them does not believers make. It'd be awesome if you posted these pics you're talking about.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[George Hutchinson]

Hi Alan.

So you're saying, in spite of what I can clearly SEE for absolute certain, including markings on the wall of the factory behind that are apparent in both the colour and internal B&W shots, that I'm mistaken?

If needs be, I'll scan the relevant pieces in and prove it with markings but it looks like even that isn't going to persuade the unpersuadable!

PHILIP

[aspallek]

Ben,

I don't totally agree with you. Serial crime, if not serial killing, was well known enough. If Druitt was merely a suspect of convenience due to his suicide at the right time, why were others suicides of that time not equally good suspects? Why only Druitt (among the suicides)?

Yet the main point is that the only sound approach from a historian's perspective is to ask what the principals knew at that time and go from there. We don't totally abandon the search for new information. For example, it is very useful to have the information now that Ostrog was in France when the murders were committed. However, we must take as our starting point what was known to those investigating the crimes at the time. The difficulty is we don't know all that they knew. Therefore, we have to reconstruct as much as possible their knowledge and their probable reasoning.

A good comparison is would be an effort to determine Hitler's mental state during WW2. There are two possible approaches. One would be to watch films of his appearances and pour over his writings analyzing all these with modern knowledge of psychology. Psychologists will tell you that a psychoanalysis based on such fragmentary information is unreliable. The other approach would be to try to determine what Hilter's doctors believed about his mental state that the time. The latter is the far more sound approach because his doctors had infinitely more knowledge about Hitler's day to day behavior than we do. The same reasoning should be applied to the Ripper case.

[Ben]

Hi Andy,

we must presume that intelligent people had good reasons for believing in his guilt -- or at least in his candidacy.

In this instance, though, innate intelligence was off-set by a lack (if not a complete absence) of knowledge of serial crime and serial killers, and as such, a belief that the killer's brain gave way and committed suicide might seem an "intelligent" deduction, but it is predicated on a lack of knowledge and experience.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ash]

Alan - ha ha! I'm right and you're wrong.

Yeah... well... yer face! (I iz down wid da kidz innit)

But no, Stephen, as previously explained, the visible part of the back yard would be in full sunlight, and even Phil is going to have to concede that one. The sun is almost directly overhead, just a little to the south (I have now noticed that the interior photograph, taken the same day I presume, is dated September 1961, hence my early/late summer hypothesis being totally on the money.)

You can tell by the very short distance the sunlight protrudes into through the door, only about a foot. The standard height of a door being 6 feet 8 inches, if you extend that to the whole three storey building you get a shadow in the back yard extending around four feet. Maybe a few inches more but not much.

Now use simple geometry. The person is standing on the street, not on the pavement, he is probably around 5 feet 8 or 9 inches tall so his eye level is about five feet 4 above the level of the passage. Consider the distance to the sill of the back door, then extend a line from his eye, past it, into the yard, remembering that there is a drop of around a foot and a half from the sill down to the level of the yard. Following that line, if you see the line of shadow from the building at all, it would be only just and only at the very very bottom of your field of vision.

[Stephen Thomas]

Hanbury Street colour (color) photo

OK. I've realised what's happening here. This time last year I went down to Whitechapel to do a 'now' version of an old photo that Jake had posted of the junction of Commercial Road and Berner Street. Though it was a bright sunny day the buildings I was photograping were all in shadow because the sun was low in the sky and shining from the south. So what's obviously happening in the photo we're discussing here is that the sun is shining on the front of #29 from the south, the back garden is in shadow and the light we see is from where the sun is hitting the wall of the factory at the back of the garden above the shadow of the house.

[Mike Covell]

I am with you on this Mr Hutch, I can make out the shrubbery at the bottom of the picture in your book, its got to be outside, unless the doormat at the rear was growing mushrooms or something!

[George Hutchinson]

Alan - ha ha! I'm right and you're wrong.

You need to remember a couple of things here - there's more photos of the corridor of 29 in my possession than we had published in the book, and the printed versions are not as sharp as my originals.

I've just had a look at the sequence and I'm absolutely right about this. The gap is exactly the same from the street in the colour shot as it is from the open doorway to the backyard when standing in the corridor. The reason there appears to be a light square at the top is because that is looking above the dark fence at the end of the yard to the wall of the house behind it, which is perfectly clear on my B&W shots. If anyone still doubts it, I'll have to scan in the relevant pieces and prove it to you.

PHILIP

[Sam Flynn]

If he went there to kill, then he went there to kill !!! It is not necessary to address any other reason for his being there.

I still maintain that, even then, we'd still need to explain why "there" had to be "there", particularly. I know you feel that geography might not necessarily be a factor, Colin, but I tend to disagree. That said, it's one of the few points on which we differ apropos Druitt, which is cool

[aspallek]

Hi Andy,
I did the walk from Cannon Street to Aldgate Pump today and it took me twelve and a half minutes. At a leisurely pace and a further four minutes to get to the junction of Aldgate High Street and Whitechapel High Street, where the East End begins. So we are talking 16 to 17 minutes from Cannon Street to the East End, that's not even a few minutes to me.

So our estimates of walking time are pretty close. Remember, this is with modern traffic and traffic lights. Is this a "few minutes?" Again, I accept your criticism of that particular sentence in my article. It has been nearly a year, I believe, since I wrote that but I believe I was meaning to contrast it with the distance from King's Bench Walk or Blackheath. In other words, it is a "few minutes" in comparison to those places we can definitely place Druitt. Let's just say it is 13 minutes to Mitre Square and leave it at that.

I don't think I did acknowledge that Druitt repeatedly passed through Cannon Street. I can't prove he didn't anymore than you can prove he did .

This is the point that so many of my "opponents" cannot seem to grasp. I'm not trying to "prove" anything in this article. It's all about probability.

Hi Ben,

Herein lies the weakness in the case for Druitt's candidacy. There plainly and simply is no case: None !!!

From our perspective 120 years later there is no case against Druitt, not based on what we know. However, that is not the same as saying there was no reason to suspect him 117 years ago. While Farquharson and then Macnaghten had no "case" against Druitt in the technical sense (i.e. there was no evidence that would stand the test of law), we must presume that intelligent people had good reasons for believing in his guilt -- or at least in his candidacy. We need to ask what those reason were and not merely dismiss them because we don't know of any "evidence" against him.

This discussion brings to mind a whole debate about how to soundly go about investigating the case. Is it more sound to begin with what we know now, 120 years on and apply modern criminology to the case or is it more sound to ask what the investigators knew then and uncover their thinking? I think the latter is much more sound as they knew infinitely more of the facts than we will ever know.

Hi Ben,

I agree wholeheartedly !!!

Herein lies the weakness in the case for Druitt's candidacy. There plainly and simply is no case: None !!!

Having said as much; I firmly believe that geography is not a viable factor in the case against Druitt's candidacy.

If he went there to kill, then he went there to kill !!! It is not necessary to address any other reason for his being there. It would help the case for his candidacy; but it is not necessary.

"If he went there to kill, then he went there to kill !!!"

Yes, of course that is a massive "if". But, it still holds true.


Colin

[Ben]

Hi Colin,

Trouble is, there's about as much evidence that "Druitt was a compulsive killer, who had a particular taste for the sort of alcoholic, destitute, middle-age dolly-mop, that apparently tended to congregate in and around Dorset Street and Flower & Dean Street, from all other parts of the metropolis" ...as there is evidence that he ever ventured into the East End, i.e. none.

All the best,
Ben

[Robert]

Hi Rob and Stephen

Thanks for the info.