Hi Caz,
Your last point, I believe, is well taken. If Druitt became rather obsessed with the killings (and we have no indication of this) then his family may have seen this as a possible indication of involvement on his part. Still, it does seem a rather extreme conclusion to be reached.
Sir Melville wrote that Druitt's family "believed him to have been the murderer." That's strong. Not "suspected" but "believed." What would cause such a belief among one's own family? And who was the informant who provided the "private information?" I think the cause would almost have to be something on the order of a confession or a very strong statement expressing approval of the murders. Macnaghten's informant, i think, is someone outside the Druitt family. Of the names we know, two possibilities present themselves: Henry Richard Farquharson, (Druitt family MP) and Rev. John Henry Lonsdale (Druitt family clergyman, family acquaintance and classmate at Eton of Melville Macnaghten).
Your last point, I believe, is well taken. If Druitt became rather obsessed with the killings (and we have no indication of this) then his family may have seen this as a possible indication of involvement on his part. Still, it does seem a rather extreme conclusion to be reached.
Sir Melville wrote that Druitt's family "believed him to have been the murderer." That's strong. Not "suspected" but "believed." What would cause such a belief among one's own family? And who was the informant who provided the "private information?" I think the cause would almost have to be something on the order of a confession or a very strong statement expressing approval of the murders. Macnaghten's informant, i think, is someone outside the Druitt family. Of the names we know, two possibilities present themselves: Henry Richard Farquharson, (Druitt family MP) and Rev. John Henry Lonsdale (Druitt family clergyman, family acquaintance and classmate at Eton of Melville Macnaghten).
Comment