Have to admit, Druitt has never really appealed to me as a suspect. I'm just wondering what it is about him that leads certain Ripperologists to hang their hat on him being the Ripper? Prima facie, it comes down to the Macnaghten memo and the time of his death. But Macnaghten gets even the most basic details about Druitt wrong, so how much stock can be put in his words? Does Druitt fit any of the witness descriptions? Did he even possess the kind of skill required for the murders? Can he be placed at Whitechapel when the killings took place?
When sir Melville wrote about Druitt he sated that the police didn't suspect him of been jack the ripper but his own family did which is odd why would an educated family think such a thing.William montys brother had no problem in telling the inquest that their mother was in a mental institution and that Monty had been sacked from his teaching job because he had got into serious trouble why share this news with anyone unless he wanted the coroner to form an opinion that these were the reasons for montys suicide not something else the something else might well have been the fact that Monty was jack the ripper.I think the fact Druitt lived alone is very important and also having a father who was a doctor might mean druitt had an understanding of anatomy and could at one stage of his life attempted to study medicine one last thing to consider sir Melville states that Druitt was from a fairly good instead of a good or excellent family so something had put him of them a bit also by naming Druitt he wasn't to botherd about hurting the family could he have been annoyed that Druitts family never contacted the police about their concerns over Monty.
Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth
But there are things persistently written about Druitt and Macnaghten that are arguably quite off-track.
Druitt does not first appear in the extant record with the 'memo' but in the 'West of England' MP articles of 1891--albeit un-named.'The accusation emerged from the region in which he had grown up, e.g. from 'his own people'.
Macnaghten, arguably, does not make mistakes about his chosen suspect in the de-facto third version of his report: his 1914 memoirs, e.g. not a doctor, not middle-aged, not a mental patient, and not a suicide instantly after Kelly.
Druitt did not die at the 'right' time but at the wrong time: two years too early. Macnaghten had to pretend that police knew at the time hat Kelly was the final victim, actually she was made the final victim by the timing of Druitt's sucide, not the other way round.
The so-called errors by Mac make sense when you realise this was information he disseminated to the public via cronies. It could not contain completely accurate data because this would expose the Druitt family and trigger a potentially ugly libel suit if it was insinuated that they knew their member was a maniacal killer and they had done nothing. Such an accurate leak would also expose the Yard to embarrassment: they had not known of this man until years after he killed himself.
Druitt broadly resembles the man seen by Lawende with Eddowes. This seems to have been the witness the police used for confrontations with two Ripper suspects-- both Gentile sailors. Though Macnaghten and Sims went to great lengths to deny this and bury this witness sighting, Guy Logan's 1905 opus, 'The True History of Jack the Ripper', has it's Druitt figure--Mortemer Slade--seen by just such a witness with this victim.
The 'North Country Vicar' of 1899 claims the fiend went to the East End for charitable purposes. Oxonians, of which Druitt was one, were part of a social reform movement who went to the abyss to try and bring some education and help.