Proof of Innocence?

[Michael Banks]

I'm not saying it is plausible, but provided "the Rev. Druitt" made it from Blandford to Wimborne by 6:30 p.m., there was a 6:43 train to Salisbury, arriving at 8.24 p.m.

From there, quickly switch trains and go from Salisbury to Waterloo Station, departure time 8.34 pm, arrival 11.41 p.m. He only has a ten-minute layover, so it's tight.

Other than that, I think Joanna is correct in saying that he would have to backtrack from Blandford to the Bournemouth West train station and take the 'direct,' arriving in London at midnight. But I don't know the local timetables out of Blandford, so I can't say what this would entail. By March 1888 there was an express from Bournemouth to London that was advertised as only two and a half hours.

As I say, it is not necessarily plausible, but I remember there was an MP on the Parnell Commission in 1889 who traveled from London to Bournemouth every night, returning in the morning--I know because his colleagues made political hay out of it.

I just mention the following for the non-cricket fans.

So looking at that timetable posted by Roger and Joanna’s find and considering the extremely low scoring match….

We don’t know what time the game started but an average time today is 11.00am for professional cricketers, but I’ve played a lot of club cricket in my younger days where the game began at 10.00 so this is an entirely plausible start time imo. Low level matches weren’t geared toward allowing time for paying spectators to arrive.

Although it’s impossible to equate those players with modern day cricketers of course it’s worth noting that in a modern day 20 over game a single inning takes an average of 90 minutes were 200+ runs are regularly scored. In the above games both teams combined only amassed a meagre 87 runs. The break between innings would have been 15 minutes or so.

If the game began at 11.00 it could very easily (and very probably) have been done and dusted by around 1.00 or just after. If the start was at 10.00 then of course we could have been looking at the game being over by 12.00 or just after.

Its certainly tradition these days that post-game food is put on by the home team, and I believe the same applied then, but this is usually just a sandwiches and tea affair which the players might or might not part take. Players with post-match travelling to tend not to hang around. These weren’t modern day post-Rugby match celebrations.

I can’t see any reason at all why Druitt couldn’t have very easily caught the 2.40 train and been back in London by very early evening time. Even the later time of 6.45 wouldn’t eliminate him. Further information might change this assessment of course but, as it stands, I have to say that this doesn’t eliminate Druitt as a possibility.

[Edward Stow]

On 30th August, he needs to change (unless you think he travelled to London in his cricket whites).
Get to Blandford Station.
Get from Blandford to Wimborne by train (timetable not yet known).
Did he take his stuff up to London and back? He was playing back near Wimborne on 1st September, so it is overwhelmingly likely that he would have had to dump his gear - cricket bat, pads, whites, gloves etc - at his parent's house in Wimborne. Pick up a knife...
Go back to Wimborne station.
Get a train to Salisbury or Brockenhurst.
Change and get another train to Waterloo.
Then walk over to Whitechapel.
Before retuning to Wimborne to play another match on 1st September.

It was regarded by most as implausible that he went down to play at Carnford on 1st September after killing Polly on 31st August.
Now he has had to play on 30th in Blandford, be man of the match, go to London, murder Polly on 31st, return and play at Carnford on 1st.

[Michael Banks]

How long to you think that it takes a man to change from his cricket clothes and into his everyday clothes and to put his clothing into a bag? All of 15 minutes tops? Maybe he left his bag with a friend? Maybe a friend agreed to drop his bag off at his parents home? Maybe he simply took his bag back with him (which I don’t see as unlikely) Maybe he didn’t intend to return to play in the second match but changed his mind? If he caught the 2.40 he gets back to London by early evening. If he killed Nichols then he has the rest of the day to get a train back. Alternatively he could have taken a very early train the next morning if there was such a train? Even if he caught the later 6.40 train he’d have been back in London with ample time.

I see nothing implausible here.

[Chris Phillips]

How long to you think that it takes a man to change from his cricket clothes and into his everyday clothes and to put his clothing into a bag? All of 15 minutes tops? Maybe he left his bag with a friend? Maybe a friend agreed to drop his bag off at his parents home? Maybe he simply took his bag back with him (which I don’t see as unlikely) Maybe he didn’t intend to return to play in the second match but changed his mind? If he caught the 2.40 he gets back to London by early evening. If he killed Nichols then he has the rest of the day to get a train back. Alternatively he could have taken a very early train the next morning if there was such a train? Even if he caught the later 6.40 train he’d have been back in London with ample time.

I see nothing implausible here.

Aren't there two different questions of plausibility involved, though?

One is the question of whether the timing of the journey is implausibly tight. If you are right that the game could have been over by 1pm that is not the case.

