Proof of Innocence?

[Chris Phillips]

I think G. Upward is George Upward, captain of the Church Knowles Cricket Club in 1889.

He is listed as a 'clay miner' in one census, but this might be deceptive--he is listed as a clerk in another.

There is evidently some connection between Upward and the "L. Pike" also listed as on the team, because L. Pike must be Laurence Warbuton Pike, who owned a clay mine in the area. This was evidently no small affair, because probate records show Pike was worth over 67,000 pounds in 1900. The 1891 census shows he has four maids and a gardener, so he's not short on cash. Maybe Upward worked for him (?)




Some of these people were active in Dorset politics--Conservative Party, the Primrose League, etc.

Yes, he was one of the ones I saw. And if he worked for the mine Pike owned, presumably Pike could have given him the day off to play cricket. It looks as though I picked the worst person in the team to search for ...

[R. J. Palmer]

I see now that George Upward is listed as 'clerk of clay works' on his 1870 marriage banns. This is neither here, nor there, but evidently some Roman ruins were discovered in one of the clay pits, and Mr. Pike made off with a particularly nice Doric column to use as a garden decoration.

"Doric column 4ft high, taken by Mr Pyke, owner of clay works, to `Leymoor' his garden in Parkstone, lost when the site was divided for redevelopment. OS 6" map of 1888 gives 1885 as date of discovery; Tennent says 1888, an easy mistake."

[Gary Barnett]

On later records, Upward was described as a weighman, presumably at the clay mine. His father was originally an agricultural labourer, although he later became a dealer/salesman, so Upward wouldn’t have been categorised as a ‘gentleman’.

[Mark J D]

It pretty much totally unravels the Druitt theory at a stroke of the cricket bat.

-- And if the police kept clinging on to Druitt as a viable suspect in spite of this information having been in the public domain literally all along, it shows that they did no meaningful investigation whatsoever of what his movements had been during the Autumn of Terror.

"Surely the police would have checked...", we hear over and over again in connection with Lechmere.

Well, as I've said over and over again, *no*...

M.

[Edward Stow]

Yes precisely.
They were fumbling in a self imposed darkness. Without a clue.

And don't forget they also thought Ostrog was one of the top three possibilities.
It puts Kosminski into clearer perspective.

[Michael Banks]

But doesn’t the fact that this new information doesn’t eliminate Druitt count? All that we have is the question ‘why would he have gone to London and then returned?’ Perhaps it does seem strange behaviour but we know that he’d have had time to have done so. So we have an unanswered question. If Druitt was the killer, and that’s a pretty sizeable ‘if’ of course, then he was a serial killer and they’re not exactly know for there reasoned thinking. Just because we don’t have a definitive answer to a question should we just assume that something couldn’t have occurred when logistically it was entirely possible?

Another point is actually illustrated by Joanna’s find. If MacNaghten was simply knocking up a list of ‘better than Cutbush’ suspects out of thin air, why Druitt? Kosminski was in an asylum and Ostrog was a criminal who was who knows where. Yet Druitt’s life was to a significant extent recorded. School records, solicitors/court records, cricket scores, family records. Would Mac have scanned all of the cricket matches during the period of the murders? I doubt it, so why pick Druitt when anyone might have said “hold on, this guy was playing cricket in Bournemouth 5 hours after Chapman was being killed?”Why would Mac alight on Druitt when, as has been pointed out elsewhere, he could taken his pick from any number of probably untraceable deceased or incarcerated criminals or ‘lunatics?’ Why would he have chosen a man who’s family were related by marriage to one of his best friends at a time when family honour meant all and scandal was feared above everything else? If it’s claimed that he only chose Druitt because of his ‘timely’ suicide then we have a second question to answer. Why didn’t he choose someone that died or was incarcerated after Mackenzie? After all his good friend Monro believed that Mackenzie was a ripper victim too as did Reid and others.

