Proof of Innocence?

[Edward Stow]

Kattrup
If you read posts in this thread and others you will find your answer.
I won't repeat it as it is off topic.

Mr Banks
It's an unknown but there is a probability.
That is frequently the nature of historical enquiry.
And I don't think anyone suggested that Druitt had nowhere to stay had he hypothetically traveled to London between cricket matches.
I, for example, have suggested a hotel around Waterloo or the Chummery.

[Steve Blomer]

Going back slightly to the issue of one or two innings matches.
I stumbled across this article this week

https://www.cricketcountry.com/artic...e-ripper-71074

It contained this little gem


"The last major match he played was a single innings game against the Christopherson brothers, in which he took 3 for 38 in a 22-run win. In this game, Stanley Christopherson dismissed him and later Druitt returned the compliments. Significantly, the match was played on September 8, and started a few hours after the second Whitechapel murder."

[Edward Stow]

We would have to see a record of that match.
Was it a Druitt XI against a Christopherson Brothers XI?
What time did it start?
Where was it playede?
Does it discount Druitt from the Chapman murder?

[Steve Blomer]

We would have to see a record of that match.
Was it a Druitt XI against a Christopherson Brothers XI?
What time did it start?
Where was it playede?
Does it discount Druitt from the Chapman murder?

It's the 8th September game,
The score card is below

The author is a cricket historian, I see no reason to doubt the cricketing points in the article.

The point was to show that 1 innings matches did occurr.

[R. J. Palmer]

We would have to see a record of that match.
Was it a Druitt XI against a Christopherson Brothers XI?
What time did it start?
Where was it playede?
Does it discount Druitt from the Chapman murder?

Ed, this match has been discussed as a potential alibi for MJD for the better part of 50 years. It was in Blackheath, and Rosenwater and Sugden have it starting at 11.30 a.m.

If we use the Holmgren time of death of 3.30 a.m., that leaves 8 hours to get from Hanbury Street to Blackheath.

(Personally, I think Chapman died closer to 5.30 a.m., so I'd call it 6 hours)

In discussing this timeline and whether it lets MJD off the hook, Dan Farson pointed out a case of a man who had beaten his mother with a frying pan (and then strangled her) but a few hours later was on the other side of London, being married in a church. Witnesses said the groom was the "happiest we had ever seen him."

The Blandford game might be more problematic.

[Chris Phillips]

There is a Rippercast podcast on this topic at Casebook, with Jonathan Menges, Ally Ryder, Steve Blomer and Mark Ripper:
https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-sticky-wicket

[Gary Barnett]

What is the source for Sugden’s claim that Druitt played in a match in Canford on 1st September?

He mentions the Bournemouth Guardian of 1st and 8th and Rosenwater pp. 7, 22. It’s not clear which is the source for that particular match.

[Gary Barnett]

There is a Rippercast podcast on this topic at Casebook, with Jonathan Menges, Ally Ryder, Steve Blomer and Mark Ripper:
https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-sticky-wicket

Very enjoyable.

[Gary Barnett]

What is the source for Sugden’s claim that Druitt played in a match in Canford on 1st September?

He mentions the Bournemouth Guardian of 1st and 8th and Rosenwater pp. 7, 22. It’s not clear which is the source for that particular match.

I found it, it’s the Bournemouth Guardian 8/9.

[Edward Stow]

Strange that the 'pundits' discussing this thread on that podcast were unfamiliar with it... including the one who is a contributor but who hasn't seemed to have read this thread very thoroughly, or at least not thoroughly enough to overcome their own confirmation bias.

[Scott Nelson]

Unfamiliar with what on this thread, specifically?

[Edward Stow]

The pundits were pretty much totally unfamiliar except one and he didn't understand the arguments put forward

[Christer Holmgren]

Ed, this match has been discussed as a potential alibi for MJD for the better part of 50 years. It was in Blackheath, and Rosenwater and Sugden have it starting at 11.30 a.m.

If we use the Holmgren time of death of 3.30 a.m., that leaves 8 hours to get from Hanbury Street to Blackheath.

(Personally, I think Chapman died closer to 5.30 a.m., so I'd call it 6 hours)

As it happens, an early time of death is not "the Holmgren time", it is the Bagster Phillips time. And, of course, I would never try to establish a time that was fixed to a specific minute. What I am saying is that Phillips said that two hours, putting the TOD at 4.30, was the extreme late time to which he was willing to go, while he was of the meaning that Chapmans TOD probably needed to be placed earlier than so. That´s all.

Out of curiosity: Why is it that I reoccuringly have to step in and correct you claiming things on my behalf? Not long ago I had to explain to you over on Casebook that you are not suited to explain to people what my convictions are. I do that myself, and rarely along the lines that you suggest on my behalf.

It is becoming tedious.

[R. J. Palmer]

Out of curiosity: Why is it that I reoccuringly have to step in and correct you claiming things on my behalf?