But the other is the question of whether Druitt is likely to have travelled to London immediately after the game and back to Dorset the following day. It seems very unlikely to me, in the absence of any conceivable reason for him to travel backwards and forwards like that.

[Gary Barnett]

An hour and a quarter from Wimborne to Salisbury, a leisurely 35 mins to make the connection at Salisbury, and then a three hour journey to Waterloo, no doubt travelling 1st class. It’s hardly a trek to the South Pole. A very relaxing journey I would imagine.

Over the years I’ve done a similar journey - Romford-Waterloo-Axminster(via Salisbury)-Lyme Regis - numerous times, occasionally there and back in the same day.

But as Chris says, that’s not the implausible bit.

[Edward Stow]

How many murders have you committed Gary?
Confess man, confess!

[Edward Stow]

'I tell you what', thinks Montague, 'I've got a day spare before my next cricket match. I've always fancied initiating a serial killing spree, so now is as good a time as any. Where are my train time tables? I think I can fit this in. And it will be a nice relaxing journey to boot. I'll take my cricket gear with me, I can blanco my pads and oil my bat on the way.'

[Gary Barnett]

How many murders have you committed Gary?
Confess man, confess!

How many could I have committed while in Lyme for a few hours? At least five.

My day trips were in consequence of having something urgent to do there. One man’s urgent requirement might be meeting with a builder, another’s committing bloody murder.

Of course, if MJD was staying with friends/family in Dorset on a particular night, then went awol the next night and was back again the night after, and a bloody murder occurred on the middle night of the three, his friends/family might harbour suspicions about him being the killer.

[Gary Barnett]

'I tell you what', thinks Montague, 'I've got a day spare before my next cricket match. I've always fancied initiating a serial killing spree, so now is as good a time as any. Where are my train time tables? I think I can fit this in. And it will be a nice relaxing journey to boot. I'll take my cricket gear with me, I can blanco my pads and oil my bat on the way.'

Was there a left luggage dept at Waterloo?

He might have changed out of his whites where he changed into them - the changing room at the Blandford ground, perhaps?

The practicalities of changing, travelling to/from London and storing his bag somewhere are a piece of P. If the man had a burning desire to get to the East End and back, it would probably have been easy peasy.

[Michael Banks]

Aren't there two different questions of plausibility involved, though?

One is the question of whether the timing of the journey is implausibly tight. If you are right that the game could have been over by 1pm that is not the case.

But the other is the question of whether Druitt is likely to have travelled to London immediately after the game and back to Dorset the following day. It seems very unlikely to me, in the absence of any conceivable reason for him to travel backwards and forwards like that.

I understand your point Chris and there’s no real solid answer. He might just have had a reason to return; a meeting with a client perhaps? Or maybe he hadn’t intended to play in the second match but then had a change of plan?

[Chris Phillips]

I understand your point Chris and there’s no real solid answer. He might just have had a reason to return; a meeting with a client perhaps? Or maybe he hadn’t intended to play in the second match but then had a change of plan?

I find it difficult to imagine there would be a pressing need for him to see a client, as the next law term was about a month away.

The only reason I can imagine for an urgent visit to London would be something connected with his mother. The A-Z says she was transferred from Brooke Asylum to Brighton in September 1888, but doesn't give an exact date. Perhaps someone has more details.

[Edward Stow]

If he went back to London and committed the murder, the only possible reason he returned to London was to commit the murder.
It would hardly have been the case of, 'well I'm here now, my cricket duds are safe in Waterloo left luggage, I luckily brought my knife with me, so I may as well pass an hour or two committing a bloody murder. Who knows I might develop a taste for it and go the way of my mother.'

The only credible scenario (which isn't credible on any level) is that he hot footed it to London with the preconceived intention of killing someone and then getting back down to Wimborne in time for his next match - which he must have expected or how was he told about the fixture?
No doubt he took his knife with him to Blandford Forum and changed there, to avoid a lengthy change over at Wimborne Minster.

[Michael Banks]

Another message from Jon Hainsworth:


Christine found this cricketing source too late for publication last year. We were very annoyed at fate, because we interpret it as confirmation of Sims describing the un-named Druitt as a criminal "genius", and Macnaghten in 1913 describing the un-named Druitt as a "remarkable man" - and in 1914 as mad but "protean"; a maniac who could at will adopt many normal faces. One of their reasons for this 'praise' was probably the way Druitt tried to create a quasi-alibi for his first murder of a defenseless, impoverished woman - hey, I was in Bournemouth! This would not really have stood up to scrutiny, but obviously it sure fools some people today. People who cannot bear that the solution to this non-mystery has been known since 1891, and then semi-officially since 1898 - albeit not the killer's name until 1965.

