Is it plausible that Druitt did it?

[perrymason]

Hi Folks,

Im just curious as to why routing is being suggested, when its clear from the Police records that Alice McKenzie's death re-surfaced the Ripper fears, ...as in he wasnt dead yet. I'm obviously not in any way convinced Druitt even belongs on a suspects list, maybe on a list of men around 35 who killed themselves just after the killing spree ended..and I know of at least 2 that fit that category..Im just always fascinated by the desire to pin something on this guy regardless, because of some suggestive notes an investigator was revealed to have made.

Also, I think its got to be considered as most likely that Jack the Ripper was a local man, with perhaps a job that leaves his nights free, particularly on Holidays or Weekends.

My best regards all.

[aspallek]

The case was never closed because there was no evidence against Druitt or any other suspect. Furthermore, there was obviously disagreement among various police officials as to who the best suspect was. Macnaghten himself was not sure Druitt was guilty, in spite of the "private information" he possessed. For these reasons, the case was left open even after the active investigation ceased and thus when additional murders occurred the question was always asked whether this could be another Ripper murder. This is merely responsible policing. It is not the police eliminating a suspect.

All this being said, we don't know when the "private information" about Druitt came to police (whether Macnaghten's or someone else) attention. It may not have been until after the MacKenzie murder. Sir Melville makes reference to "certain facts" that were not in police possession until several years after he joined SY. Clearly, this would be after the McKenzie murder. But we don't know that the "certain facts" are the same thing as the "private information."

We do know, however, that a certain Member of Parliament was making the claim in early 1891 (just before the Coles murder) that JtR was the "son of a surgeon" who had committed suicide after the last murder. Although certain other details do not seem to fit Druitt, the description is too close not to be Druitt's, especially when one considers where this MP was from. He was in a position to be very well acquainted with the Druitts and their associates.

That's all for now.

[Carrotty Nell]

MJD is on paper just about the most implausible suspect on these boards. He did not live in the murder district, he played cricket six hours after one murder, was in Dorset the day after another, and in Dorset a few days either side of another. He did not even behave like a man wallowing in guilt and remorse in the brief window between Miller's Court and his suicide.

However the most senior figure at Scotland Yard who had access to all the case files regarded Druitt as the strongest suspect even at the expense of nasty pieces of work like Kosminski and Ostrog. McNaghten's suspicion about Druitt would even have offended against his probable Victorian beliefs in criminality being inherent to the lower classes not the educated and middle classes. It is not particularly productive to argue whether Druitt was or was not or could or could not have been in Whitechapel on any night. Were a visitor's book from Toynbee Hall to surface with MJD's signature in it half the members of this message board would spend the next 20 years trying to prove it was a fake.

In spite of everything arguing to the contrary he was McNaghten's prime suspect. That makes him the most plausible suspect on this board.

[detective abberline]

Druitt as a suspect

YES YES! You go girl. Absolutely. I've said this before but I'll say it again. Mc did not pull Druitt's name out of a hat of possibles. There was good evidence against him but the bugger was dead so what was the point?

Cheers

[Ben]

In spite of everything arguing to the contrary he was McNaghten's prime suspect. That makes him the most plausible suspect on this board.

Only if you use contemporary police suspicion as the highest barometer of "plausiblity" in terms of suspects. I don't think we should, as it seems pretty clear that Macnaghten's preference for Druitt seemed to owe more to his cessation-theory than anything specific that incriminated Druitt (which ought really to be taken with a pinch of salt considering that MM wasn't even a professional policeman before he was assigned one of the highest ranks available).

But even if we were to select the "most plausible suspect" purely on the basis of what police thought at the time, it wouldn't make Druitt the most plausible suspect. Two senior detectives who were actually involved in the case at the time seemed to prefer Kosminski. Why does Druitt being MM's prime suspect carry more weight that Kosminski being Anderson's prime suspect?

There was good evidence against him but the bugger was dead so what was the point?

To establish "closure" with regard to a series of barbarous crimes, DA.

Best regards,
Ben

[Carrotty Nell]

Why does Druitt being MM's prime suspect carry more weight that Kosminski being Anderson's prime suspect?

I would assume that Kosminski's reign as prime suspect was commensurate with Sir Robert Anderson's tenure at Scotland Yard. Collections of Anderson's writings and correspondence demonstrate he had no great interest in the Whitechapel murder case once he left Scotland Yard and there is no reason to suppose he would have had access to McNaghten's 'private information' concerning Druitt. Clearly this came into McNaghten's possession some years after the case.

[Ben]

Hi CN,

Collections of Anderson's writings and correspondence demonstrate he had no great interest in the Whitechapel murder case

Whether the above is true or not, it wouldn't make Druitt a more viable candidate than Kosminski on the basis that the former's "champion" was more interested the case than Anderson. Interest isn't necessarily tantamount to knowledge and experience, unfortunately. Even if Anderson wasn't privy to the MM's private info, we shouldn't assume that it contained anything especially incriminating anymore than we should assume that Anderson's "definitely ascertained fact" was anything of the sort.

All the best,
Ben

[detective abberline]

Did Druitt do it?

To establish "closure" with regard to a series of barbarous crimes, DA.



Here in 2008 i agree with you absolutely. In 1888...I think the police would have thought "he's dead. We can't charge him with anything. It'll cause his family grief".

