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

[Phil H]

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.

I'm pleased you take that view.

You will find many shades of interest and personality on this site, RD. Some of both its best to ignore.

I find sometimes that writing down a response to a post helps me get my thoughts in order. It isn't necessarily intended as a riposte to the other poster, but it does help me to articulate and get my thoughts straight.

As for what we are looking for: I am no longer certain that there was just ONE "Jack". I do think that the serial killer of that name (as distinct from the Whitechapel murderer) was a figment of the creative imagination of the Victorian press. In all probability he did not exist.

So looking for a single killer is to me now akin to using a microscope with a distorting lens - unless we change the lens we will not see clearly or discover much.

The same is true of subjects. The key people on Casebook, the one's that I admire, are the researchers who have found out a huge amount about suspects, victims and others that shed real light on the case.

On Druitt my concern is that the hypotheses advanced tend to be half-fact, based on supposition, used as a foundation for a structure of what if and maybe. that is pointless and futile. Research MAY show up something in the future - a family connection, a press cutting, school records, a letter (like Littlechild's) that reveals some new details about MJD's life or interest in him that we do not know or which brings him back into the frame.

But as a "suspect" where no involvement has been shown or even indicated (except in the most circumstantial way), where incorrect details are given, and who is mentioned in the context of two other men where no involvement has been shown either - convinces me that speculative work about MJD is - for the present at least - a pointless exercise.

Phil H

[RavenDarkendale]

To tell the truth, I've reached the same conclusion that there were some murders by a single person, call him JtR for convenience, and some done by at least one other person entirely.

BTW I am very suspicious of evidence that seems to conveniently show up during a research into a suspect. especially if the writer makes it clear he or she has already decided who is guilty. I would accuse no serious writer on the JtR subject of deliberately manufacturing evidence, just saying some seems suspiciously found.

[caz]

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).

Hi Raven,

Do you think you could point me to this statement in the diary? I don't recall anything like this, but then I don't quite understand your point about it either.

What 'fact' in the diary that 'does fit' are people quite willing to ignore?

Perhaps we can carry this over to a diary thread.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jonathan H]

From Phil H

On Druitt my concern is that the hypotheses advanced tend to be half-fact, based on supposition, used as a foundation for a structure of what if and maybe. that is pointless and futile. Research MAY show up something in the future - a family connection, a press cutting, school records, a letter (like Littlechild's) that reveals some new details about MJD's life or interest in him that we do not know or which brings him back into the frame.

But as a "suspect" where no involvement has been shown or even indicated (except in the most circumstantial way), where incorrect details are given, and who is mentioned in the context of two other men where no involvement has been shown either - convinces me that speculative work about MJD is - for the present at least - a pointless exercise.

He has every right to his opinion, and if he means my work is fanciful, half-baked nonsense, well that's fine. It's just that some people never deal with the specifics as to why.

They also confuse historical evidence with that of legal or forensic evidence. The former is required only for a provisional theory, the latter for an absolute one.

I counter-argue that Phil H's opinion is off-track and redundant for ten reasons:

1. The 'West of England' MP has been identified as a person who knew the Druitts and knew Macnaghten: Henry Farquharson.

2. Druitt as a Ripper suspect begins before Macnaghten and his controversial Report(s) and therefore he is, arguably, not mixing him up with somebody else (like the insane medical student Sanders). Claims about Druitt being Jack begin with his 'own people' in Dorset.

3. Sims, a Mac source-by-proxy, has accurate information about the frantic friends (eg. a friend and the older brother hunting for his missing sibling) which is outside of P.C. Moulson's report about the body's retrieval from the Thames, and therefore either comes from Mac meeting with the brother or reading the 1889 newspaper accounts. Either way, Mac would have access to basic and accurate biog. details about Druitt being a barrister, 31, and killing himself three weeks after Kelly.

