Is it plausible that Druitt did it?

[aspallek]

Hiya Folks, Can anyone give me a rough idea what the 68 quid found in Montague's pockets would have bought him,either then, or relatively, present day.

A very useful site is www.measuringworth.com. £68 in 1888 would have the buying power of £5207.40 in 2006.

[detective abberline]

Monty Druitt

Hi.

Poor Old Monty. It is VERY plausible that he did it. All the theorists who say NO NO NO! can't come up with an IRREVOCABLE and let's lay it on the table proof that he didn't. McNaughten didn't pull his name out of a hat. He was real. He existed. Someone, somewhere, knew something about him that made Melville put him in his list. A little known, unimportant barrister/teacher/cricket player. there has to be more to it.

Cheers

[Ally]

Poor Old Monty. It is VERY plausible that he did it. All the theorists who say NO NO NO! can't come up with an IRREVOCABLE and let's lay it on the table proof that he didn't.

This thread is about the PLAUSIBILITY of Druitt as a candidate Plausible means likely, meaning this thread is not for impossible demands like IRREVOCABLE proof he didn't commit the murders. There is no irrevocable proof that the elephant man didn't commit the murders, or Melville himself but we are talking about PLAUSIBLILTY not bare remote possibility, which are completely different things.

McNaughten didn't pull his name out of a hat. He was real. He existed. Someone, somewhere, knew something about him that made Melville put him in his list. A little known, unimportant barrister/teacher/cricket player. there has to be more to it.

The fact that Druitt's family suspected him of being the Ripper is irrelevant. The fact that he was on the list, is also irrelevant. There were others on the list; they weren't all the Ripper. Macnaghten's information about Druitt on that list was completely inaccurate, but we are supposed to trust that this is the one he believed to have been the ripper...a man about whom he didn't even bother to get the basic facts?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Fred,

McNaughten didn't pull his name out of a hat.

No - he pulled it out of the Thames, buoyed up by "private information", which might have been club-house gossip for all we know at this remove in time.

That Druitt was real and that he existed puts him in no better a position than the other two on Macnaghten's list. That Druitt spent most of his time in rather salubrious geographical and social circles puts him in a worse position than Kozminski (who was at least a poor resident of the East End), but in a better position than Ostrog (who wasn't even in the country at the time of the murders).

None of this makes him a particularly strong candidate, I'm afraid.

[miss marple]

Hi all,
There is no reason for Druitt to visit the east end. If he was an upper class serial killer intent on the slaughter of prostitutes, he could have gone to any london park] prostitutes haunted the parks at night. It is estimated there were in mid victorian times between 100 and 600 thousand prostitutes in London. It was easier for an upper class gent to find a whore than risk the dangerous unknown world of the criminal underclass in the east end. He would have stuck out like a sore thumb, To feel secure in such a dangerous environment, he would have to disguise himself in old clothes, spend weeks , maybe months walking the east end familising himself with the haunts and streets. That would have left no time for cricket.
There is too much flippancy in the idea that he popped in for a quick kill and popped out again. I think a lot of people have no idea of the strength of the class system and the hatred felt for the east end underclass. not just poverty [ which was regarded as there own fault]and criminal behaviour but the smell and the fleas. It was a no go area except for socialist reformers.
The intellectual Oxbridge world of Druitt with its comforts and privilages was a million miles from the east end. I cant imagine the east end impinging much on his consciousness.
The only evidence we have is that the ripper seems to be a local, living in Spitalfields.
On the night of the double event the trail of the killer led back into the heart of Spitalfields.The killings occured within a safetly zone around the Dorset street area.
Cheers Miss Marple

[Ally]

Miss Marple,

Excellent points. Many who might scoff outright at the vision of a top-hatted, cape swirling Ripper wear blinders when it comes to the fact that Druitt's barrister elite person would have been just as out of place. And of course, the notion as you also point out of the amount of time he'd have to spend in the East End first familiarizing himself with the layout...to what end? There were much easier, closer and more convenient places for him to hunt if he felt the need.

[aspallek]

Quite right, Ally, this is a thread for discussing plausibility. My "Onus of Proof" thread on the old boards was for discussing whether Druitt should be a suspect at all. The problem was that people kept injecting plausibility, or probability, arguments into that former thread. So, it is understandable that someone should make the reverse mistake here. But don't take this as a critisicm. You said nothing inappropriate.

As to more convenient places for Druitt to hunt, homicidal maniacs are generally not all that logical. There is some evidence, and I think it is somewhat controversial still, that serial killers gradually kill closer and closer to their residence. However, with JtR we are talking about five murders on four dates, hardly enough for that kind of profiling.

As I said, there are factors that mitigate against Druitt. That's why I make no claim that he is JtR. But he is a suspect and, I believe, at the top of the list among named suspects.

[Graham]

It's a funny thing, but there are those who cry 'calumny' whenever the name of Maybrick is associated with the Ripper, but if I were a descendant of Montague Druitt I think I might be slightly miffed that the memory of an ancestor of mine was being dragged through the mud courtesy of the baseless (or baseless so far as we know it) statement of a senior public official.

Let those who claim Druitt's guilt come up with something solid: Macnaghten's conjecture is just that - conjecture. I agree with Ally insofar as had Druitt been inclined towards serial murder, he'd have gone elsewhere other than the East End of London. Or so one would think.

Is there any serial killer, before or since, who chose as his victims those above or below his social status? This is a question - not a challenge.

Cheers,

Graham.

PS: hate to say it, but since the Great Crash the balls seem to have been cut off this site, for me at least. Let's hope that 'time heals all'.