Cheers

[Ben]

Hi DA,

There were also the families of the victims' grief to consider, as well as the collective morale of a beleaguered police force who had sustained heavy criticism from press and public during the murders. Even if the consideration was personal pride on Macnaghten's part, or the necessity to make public the fact that the East End streets were no longer ripper-prowled, I just can't see MM squirreling away evidence to the extent that he actually withheld it from other senior members of the police force who actually worked the case at the time.

All the best,
Ben

[aspallek]

Hi DA,

There were also the families of the victims' grief to consider, as well as the collective morale of a beleaguered police force who had sustained heavy criticism from press and public during the murders. Even if the consideration was personal pride on Macnaghten's part, or the necessity to make public the fact that the East End streets were no longer ripper-prowled, I just can't see MM squirreling away evidence to the extent that he actually withheld it from other senior members of the police force who actually worked the case at the time.

Hi Ben,

I think the key is that there were two type of "evidence" that Macnaghten knew of. Neither would have been strong enough to gain a conviction had Druitt still been alive. One was certainly circumstantial (but circumstantial evidence is not necessarily weak evidence) and the other didn't come into police hands until "some years" after Macnaghten joined the police.

First Evidence: This was the private information that Macnaghten spoke about to the effect that Druitt own family suspected him. This is circumstantial evidence and does not appear to be particularly strong, but then again we don't know what the family based its suspicion on. They may have had very good reason. Macnaghten does not say that he got this information directly from the family. If not, then it becomes hearsay and would not be admissible in court anyway. However, one might assume that had there been a trial the family would have been subpoenaed and questioned about their suspicion. I had earlier conjectured that this evidence came to Macnaghten through a mutual acquaintance of Montague Druitt, one John Henry Lonsdale. While still not impossible, the revelation that the author of the "son of a surgeon" suspect was Dorset West MP Henry Richard Farquharson suggests that Macnaghten could well have heard it directly from him.

Second Evidence: Macnaghten also talks about "certain facts" that came into police possession "some years" after Macnaghten joined SY. This appears to be different evidence from the above because SY knew of Farquharson's claim in early 1891, hardly "several years" after Macnaghten joined SY in 1889, though it is just possible that Macnaghten later mis-remembered the time interval and referred to an 18-month interval as "some years." The statement that they came into "possession" of the police slightly suggests that this evidence was physical in nature, albeit perhaps a reference to a document. It has been suggested that this is what Sir Melville later destroyed but I don't think so. What he destroyed seems to have been more in the order of his notes on the case. If these "certain facts" were in the possession of police, then Sir Melville would hardly have been at liberty to destroy them. Now, this begs the question: whatever became of this evidence?

[ella090]

Surely what makes the suspiscion of JMD interesting is the fact that theoretically the murders could have been done by him without the use of the train timetables? He had plenty of access to the east end considering where his cousin worked (minories), and where he himself worked.

Thats what makes JMD so interesting- the fact that he surely must have known the whitechapel area very well indeed.

[Sam Flynn]

Thats what makes JMD so interesting- the fact that he surely must have known the whitechapel area very well indeed.

Hi Ella,

In an era where society had been rarely so polarised, it doesn't necessarily follow that a (non-shabby) genteel person like Druitt - or his cousin, for that matter - would have known the Whitechapel area at all, no matter how close they lived or sojourned nearby. I shouldn't be surprised if those without a genuine reason for being there saw Spitalfields/Whitechapel as something of a snake-pit, to be avoided at all costs.

[Ben]

Hi Andy,

I recall discussing this topic on the "old" forum, but I'm doubtful that the "private information" and "certain facts" were seperate entities. The year 1894 (when the refutation of The Sun's Cutbush-related claims were penned by MM) wouldn't be inconsistent with "some years after (he) became an investigating officer" and nor would any year from about 1891/2 onwards. He was probably referring to the same information using different terminology.

That said, I've drawn a temporary blank on "Farquarson". Could you job my memory?

Thanks in advance!

Ben

[ella090]

yes, but the point is that if JMD worked at the bench and then had a lot of involvement with the minories, then he would have undoutedly known the area well.

I also don't think we can class JMD as your typical genteel shabby gentleman considering his mental state and the issues that he had with women. The point is that there si no reason to dismiss the fact that JMD may well have had a detailed knowledge of the area. Maybe even enough to avoid police and witnesses.

[aspallek]

Hi Andy,

I recall discussing this topic on the "old" forum, but I'm doubtful that the "private information" and "certain facts" were separate entities. The year 1894 (when the refutation of The Sun's Cutbush-related claims were penned by MM) wouldn't be inconsistent with "some years after (he) became an investigating officer" and nor would any year from about 1891/2 onwards. He was probably referring to the same information using different terminology.

That said, I've drawn a temporary blank on "Farquarson". Could you job my memory?

Farquharson is the name of the West Dorset MP who in February 1891 claimed that JtR was "the son of a surgeon" who killed himself on the night of the last murder. Although not totally accurate, it is clear that this is the first allusion to Druitt in connection with JtR. I tell all about it in my article in the last Ripperologist and I'm going to be talking about it on the Rippercast podcast this Sunday.

Farquharson's tale is reported in the press in February 1891 with the notation that the police have already been made aware. That's only about 18 months after Macnaghten joined SY. While it is possible that Sir Melville mis-remembered the time interval at the time he was writing his memoirs, it does not seem natural to refer to 18 months as "some years after."