4. The Mac Memoirs of 1914 do not contain 'errors' about Druitt being a middle-aged doctor or an 1888 police suspect, and pull back from the 'awful glut' murder and then instant self-murder, or as long as it takes to stagger to a river and throw yourself in, supposedly the incriminating clincher. Whereas the new source on Farquharson has him adamantine that Jack is dead by his own hand on 'the same evening'. Arguably Mac had more accurate data than the loose-lipped MP.

5. Both Sims in 1907 and Mac in 1914 deal with Ostrog in ways which suggest that Macnaghten knew the con man was, say by 1898, a 'red herring'. For Sims has the 'Russian doctor' abroad in a lunatic asylum, which is a revealing variation on his true alibi, and the memoirs do not mention him -- or the Polish Jew -- at all. They are judged to be nothing by the retiring police chief, and secondary sources have finally caught up with 'Days of My Years'.

6. The preface of Mac's memoirs actually says he was not entirely too late to chase the fiend (or at least his ghost) and cheekily juxtaposes championship cricket, Jack the Ripper, and a pre-emptive apology about factual errors (from a police chief famous for his index-like retentive memory).

7. Contemporaneous newspaper reports and police records show that the Coles murder of 1891, and the arrest of Tom Sadler, reveal a constabulary still chasing a 'phantom', and therefore the timing of Druitt's demise was excruciatingly inconvenient.

8. Macnaghten knew that 'Kosminski' was long out and about before he was safely sectioned (Sims, 1907) and was alive long after being so sectioned, whereas Anderson (and Swanson?) wrongly think their Jack was deceased soon after being 'safely caged' and had only been mere 'weeks' on the prowl.

9. Macnaghten's 1913 comments agree with Farquharson's 'doctrine'; that he knew exactly who [the un-named] Druitt was, and there was only one suspect (not a trio) worth talking about at all. To Macnaghten, who loved cricket and his school days at Eton, Druitt, a county cricketer and a part-time master at a small boys' school, was predictably a 'remarkable man' and 'fascinating' and 'Protean'. Mac was also deceitful about destroying any paper work which could lead to anybody identifying Druitt. The notion that Macnaghten was not as certain as Anderson (and like Anderson said so in public) is arguably untenable.

10. The 'North Country Vicar' source of 1899 has an alleged Ripper figure who is a better fit for Druitt than the parallel 'drowned doctor' of Griffiths and Sims -- which is definitely about Druitt -- as it provides plenty of time for it's Jack to make a penitential confession to an Anglican priest before conveniently expiring, just like the real drowned barrister.


The old paradigm was founded on the premise that Macnaghten didn't know whom he was talking about; that we know more about Druitt than he did -- a big call.

Recent discoveries show that this is unlikely to be true and therefore his account, 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper', can be interpreted as authoritative and reliable: eg. I identified the likely Ripper having made a thorough -- albeit posthumous -- investigation (of the MP story).

Whether Druitt deserved the posthumous certainty of his brother, an MP, and a police chief can never be known.

[RavenDarkendale]

Hi Raven,

Do you think you could point me to this statement in the diary? I don't recall anything like this, but then I don't quite understand your point about it either.

What 'fact' in the diary that 'does fit' are people quite willing to ignore?

Perhaps we can carry this over to a diary thread.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz

My apologies to you and everyone else I confused with that statement. It isn't in the diary, it was a letter mentioned in passing in Shirley's book on the diary and we all know how unreliable the letter evidence is.

I think what I find people willing to ignore in the diary is that anything in the diary that was never officially reported by the police, at least that can be found is accepted as "Maybrick WAS the Ripper, so the diary must be right!" This would be like the statement "My first was in Manchester". Then too if the diary doesn't quite agree with reported fact, and here we are only saying minor matters, the diary isn't miles off the facts, just very vague sometimes, the diary gets the benefit of the doubt. That's all.

I do appreciate your catch on my mistaken post, I should consult the various author's books when I post something like that statement so I don't confuse my facts.

Have a great day and God Bless

Raven

[caz]

Thanks Raven. No biggy.

In my experience, however, 99.99% of diary commentators have never given it 'the benefit of the doubt' over anything or anyone connected with it.