This is indeed tiresome, Christer.

How are you "correcting me"? Are you trying to imply that you haven't argued that Chapman was killed around 3.30 a.m.? --thus coinciding with Lechmere's commute to work? Did I grotesquely misinterpret what was being implied in the 'Missing Evidence' documentary as well as your many posts on this subject?

If so, I deeply apologize!


I don't think it matters whether you were convinced by Bagster Phillips' guesstimate or by the arguments in Wolf Vandlerlinden's essay--that is beyond the subject of this thread. It suffices to say that you've argued for an earlier time of death than the generally accepted one. Which you now clarify as 4.30 a.m as the 'extreme' late time."

Why did I bring up your name? It's a fair question.

To be blunt, I deliberately chose to use a Lechmerian time-of-death--3.30 or earlier--or, as you now say, 4.30 a.m as the 'extreme late time'-- because I thought it would more easily hit home with Ed Stow. I adjusted my argument for the benefit of the poster, who in this case was Ed.

And why is this unfair? The Lechmerians can't have it both ways, can they? The earlier they assume Chapman was murdered, the more time MJ Druitt has to make it back to Blackheath.

Ed was asking, in what I imagined to have been an ominous undertone pregnant with doubt and skepticism, if Druitt playing cricket on September 8th "discounted him as a suspect."

How could it discount him if the match began at 11.30 a.m. and we have been told that Chapman was killed at 4.30 a.m. or earlier? Perhaps even at 3.30 a.m., during the timeframe of Lechmere's commute?

Does it take over 7 hours to get from Hanbury Street to Blackheath?

That was the point of my post. I assumed it would have been self-evident, but I don't mind explaining it further.

Even if we ignore your beliefs and accept a 5.30 time-of-death, give or take, that still leaves him 6 hours.

Would you agree it was "doable," or do you consider this a safe alibi?

Thanks.

[Christer Holmgren]

This is indeed tiresome, Christer.

How are you "correcting me"? Are you trying to imply that you haven't argued that Chapman was killed around 3.30 a.m.? --thus coinciding with Lechmere's commute to work? Did I grotesquely misinterpret what was being implied in the 'Missing Evidence' documentary as well as your many posts on this subject?

If so, I deeply apologize!


I don't think it matters whether you were convinced by Bagster Phillips' guesstimate or by the arguments in Wolf Vandlerlinden's essay--that is beyond the subject of this thread. It suffices to say that you've argued for an earlier time of death than the generally accepted one. Which you now clarify as 4.30 a.m as the 'extreme' late time."

Why did I bring up your name? It's a fair question.

To be blunt, I deliberately chose to use a Lechmerian time-of-death--3.30 or earlier--or, as you now say, 4.30 a.m as the 'extreme late time'-- because I thought it would more easily hit home with Ed Stow. I adjusted my argument for the benefit of the poster, who in this case was Ed.

And why is this unfair? The Lechmerians can't have it both ways, can they? The earlier they assume Chapman was murdered, the more time MJ Druitt has to make it back to Blackheath.

Ed was asking, in what I imagined to have been an ominous undertone pregnant with doubt and skepticism, if Druitt playing cricket on September 8th "discounted him as a suspect."

How could it discount him if the match began at 11.30 a.m. and we have been told that Chapman was killed at 4.30 a.m. or earlier? Perhaps even at 3.30 a.m., during the timeframe of Lechmere's commute?

Does it take over 7 hours to get from Hanbury Street to Blackheath?

That was the point of my post. I assumed it would have been self-evident, but I don't mind explaining it further.

Even if we ignore your beliefs and accept a 5.30 time-of-death, give or take, that still leaves him 6 hours.

Would you agree it was "doable," or do you consider this a safe alibi?

Thanks.

I am correcting you by pointing out that it is not my idea that Chapman died early, it is the idea of Bagster Phillips. I of course wrote so in my former post, but you may have missed it.

I am perfectly aware of the point you were making in your discussion with Edward, but that was not why I reacted. I reacted because you presented the historically recorded view of a renowned medico as something that was my idea.

It seems there are two ways of doing ripperology. One is to discuss the various facts of the case, straight and honest, and the other one is to misrepresent the facts in a way that suits your own arguments.

I could of course speak of R J Palmer, who prefers to go with information that is historically recorded as doubtful instead of relying on medical evidence that has never been proven wrong, thinks that Annie Chapman was killed at 5.30.

If I did, I would be in sync with the recorded evidence and not misrepresenting anything. It would be a much fairer thing to say than to imply that an early TOD is something that I suggested.

In my world, these things mean something. If you cannot understand why, it sort of confirms my misgivings. And your point about how I cant have things both ways does not help things, does it? You are perfectly, perfectly aware that I am striving for no such thing, but that does not stop you from making the allegation.

Staying away from such antics would help a lot. But of course, it takes an input of will.