If it was this easy to discredit Druitt as the fiend, the family would have done this, happily. Montie confesses he is "The Ripper" but his cricket schedule proves he is delusional, insane of course, but at least not a foul murderer.

But they did not because they could not.

Assuming they too are delusional, Macnaghten when he met them in 1891 would have happily got Montague off the hook by checking his various schedules and appointments. Mac's bias was for the late and famous Dr. Robert Druitt's tragic nephew, who was also a cricketer, and whose clan had married into the family of his close friend, the also famous and celebrated Colonel Vivian Majendie, not to be the culprit.

But he did not because ergo he could not.

Being a shameless sentimentalist when it came to the bourgeoisie graduates of elite boys' schools, if there was the slightest doubt as to Montie's guilt Macnaghten would have grabbed at it, perhaps unwisely, and reassured the family that their cover-up was quite unnecessary. Instead, the upper class police chief joined and led the cover-up from both inside Scotland Yard and outside with the press.

It is therefore a logical fallacy that any such scraps, found now, could exonerate Montague John Druitt of being "Jack the Ripper". For if that was true, then he would never have become a suspect, alive or dead. And it is worth reminding the people of "Ripperology" that M. J. Druitt was not a suspect to certain reliable Victorians: he was the solution - an unwanted and inconvenient solution.

There are two "smoking gun" sources in our book; one found by Christine and one identified by Roger Palmer (I am not suggesting that Roger agrees with our interpretation, not at all). Both are columns in "The Referee". In November 1891, George Sims as Dagonet revealed that he knew the particulars of Montague Druitt, including what he had looked like (and, to be tedious, in 1893 Sims kicked Farquharson's ass for being a slime when he lost his lawsuit and for falsely accusing people of being The Ripper, when privately he and Mac agreed with the same MP's "doctrine" since 1891). Four years later, J. F. Nisbet, revealed that the family of the murderer had tried - and obviously failed - to "hush up" the ghastly truth about their deceased member.

The first "smoking gun" source sits very lonely on this Forum, with only one comment by Joe Chetcuti, So, I lost the bet that there would be no comments, whatsoever.

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/pers...ovember-1-1891

It cannot be allowed that Druitt is the solution, or even a suspect, here or on Casebook, because too many will feel - quite wrongly - that they have wasted their lives on this hobby, just as it cannot be Oswald who shot J.F.K.

Lastly, the "North Country Vicar" story is dismissed as just made-up, even though if you were making this up you would do a much better job of it. The basic information supplied by the Vicar fits Montague Druitt better than Sims' semi-fictional profile of Jack-the-Gentleman in the Edwardian era (including that he was a medical student and not a qualified surgeon). The peculiar title of the Vicar's account; "The Whitechurch Murders" also matches the name of the Reverend Charles Druitt's parish: Whitechurch.

[Michael Banks]

If he went back to London and committed the murder, the only possible reason he returned to London was to commit the murder.
It would hardly have been the case of, 'well I'm here now, my cricket duds are safe in Waterloo left luggage, I luckily brought my knife with me, so I may as well pass an hour or two committing a bloody murder. Who knows I might develop a taste for it and go the way of my mother.'

The only credible scenario (which isn't credible on any level) is that he hot footed it to London with the preconceived intention of killing someone and then getting back down to Wimborne in time for his next match - which he must have expected or how was he told about the fixture?
No doubt he took his knife with him to Blandford Forum and changed there, to avoid a lengthy change over at Wimborne Minster.

It’s difficult to see how it can be claimed that we can know the only possible reason? Just because we can’t assign a reason to something that occurred 134 years ago doesn’t mean that it couldn’t happen.

The fact is, and with the evidence that we have at the moment it is a fact, that these matches in no way eliminate Druitt as a possible suspect. Anyone can say that it’s unlikely in the absence of any knowledge of his thinking or his circumstances. He had ample time after the first game and before the second and so all that we have is “why would he…..?” I find nothing particularly unlikely here. Serial killers aren’t normally known for their rational behaviour. I doubt that the ripper was working to a timetable or a schedule so who’s to know when he’d have had the urge to kill?

Further information might come to light at any time to eliminate any suspect. As it stands though, this isn’t it.

[Chris Phillips]

Another message from Jon Hainsworth:
...
It cannot be allowed that Druitt is the solution, or even a suspect, here or on Casebook, because too many will feel - quite wrongly - that they have wasted their lives on this hobby, just as it cannot be Oswald who shot J.F.K.

Sorry, but this kind of thing cuts no ice. We've heard it too many times before. If people find a case unconvincing, insults are not likely to make them any more sympathetic to it.