[aspallek]

Graham,

Has it ever occurred to you that the continued interest in Druitt might spark further research that could provide the long-sought alibi that could exonerate Montague Druitt? He is a suspect whether everybody likes it or not.

We need to understand why this unlikely suspect came to the attention of Macnaghten. He didn't make him up and Druitt's candidacy did not originate with Macnaghten. Who, aside from his family, first suspected him seem to be the first step in unraveling the puzzle of Montague Druitt.

[Graham]

Graham,

Has it ever occurred to you that the continued interest in Druitt might spark further research that could provide the long-sought alibi that could exonerate Montague Druitt? He is a suspect whether everybody likes it or not.

We need to understand why this unlikely suspect came to the attention of Macnaghten. He didn't make him up and Druitt's candidacy did not originate with Macnaghten. Who, aside from his family, first suspected him seem to be the first step in unraveling the puzzle of Montague Druitt.

Andy,

Please, just read my post a little more carefully, eh?

Cheers,

Graham

[Rob Clack]

Hi Andy,

You did say:

"The closest I can come is the apparent placing of him at Cannon Street Station repeatedly during that time period"

Well that sounds like a definitely ascertained fact to me . I see you have now changed that to circumstantial evidence, that's fair enough as that is all it is, and not very good circumstantial evidence at that, but that's my opinion.

And I'm not the one to chastise you. I sat back and let tell a member to 'ignore the last page' of me and Philip's book, which wasn't very nice but I rose above it. And then you thanked Dougie for bringing some 'sanity' to this thread. So I am sorry you don't like hearing opinions which are contrary to your own. I've had my say so there is no need for me to post on this thread again.

Regards

Rob

Rob

[dougie]

Hi Fred,No - he pulled it out of the Thames, buoyed up by "private information", which might have been club-house gossip for all we know at this remove in time.

That Druitt was real and that he existed puts him in no better a position than the other two on Macnaghten's list. That Druitt spent most of his time in rather salubrious geographical and social circles puts him in a worse position than Kozminski (who was at least a poor resident of the East End), but in a better position than Ostrog (who wasn't even in the country at the time of the murders).

None of this makes him a particularly strong candidate, I'm afraid.

id have thought druitt being on a list for no apparent reason(that we know of) makes him a particularly strong candidate.....kosminski because of the way he supposedly acted could have been expected to have at least been considered as a suspect.....ostrog if he had homicidal tendencies could be considered as being a s good a suspect as any other.....the fact that he wasnt in the country at time is largely irrelevant if the police werent aware of that at the time......so 2 out of the three might be thought of as fair prospects....druitt on the other hand is the odd one out....why? why? why?

[dougie]

Hi Andy,

You did say:

"The closest I can come is the apparent placing of him at Cannon Street Station repeatedly during that time period"

Well that sounds like a definitely ascertained fact to me . I see you have now changed that to circumstantial evidence, that's fair enough as that is all it is, and not very good circumstantial evidence at that, but that's my opinion.

And I'm not the one to chastise you. I sat back and let tell a member to 'ignore the last page' of me and Philip's book, which wasn't very nice but I rose above it. And then you thanked Dougie for bringing some 'sanity' to this thread. So I am sorry you don't like hearing opinions which are contrary to your own. I've had my say so there is no need for me to post on this thread again.

Regards

Rob

Rob

rob, id be obliged if you left me out of your "tiffs"....if its sanity you are looking for,i suggest you try the assylum.
regards

[perrymason]

Hi all,

Ally, Ive said this elsewhere too, but I think he is as plausible as any suspect we study, using the same lack of evidence as the yardstick.

Personally I still think on paper, Pizer was a damn good profile type, and thats certainly a mile away from a Druitt if correct. But depressed and self destructive like Druitt kind of assumes the killer didn't work out some of that angst while killing. And why stones in the pockets, why not the same knife? A young despondent man kills himself by slitting his own throat in his fathers company and marine store the day Mary Kelly is buried...fought his dad off to finish.

Was Jack a "Live be the sword, die by the sword" kind of guy? Or a stones in the pocket, note of self pity guy...not Monster-like?

My best regards.

[Johnr]

Greetings New Threadposters!
It is inevitable those who choose not to list Montague Druitt as their number one suspect will create a thread raising questions about his guilt.
Just as inevitable as those who champion his guilt questioning the "evidence"
condemning other "suspects".Or lack of evidence.
What this is really all about is, just how much information survives in police or Home Office files, yellow journals of the day, and the fog-filled memoirs of superannuated ex-detectives.That is, survives to this day, in 2008.
Do we all find the newspapers of today an unimpeachable record of current events? If not, then why place so much store in yesterday's lurid "ragsThe answer is, because we have little else to go on.
Who is to say what is accurate and what is biassed or distorted in our baseline of "information"?
Where are the stolen documents? The missing reports? The absent photographs?
Every now and then a cache of long-lost file papers emerge from a musty cardboard box in a hospital basement; an ex-coppers suitcase long kept under the bed;damaged and almost destroyed glass negatives - some of the earliest used in crime detection in Britain.....
Do we really know for sure how many victims Jack the Ripper slew?
Was Macnaghten the only police official to get lots of details wrong?
Where are the Scotland Yard papers investigating the Druitt suspicion?
If these still existed ( if they ever did) then perhaps we could debate things more solidly.
The argument that it is up to the "Druittists" to produce evidence of his guilt
is legalisticly true, but surely, an impossibility, as it is with a good many other "suspects" at this remove in time.
If any one is interested, I will present a possible scenario for why I believe Montague Druitt might have been Jack The Ripper.
But chapter and verse at this delayed stage ...an impossibility. JOHN RUFFELS.