I would give Maybrick the same benefit of the doubt as I give Druitt - ie both innocent except of self-murder - unless new evidence ever emerges to the contrary.

Back to poor Monty's downfall...

Love,

Caz
X

[RavenDarkendale]

In Whitechapel The Last Stand of Sherlock Holmes, the author brings up something worthy of discussion. As anyone who has studied Druitt knows, he was found drowned in the Thames, apparently a suicide as he left a note. Add this to another fact, that McNaughton said he had "private information" that MJD's own family suspected him of being JtR.

Well in this story, MJD doesn't drown himself, his brother drowns him. That sort of flashes a "what if that were true?" into the old mind. Not that it would prove MJD the Ripper if his family killed him, but a thought...

[Phil H]

In John Gardner's novels about "Moriarty", years ago, the Professor has Druitt drowned because his activities are causing problems for the proper criminals of London.

In Howell's and Skinner's "The Ripper Legacy" (published 1987) I seem to recall they have him visiting some of his well-placed pals in Chiswick (was the house called The Osiers?) where he was murdered and his body dumped to make it look like suicide.

So the idea is not a new one.

Phil H

[RavenDarkendale]

Indeed so. I had forgotten the James Gardner Moriarty angle. (I have both books by Gardner on Moriarty)

In all seriousness, his leaving a note leans toward proof that he committed suicide. Yet there have been murders where the murderer forced the victim to write a suicide note, and where the murderer forged a suicide note to cover murder. This brings Druitt's death into question, but it does nothing as evidence to point him out as JtR,

That "private sources" line gets to me. You would expect old Mac to mention a clue as to what they were, and what they proved.

It's like that "I'm almost tempted to disclose the name of the murderer, ... no public benefit..." statement of Anderson's.

No public benefit? Might have save a world or arguments, and a forest of trees from the many, many books on every theory under the sun concerning JtR.

[Simon Wood]

Hi RavenD,

I hope you have all three of John Gardner's Moriarty books.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil H]

In all seriousness, his leaving a note leans toward proof that he committed suicide.

Does it? I thought we only had extracts such as "since Friday I thought I was going to be like mother..." or something similar. (If the friday concerned is not specified the letter might have been written at any time, of course.)

I don't recall the brother (William was it?) saying that the note mentioned MJD's dismissal from the school etc. I would have thought those to be of more immediate concern to MJD given the timing of his death afterwards. But assuming to separate events to be cause & effect (without supporting evidence) is always dangerous as it can be subjective and wrong.

Could it not, in fact, be a letter interpreted after the event as a suicide note. It might well be, of course that MJD did kill himself, and left an explanatory note. It could also be that some sort of mental depression or lethargy or some such had changed his behaviour - perhaps made him aggressive towards colleagues or the boys, or neglectful of his duties - and thus been the reason for his dismissal.

It's all VERY vague.

Phil H

[Jonathan H]

What some of the meager primary sources show is that Druitt committed suicide because he believed he was Jack the Ripper. This conviction convinced others at the time and posthumously, eg. 'some years after'.

The one primary source that mentions Druitt's dismissal from the school does not link it to his suicide.

Other scraps suggest that he was sacked because he was AWOL -- they did not realize that he was deceased -- rather than the other way round.

Once Druitt told people that he was the fiend the clock was ticking for him to be arrested or more likely sectioned by his family -- to go like mother -- and he took matters into his own hands.

The 'private information' probably refers to Tory MP Farquharson whom Macnaghten was careful to shield from a Liberal government. As it was the official version of the Report was never sent, but the same concealment was done with a Liberal writer, Sims, with the unofficial version. The latter is the more important of the two because its opinions and content was mostly disseminated to the public from 1898.

[Phil H]

What some of the meager primary sources show is that Druitt committed suicide because he believed he was Jack the Ripper. This conviction convinced others at the time and posthumously, eg. 'some years after'.

Evidence please - particularly WHICH primary sources do you refer to here?

Other scraps suggest that he was sacked because he was AWOL -- they did not realize that he was deceased -- rather than the other way round.