Without wishing to change the subject but talking of questions that need asking which might lead to doubts…..what about a man butchering a women in the street then loitering around for some guy to emerge from the dark show that h could show him his handiwork? Every suspect throws up questions. However we view Lechmere as individuals we can’t exonerate with known facts. The same applies to Druitt as it stands. Things might change of course if more facts emerge.

[Edward Stow]

Why the three names were put forward by Macnaghten, and as he can't realistically have been operating in a vacuum, why those three were favoured by Scotland Yard is an interesting historical and sociological question.
it is quite separate from any proposition as to.their guilt. Ostrog we know can't have done it. I think any reasonable person knows now Druitt can't have done it. With Kosminski the police were wrong about very basic facts (as indeed they were about Druitt).
All these factors tell you about the police investigative abilities at the time.
But again that is distinct from.the question - why those three?
With Druitt, his middle class - but not too high drawer - status made him a satisfying culprit. The police were not outwitted by a mere oik... or foreigner.
Then there is the timing of his death.
Then his almost certainly homosexuality and the contemporary prejudice against gay people as exemplified by Psychopathia Sexualis - which may well have generated heat and suspicion from his own family.

I would add, that why the sub set of the so called canonical five were selected as being by the hand of the Ripper by a certain school of thought in Scotland Yard is another interesting point.

[Edward Stow]

Without wishing to be drawn to discuss Lechmere - which isn't relevant to this discussion...

There is no suggested that he loitered for a guy to energe from the dark.
And he didn't show him his (or anyone else's of you prefer) handiwork as the wounds were concealed.

[Michael Banks]

Why the three names were put forward by Macnaghten, and as he can't realistically have been operating in a vacuum, why those three were favoured by Scotland Yard is an interesting historical and sociological question.
it is quite separate from any proposition as to.their guilt. Ostrog we know can't have done it. I think any reasonable person knows now Druitt can't have done it. With Kosminski the police were wrong about very basic facts (as indeed they were about Druitt).
All these factors tell you about the police investigative abilities at the time.
But again that is distinct from.the question - why those three?
With Druitt, his middle class - but not too high drawer - status made him a satisfying culprit. The police were not outwitted by a mere oik... or foreigner.
Then there is the timing of his death.
Then his almost certainly homosexuality and the contemporary prejudice against gay people as exemplified by Psychopathia Sexualis - which may well have generated heat and suspicion from his own family.

Ok, time to end the discussion as far as I’m concerned as “I think any reasonable person knows now Druitt can't have done it” is not a reasonable statement by any stretch of the imagination. This evidence simply doesn’t eliminate Druitt so to say that can’t have done it is simply untrue.

[Michael Banks]

Without wishing to be drawn to discuss Lechmere - which isn't relevant to this discussion...

There is no suggested that he loitered for a guy to energe from the dark.
And he didn't show him his (or anyone else's of you prefer) handiwork as the wounds were concealed.

I raised this simply to show that all suspects have questions/doubts attached or else the case would be solved. As another example I might add the doubts on Chapman TOD. If Philips was correct then fine, but if he was wrong and the witnesses were correct then we have the ‘doubt’ that Lech would have halted his round, parked up his cart, and killed Chapman. It doesn’t exonerate Lechmere but it raises a question/doubt.

[Chris Phillips]

I don't think anyone else here has said it makes it impossible for Druitt to have murdered Polly Nichols.

But I do think that knowing he was in Dorset both the day before and the day after makes it very unlikely. Of course, everyone will have their own opinion about that.

[Edward Stow]

There is a subtle distinction between an absolute impossibility, and a conclusion that any reasonable person would draw..
Two, now, withdrawals from discussion speak for themselves.

[Caroline Brown]

But doesn’t the fact that this new information doesn’t eliminate Druitt count? All that we have is the question ‘why would he have gone to London and then returned?’ Perhaps it does seem strange behaviour but we know that he’d have had time to have done so. So we have an unanswered question. If Druitt was the killer, and that’s a pretty sizeable ‘if’ of course, then he was a serial killer and they’re not exactly know for there reasoned thinking. Just because we don’t have a definitive answer to a question should we just assume that something couldn’t have occurred when logistically it was entirely possible?

