Recently in the Ask Steven column on Cricinfo,
the question was asked as to whether Jack the Ripper was a cricketer. The answer is of course that no-one knows who the Ripper was, so no-one can say whether he was a cricketer, or even a "he", or otherwise very much about him at all. (Personally I have always thought FrancisTumbletee ticked more boxes than any other suspect, and cannot be definitively
ruled out for any reason, but we are not exactly in the realms of beyond
reasonable doubt.) As Steven observed, the reader presumably had in mind the journeyman
Victorian cricketer Montague John Druitt. Druitt was for many years one of the leading
Ripper suspects. Had space permitted I
would have said something more about him in my book Court and Bowled (he has a passing mention as it is), because he
was also a journeyman Victorian barrister, and thus nicely fits within the
theme of cricket and the law.
A basic requirement for any Ripper theory is
to be able to place the suspect in Whitechapel on the nights of the murders. It
also helps if they had some familiarity with the area, since that would
partially explain how they were able to evade justice. Druitt’s barrister’s chambers
were in the Temple, a short distance with good travel links to Whitechapel,
although given his upper class status he would have been rather conspicuous in
the squalid East End had he spent any time there. But it is in fact his
cricketing career which has enabled historians to examine his movements more
closely, for he was involved in recorded matches on some of the days in
question.
Druitt played a match at Canford in Dorset the
day after the murder of Polly Nichols. On the morning of the murder of Annie
Chapman, he turned out at 11:30am in a match near his home at Blackheath. The
second occasion would have involved the more unlikely journey. Since Chapman
was killed at 5:30am, Druitt would have had only a short time to return home,
dispose of all the evidence and turn up for the start of play without arousing
any suspicion (one also imagines getting through the day’s play after an
all-night murderous rampage would have presented some difficulty).
It would
therefore have been possible, but only just, for Druitt to have moved between
Whitechapel and the match venues on the days in question. Matters are
complicated though if one moves beyond the canonical five murders. If, for example, one accepts that Martha Tabram was another
victim, then one has to explain why Druitt would have returned mid-week from
Bournemouth, where he was playing a cricket match on consecutive weekends, in
order to commit the murder. I suppose he might have returned anonymously
precisely so he would have an alibi concerning his whereabouts, though if so it
is strange he did not bother going to the same lengths with all the other
murders. Then again, Tabram was before the canonical five, so perhaps Druitt (if
he was the killer) felt more confident after getting away with it and less need
to bother with an alibi.
The main reason for Druitt becoming a suspect
was that he was mentioned in the “McNaughten Memorandum”, a piece written by a
police officer not long after the killings. McNaughten seized on the point that
Druitt committed suicide shortly after the last of the five canonical murders. That
point certainly satisfies another Ripper requirement, which is to provide an
explanation about why the killings suddenly stopped. There was also a history
of mental illness in Druitt’s family, which goes to the next Ripper requirement
of a reason to believe that the suspect could have been a crazed and depraved
murderer, though there is a world of difference between the mental health
issues in his family and being a psychotic killer. If Druitt ever displayed any of the latter tendencies
it was never recorded.
Either way there is nothing definitive on the
point: other serial killers, such as Ted Bundy (whose misogyny and depravity certainly equalled that of the Ripper),
have been quite able to keep up the pretense of normality away from their
crimes.
The weakness of the case against Druitt is
that McNaughtan was not working in the East End at the time of the murders, and
so was not an officer with first-hand knowledge of the case. And apart from his
memorandum, there is nothing of substance to connect Druitt with the murders.
Thus, as with so many of the popular suspects, we are left concluding that while there is no evidence that definitively rules Druitt out, there is equally precious little that rules him in.
Thus, as with so many of the popular suspects, we are left concluding that while there is no evidence that definitively rules Druitt out, there is equally precious little that rules him in.
No comments:
Post a Comment