I always understood that the cheques found on his person when the body was recovered related directly to his pay-off from the school - which suggests Valentine sacked him fact-to-face. if they did not what do you think they were in payment of?

Once Druitt told people that he was the fiend the clock was ticking for him to be arrested

That assumes he TOLD someone. Who please and when - sources required for such a statement.

The 'private information' probably refers to Tory MP Farquharson whom Macnaghten was careful to shield from a Liberal government. As it was the official version of the Report was never sent, but the same concealment was done with a Liberal writer, Sims, with the unofficial version. The latter is the more important of the two because its opinions and content was mostly disseminated to the public from 1898.

If this is the basis for the preceeding remarks and conclusions, it is VERY fragile. We know that Anderson's firm conclusions do not seem to have been based on concrete or correct information. MM made clear errors in his information about MJD. So his memorandum is hardly a good basis for such assertions as you have made.

Further, we have still, I think, not had a good enough explanation of why you dismiss MM's OTHER suspect (Balfour's assassin) rather than MJD as a "cover" for a more sensitive theory.

Phil H

[Jonathan H]

To Phil H

That the cheques were a pay-off from the school is a theory, one based around him being sacked to his face. That is putting the cart before the horse.

There are are arguably no 'errors' in the 'memorandum', or as Griffiths and sims were misled into believeing: the definitive document of state which resided in the Home Office files.

What are you are being misled by -- you are hardly alone -- is semi-fictionalised material used to please a particular audience, though regarding the official version the trigger was never pulled.

We can actually see this process of fact becoming fiction by Griffiths and Sims turning the family into friends. The 'good' family were knowingly disguised.

Is it really just an extraordinary coincidence that Montague was already disguised as a middle-aged dcotor? And another coincidence that he was further disguised by Sims as as an affluent, reclusive, semi-invalid asylum-vet who had not been a doctor for years -- and certainly could not play cricket?

This is also clear when you compare either version with the primary source of Mac's memoirs: he reveals there what he does not in the internal report(s). That the un-named Druitt was not a police suspect of 1888 -- not for 'some years after' -- and that he did not kill himself instantly after the final murder. Plus there is no hint that he was medical man or had 'anatomical knowledge'.

These details match the other primary sources between 1888 and 1891, including the 'West of England' MP primary sources. That belief in Druitt's guilt originated with 'his own people': a wing of the family still in Dorset.

From Sims' veiled version we can see that their belief stemmed not from the timing of their tragic member's suicide for subsequent murders 'exonerated' him. Rather his guilt came from his own lips.

If the 'North Country Vicar' refers to Druitt then then that aspect comes a little closer too -- he confessed to a priest.

But from 1898 Sims has the 'doctor' telling other doctors of his homicidal compulsions. In1914, Mac in his definitive account has the 'belief' coming from 'his own people' who knew he was 'absented'; which is the older brother, at the very least (but William did not reside in Dorset where the tale leaked in 1891 along the local Tory grapevine).

The 'Balfour' issue I covered before, so see previous post. Plus historical methodology says to be very wary of the single anomalous, eg. 'sore thumb' source.

[Cogidubnus]

What some of the meager primary sources show is that Druitt committed suicide because he believed he was Jack the Ripper. This conviction convinced others at the time and posthumously, eg. 'some years after'.

Evidence please - particularly WHICH primary sources do you refer to here?

Sorry Jonathan...the evidence, such as it is, in this respect, does not seem to me to be derived from a primary source...Unless there's something I've missed?

Other scraps suggest that he was sacked because he was AWOL -- they did not realize that he was deceased -- rather than the other way round.

I always understood that the cheques found on his person when the body was recovered related directly to his pay-off from the school - which suggests Valentine sacked him fact-to-face. if they did not what do you think they were in payment of?

Hi Phil...maybe I'm wrong, but I don't recall seeing anywhere any description of what the cheques actually represented...I don't think it even states whose account they're drawn on or who they're made out to? Correct me please if I'm wrong...

All the best

Dave