Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'M. J. Druitt- said to be a doctor'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    According to Wiki, Montague John Druit was "the second son and third child of prominent local surgeon William Druit." Since it was very popular for sons to follow in their father's footsteps, Druit could have had some training. For a good FICTION book dealing with Druit, I recommend Whitechapel: The Final Stand of Sherlock Holmes (Gentlemen's Edition) by Bernard J Scheffer or his extremely raw original edition of the same book. It is certainly a plausible way for MJD to get the skills that would make him able to be misidentified as a doctor.
    And the questions always linger, no real answer in sight

    Comment


    • #17
      According to Wiki, Montague John Druit was "the second son and third child of prominent local surgeon William Druit." Since it was very popular for sons to follow in their father's footsteps, Druit could have had some training. For a good FICTION book dealing with Druit, I recommend Whitechapel: The Final Stand of Sherlock Holmes (Gentlemen's Edition) by Bernard J Scheffer or his extremely raw original edition of the same book. It is certainly a plausible way for MJD to get the skills that would make him able to be misidentified as a doctor.

      Surely we don't need speculation of this kind at this stage of our discussions in regard to Druitt or JtR?

      Do we now take fiction as a reliable source?

      We can explain MM's description of MJD as a "doctor" without recourse to such puerile reasoning:

      a) MM (who admitted to writing from memory and not notes) simply wrote in a "profession" (i.e. legal, medical etc) and picked the wrong one;

      b) for the conspiracy theorists, MM wrote "said to be a doctor ..." in order to hide MJD's true calling and thus to protect colleagues and the wider profession;

      c) MM got confused between several suspects (medical students and the drowned barrister).

      My reason for being so harsh on other speculation is that seeking to give MJD some sort of medical or surgical knowledge/expertise is the thin end of the wedge from the old and discredited thesis that he was "Jack". Just as there is no evidence that MJD was ever in the East End, there is absolutely no evidence that he ever received medical training. indeed, I don't see much room in his known curriculum vitae to have done so.

      On Ostrog - MM seems to be reflecting the views and description of Ostrog current in 1888. Is there any clear evidence that MM would ever have known that Ostrog was in custody in France at the relevant time?

      Phil H

      Comment


      • #18
        Hi Phil

        I entirely agree that the type of thinking that would have it that of course Druitt was adept at surgery because his father was a surgeon is fallacious reasoning, and exactly the problem with a lot of past theorizing about the case and various suspects -- too many leaps of faith with not enough basis for such ideas.

        Best regards

        Chris
        Christopher T. George
        Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conference
        just held in Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018.
        For information about RipperCon, go to http://rippercon.com/
        RipperCon 2018 talks can now be heard at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/

        Comment


        • #19
          It takes me back to pre-1988 days, Chris, when we has a circumstantial web that has MJD's uncle with a surgery in The Minories, which MJD was "certain" to have visited. Rumours of an article in Austrlia that "Druitt" was the Ripper (turned out to be Deeming IIRC); and hypothesised other charitable activities in Whitechapel for our Monty. His "chambers" in The Temple became his bolthole, anyone having legal chambers nearby linked him to royalty, homosexuals or conspiracists (hardly surprising given the people who also had business there). None of this was real, none of it evidence based, all wishful thinking!

          We must avoid any repeat of that sort of thinking, and learn from past mistakes, or we will never make progress.

          As far as I can see, after years of reading about him, the only connection that Monty Druitt has to JtR is that he committed suicide a few days after Kelly's murder and thus was a potential killer because the murders appeared to stop thereafter. That seems to have led to Macnaghten including him on his list for some reason, and claiming private information which does not exist and may have been nothing but hearsay.

          NOTHING else links him to Whitechapel, to victims, to medical knowledge, to the crime scenes, to having been violent, having committed ANY crime, or even of being a type with a mental instability that might have led to murder. Indeed, to the contrary, he seems to have had reasonable alibis for some of the murders - his cricketing activities, and a difficult journey to and from Blackheath.