Another point is actually illustrated by Joanna’s find. If MacNaghten was simply knocking up a list of ‘better than Cutbush’ suspects out of thin air, why Druitt? Kosminski was in an asylum and Ostrog was a criminal who was who knows where. Yet Druitt’s life was to a significant extent recorded. School records, solicitors/court records, cricket scores, family records. Would Mac have scanned all of the cricket matches during the period of the murders? I doubt it, so why pick Druitt when anyone might have said “hold on, this guy was playing cricket in Bournemouth 5 hours after Chapman was being killed?”Why would Mac alight on Druitt when, as has been pointed out elsewhere, he could taken his pick from any number of probably untraceable deceased or incarcerated criminals or ‘lunatics?’ Why would he have chosen a man who’s family were related by marriage to one of his best friends at a time when family honour meant all and scandal was feared above everything else? If it’s claimed that he only chose Druitt because of his ‘timely’ suicide then we have a second question to answer. Why didn’t he choose someone that died or was incarcerated after Mackenzie? After all his good friend Monro believed that Mackenzie was a ripper victim too as did Reid and others.

Without wishing to change the subject but talking of questions that need asking which might lead to doubts…..what about a man butchering a women in the street then loitering around for some guy to emerge from the dark show that h could show him his handiwork? Every suspect throws up questions. However we view Lechmere as individuals we can’t exonerate with known facts. The same applies to Druitt as it stands. Things might change of course if more facts emerge.

Hi Michael,

This is why I question MM's obligation to identify Druitt by name, unless his destroyed 'private' information had given him a sense of: "I know something nobody else does and I'm going to put my suspect's name in writing" [so if one day I'm proved right I can take all the credit]. Why else would he have named Druitt, when he had no need to do so and had got rid of any evidence he had possessed? Even if he considered this evidence damning, he could have taken his opinion to the grave, as Druitt was no longer a danger to anyone.

If MM had not named Druitt, would anyone else have done so? Did anyone else do so? The theory goes that others were in the know, but did their level best to disguise the story and conceal the killer's identity, to protect the family name from the black sheep within it. But not MM. With one sweep of the pen, he undid all such efforts to keep the truth under wraps. Did his informant(s) forget to swear him to eternal secrecy?

Love,

Caz
X

[Edward Stow]

Ostrog undermines all.of that.
imagining there must be something more profound behind it all... yet when it is unpacked it is an empty box.

[Steve Blomer]

A little late to the debate, sorry.

Not being a Druitt person by any stretch of the imagination(Although I was back in the very early 70s) the research is very good.
The type of dry data I really enjoy.

Now having read the various arguments given I on the whole find I am closest to those of Gary.

While this on the surface, appears to make the case against Druitt weaker, I am not sure it really does. It's certainly not the knockout blow.

I base that view on.

1. No.time for close of play.
Therefore attempting to saying he couldn't possibly travel to London in the time is really a bit silly, given we Don't know how much time there was.

2. RJ showed that there were trains which would allow it, even if the day did not finish early.

3. Ed's points about having to travel home are at first glance very good, however as Michael pointed out , he could have passed his kit to a friend. And as Michael says getting changed does not take long. Having played for over 30 years myself, it never took me longer than 10 minutes.
Ed's argument is very logical, but it's based on assumption, even if that assumption is very, very reasonable.

Finally as for why would he travel to London, well one might as well argue why would anyone kill?
We don't know the killers thinking, motivation. For me therefore such arguments do not really advance the debate.

I don't really understand the response from JH, it seems very personal.

Conclusion, overall a great bit of research, which strengthens, if only slightly, the case for rejecting Druitt.
I don't see it as the knockout blow some seem to see it as.