          I write as a reformed Druittist, now recovered over 20 years, in an attempt to stop others wasting their lives.

          Phil H

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Phil H View Post
            It takes me back to pre-1988 days, Chris, when we has a circumstantial web that has MJD's uncle with a surgery in The Minories, which MJD was "certain" to have visited. Rumours of an article in Austrlia that "Druitt" was the Ripper (turned out to be Deeming IIRC); and hypothesised other charitable activities in Whitechapel for our Monty. His "chambers" in The Temple became his bolthole, anyone having legal chambers nearby linked him to royalty, homosexuals or conspiracists (hardly surprising given the people who also had business there). None of this was real, none of it evidence based, all wishful thinking!

            We must avoid any repeat of that sort of thinking, and learn from past mistakes, or we will never make progress.

            As far as I can see, after years of reading about him, the only connection that Monty Druitt has to JtR is that he committed suicide a few days after Kelly's murder and thus was a potential killer because the murders appeared to stop thereafter. That seems to have led to Macnaghten including him on his list for some reason, and claiming private information which does not exist and may have been nothing but hearsay.

            NOTHING else links him to Whitechapel, to victims, to medical knowledge, to the crime scenes, to having been violent, having committed ANY crime, or even of being a type with a mental instability that might have led to murder. Indeed, to the contrary, he seems to have had reasonable alibis for some of the murders - his cricketing activities, and a difficult journey to and from Blackheath.

            I write as a reformed Druittist, now recovered over 20 years, in an attempt to stop others wasting their lives.

            Phil H
            I am in total agreement remove him from the list of suspects along with Tumblety and Aaron Kosminski

            Comment


            • #21
              I am in total agreement remove him from the list of suspects along with Tumblety and Aaron Kosminski

              If we are serious about our study of the Whitechapel murders we cannot do that, because those names are part of the contemporary record. You cannot simply deny the past.

              We can state, when considering suspects named at the time that the evidence available to us does not suggest that they were likely killers. But since we cannot know what was in the mind of Melville Macnaghten and otthers (not least the specifics given in the Swanson marginalia) we cannot simply dismiss them.

              You are, of course, free to be as cavalier as you like in your approach, but we have discussed that at length in the past.

              Serious academic study has to pass peer review and simply dropping things that we cannot explain would never pass muster.

              Phil H

              Comment


              • #22
                Sorry I offended. I'm not suggesting to take fiction for fact, just that it makes an interesting story. I'm not ready to dismiss Druitt so quickly. Macnaghten counted him as his major suspect. He must have had good reason, even given that Druitt was a lawyer, not a doctor. Many police reports of that time are destroyed or misplaced, so it isn't inconceivable that evidence pertaining to Druitt's candidacy to being JtR has been lost.


                Again, Phil H, ChrisGeorge, Trevor Marriott, I apologize for any offending remarks.

                Raven
                And the questions always linger, no real answer in sight

                Comment


                • #23
                  No apology required Raven, but it is important to be clear about the basis of our reasoning on JtR.

                  There has over the years, and remains, a great deal of puerile thinking and a casual approach to evidence among some students of the case.

                  On Druitt, I must confess to having been a Druittist in the 1970s, but since then a great deal of reserach has been done and we know much more about the man.

                  Macnaghten counted him as his major suspect. but we don't know why. I used to be a firm supporter of MM's integrity, but I have been persuaded by many keen intellects and strong arguments on this site, to be more cautious. MM certainly included errors in his memorandum, whether unintentionally or intentionally and that undermines the case for MJD.

                  Among other things, as you are aware, MM got MJD's age and profession wrong.

                  Was that because he relied on memory not notes? Possibly. But it is equally possible, as has been argued, that he was seeking to mislead and obfuscate deliberately, either to shield the family or the wider legal profession. It is also possible that MM was seeking to misdirect readers of the file from some sensitive issue (if that was the case - I am not saying it is - it could have been Cutbush as JtR but more likely, IMHO, some Fenian connection).

                  He must have had good reason, even given that Druitt was a lawyer, not a doctor.

                  We cannot now know his reasons, their validity or the information or sources on which it was based. The phrasing of the memorandum is equivocal IMHO - it argues that any of his named suspects was more likely than Cutbush to have been JtR but does not explicitly say any were. We now know that his information on and characterisation of Ostrog was wholly wrong - Ostrog could not have been JtR. So why should we be any more suspicious of Druitt, or believe MM was any more accurate in his case? Further, from Swanson's marginalia, we have to question whether Kosminski was rightly identified as a suspect or whether there was confusion. none of this is encouraging interms of believing MM, IMHO.

                  Many police reports of that time are destroyed or misplaced, so it isn't inconceivable that evidence pertaining to Druitt's candidacy to being JtR has been lost.

                  Clearly, if MM's statements are taken at face value - private information, references to the family, his destruction of material etc - what you say is true. But for the reasons I have already given - if he had information, he appears not to have used it accurately.

                  So, while we cannot just dismiss MJD as a suspect - because he was named by a senior contemporary police official - unless further information emerges, he appears to me (after long reflection) to be not worth pursuing. there are better attested suspects that MJD and other lines of inquiry that would be IMHO a better investment in time. There is noting in his life that connects him to the east End, to the victims, or gives credence to believing him capable of such deeds as the Ripper committed. While he has no absolute alibi, his cricketing activities seem to show that he continued to lead a very ordinary life. The only reason we know for considering him in any way as related to the crimes is the likely date of his suicide, which seems to have been construed as a reason why the killings "stopped" (did they?) after MJK's.

                  Happy to debate more if you wish,

                  Phil H

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Hi Phil

                    Yes, MJD lived an otherwise normal life, played cricket, taught school, etc. But recall Ted Bundy worked a suicide hotline. Johm Wayne Gacy played a clown for hospitalized children. Even HH Holmes appeared normal to most people. A serial killer doesn't have to be a wild-eyed crazy with an axe in each hand. They have been known to be stopped by the police with a body in the car and passed over because they acted so normal. A kid fleeing from Jeffery Dahmer seeking police help was returned to Dahmer's care because he was so normal acting and glib in his story of a lover's quarrel. They get away with so many murders because they are so routine in their actions and daily life that no one believes they are even capable of murder. I think MJD's easy-going cricket player actions could have been just that type of disguise. Evidence, I admit however, is hard to come by.

                    Raven
                    And the questions always linger, no real answer in sight

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Anything COULD be an indication of Druitt being anything. The problem is we have no evidence, and surely that should be our sole concern.

                      We have no indication he was violent, no connection to the East End, nothing to connect him to a victim... On the other hand, there are other equally good (better even?) reasons to explain his suicide - insanity/suicides in the family, his mother's situation, his possible homosexuality or a problem at school 9whether embezzlement of paedophilia)?

                      All we know is that MM fingered him, but MM also mentioned Ostrog in the same breath and we know he could not have been JtR. Moreover the third name, Kosminski, even with the added endorsement of the Swanson marginalisa, has revealed no definite association with the murders in the light of modern research.

                      Are we missing something im MM's purpose or aim?

                      Phil H

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Perhaps. What we are doing in any case is trying to solve "the one that got away." Holding us back is the fact that police of that era did not keep records anywhere near like the police force\FBI of today. Then also, London was bombed in two World Wars, destroying much possible evidence. The trail is perhaps too cold.

                        FBI pofilers have given strong leads, sometimes in the opposite direction from Druitt, but in The Cases that Haunt Us, John Douglas narrowed the suspects down to two, Druitt and David Cohen, before going with Cohen, basically stating lack of evidence against Druitt. Druitt was the type of person Douglas thought would have committed the crimes, but there was and is no solid evidence against him. It may have been there at one time, as he has to be considered strongly suspected by authorities.

                        You are quite entitled to your own opinion, and to interpret the little evidence we have as you see fit. Allow me the same courtesy. After all, none of us have proof that would make it in a court of law.

                        God bless

                        Raven
                        And the questions always linger, no real answer in sight

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Of course you are entitled to your view, RD: but on a public board like "Casebook" I think I am entitled to challenge it. Whether you respond is up to you.

                          Perhaps. What we are doing in any case is trying to solve "the one that got away."

                          Is it? In what way "got away"? Was the identity of JtR ever known or even suspected by senior officials in the 1880s/90s? The difficulty is that many "thought they knew - Anderson and Swanson favoured Kosminski it seems. Yet given the information on AARON Kosminski we have, he seems an unlikely candidate and the details of his life do not stack up with those given by Sir R A and DSS. So were they confused, inaccurate, or being deliberately misleading? Littlechild mentions Tumblety who was mentioned no where else in surviving records of the JtR case. Littlechild says he had never heard of a "Dr D" but was that because Macnaghten referred to the wrong profession, or had Littlechild never heard of MJD?

                          And even Macnagten, though he seems to refer to MJD as his favoured candidate, is onscure in his intent and lists THREE names.

                          Of those three, one (Ostrog) is known to be based on unreliable information and COULD not have been JtR. No evidence that would convince anyone that they might have been JtR has ever been adduced about the other two.

                          So we have two vaguely referenced names. But surely this places MJD on no surer footing than a Lewis Carroll, Walter Sickert, Eddy, Dr Barnardo - or for that matter "Uncle Jack". Should we waste our time on them unless or until further information emerges?

                          Holding us back is the fact that police of that era did not keep records anywhere near like the police force\FBI of today. Then also, London was bombed in two World Wars, destroying much possible evidence. The trail is perhaps too cold.

                          With respect, the police of the day kept the records they required, in an era before typewriters etc. I have seen nothing to suggest to me that they were derelict. I believe the city of london police records were destroyed in the Blitz, but they were responsible for only one case (Eddowes). the Met police files appear to have been "weeded" in the usual way (as a retired civil servant I can attest to the quite proper practices) but more significantly subject to unauthorised pilfering before and since they were lodged with the National Archives.

                          Even if more paperwork had survived, I doubt we would be any the wiser though. Abberline suggested, somewhat confusedly it seems, that Chapman, Klosowski was the Ripper. Munro is said to have dropped hints. So I really cannot conceive that - had we all the files that were at their disposal - we would be any the wiser.

                          FBI pofilers have given strong leads, sometimes in the opposite direction from Druitt, but in The Cases that Haunt Us, John Douglas narrowed the suspects down to two, Druitt and David Cohen, before going with Cohen, basically stating lack of evidence against Druitt. Druitt was the type of person Douglas thought would have committed the crimes, but there was and is no solid evidence against him.

                          Precisely my point.

                          It may have been there at one time, as he has to be considered strongly suspected by authorities.

                          Only by one, it seems, Melville Macnaghten. And he (for whatever reason) got this facts wrong. Macnaghten was not involved during the autumn of terror, so maybe was less well-informed than Anderson and Swanson who were very much so on the case in 1888.

                          Phil H

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I'll have the answer for you soon, Phil. And the other Phil too (Carter).

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                              I'll have the answer for you soon, Phil. And the other Phil too (Carter).
                              They are two different people?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                The Whitechapel Murderer (s) got away with it, Phil. We attempt to sold a stone cold case with little to no evidence, that much is clear. Yes you may challenge any statement I make. Won't make me mad, we are just having a friendly discussion.

                                It seems that everyone has their pet suspect and presents evidence to promote the case over the others. I am reminded of a Mark Twain quote: "Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please." What one sees as proof of their candidate (say Patrica Cornwell's suspicion of Walter Sickert's paintings) others find ridiculous. To promote their candidate people are quite willing to ignore any fact that does fit (such as the statement in the so-called Maybrick Diary that three must be ripped, saying he didn't get the chance, or the victims were never found). They twist what has been said, I was just told that in spite of directly quoting post-mortem's on this very site, I was wrong about wounds on Elizabeth Stride and Cathrine Eddows. People seem to have what my mother used to call "convenient memory'.
                                And the questions always linger, no real answer in sight

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X