Reasons why?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

An excellent summary of points, worthy of further discussion rather more than just the debate over Macnaghten. I would reiterate my observation that I can't see any evidence for his sacking necessarily being on the 30th Nov, that appearing to be attributed solely to a presumed alteration of the 30 Dec date from the inquest. It may be that he was sacked for failing to offer an explanation for his failure to attend to his duties at the school before it was known that he had a valid excuse, that being the fact that he was dead. I would also re-iterate that it is not known if the suicide note, if it can be called as such, was dated, or the date of the "friday" referred to in that note.

All in all the points you have laid out in the above post have piqued my interest to the extent that I am more persuaded to consider Druitt as a person of interest, amongst others, of course.

Cheers, George

Hi George.

Thanks for the comment. He intrigued me pretty much from when I first read about the case and it increased as I learned more. I’ve quoted Farson before but his comment about Druitt’s unlikeliness as a suspect making him so interesting really stuck with me. So it’s my belief that because of who he was and of the type and class of person he was, and because of the resources available to Macnaghten, he’d have been one of the last people that Macnaghten would have mentioned in connection to the case. This doesn’t come close to making him guilty of course but it leaves me in the position of believing that Macnaghten wouldn’t have plucked Druitt’s name just because of his suicide. I think that Macnaghten did receive private information (originating from the family but not necessarily directly from them) and that he felt the information/evidence compelling. But all that I’ve ever said is that for all we know Druitt might have been the killer and that he has more ‘pointers’ than most.

[Michael W Richards]

But he did say:

“Personally, after much careful & deliberate consideration, I am inclined to exonerate the last 2 but I have always held strong opinions regarding no 1., and the more I think the matter over, the stronger do these opinions become. The truth, however, will never be known, and did indeed, at one time lie at the bottom of the Thames, if my conjections [sic] be correct.”

In 1903 Abberline made some remarks which I find, contextually, to be quite similar to the one you posted for Macnaughten, ""...I cannot help feeling that this is the man we struggled so hard to capture fifteen years ago." However, he also said that "Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago."

I think these men truly struggled with the recounting of events considering the outcome was a failure for law enforcement. I think each man involved at all levels struggled. The outrage, and their impotence. In each statement above I believe both of the men stated the crimes were unsolved. Not that they had reached a solution after some reflection.To that they both added their own opinion.

[Paddy Goose]

Michael Richards welcome back to the discussion and a good point that Thomas Cutbush was nephew of a Met Police Super.

Remember AP Wolf, hot on the trail of Cutbush? What a gas.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael Richards welcome back to the discussion and a good point that Thomas Cutbush was nephew of a Met Police Super.

Remember AP Wolf, hot on the trail of Cutbush? What a gas.

Hi Paddy, and thanks. I do fondly remember AP, a great writer. Not sure about all his choices, but his talent was sure evident.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Druitt was named by a senior police official and will remain forever a person of ripperological interest.

That logic is not useful, i.e. named by the police equals rightful 'person of interest'. Druitt remains a person of interest for people with no background in analysing source documents.

Macnaghten is an authority on some wider police matters; it does not automatically render Macnaghten an authority on Montague John Druitt. The weight of his authority is judged on his knowledge of that subject, i.e. Druitt.

In his own document, Macnaghten's knowledge on Druitt is found wanting and that compromises his 'private information' claim.

You may well be right in that he 'will remain forever a person of interest', but it's not because he was 'named by a senior police official': it's because the people promoting his candidacy have no background in analysing source documents. Anyone with a modicum of experience in analysing source documents, will tell you that Macnaghten's words in his document are not worth the paper they're written on.

[Kattrup]

You may well be right in that he 'will remain forever a person of interest', but it's not because he was 'named by a senior police official': it's because the people promoting his candidacy have no background in analysing source documents. Anyone with a modicum of experience in analysing source documents, will tell you that Macnaghten's words in his document are not worth the paper they're written on.

I see. I don’t think you’re right about any of that, but as stated, it doesn’t really matter.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see. I don’t think you’re right about any of that, but as stated, it doesn’t really matter.

It’s simply a provocation tactic Kattrup. Clearly aimed at me as I’m the one on here who’s talking about Druitt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If we ‘analyse’ a source document as we are advised then Bede’s ‘Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum’ needs to go straight into the bin due to its numerous errors and examples of the author’s bias. Or maybe not?

I’d say that it’s better to look at things holistically and to assess Macnaghten with the clear understanding that a couple of errors should not invalidate the whole thing, especially when these facts were the result of memory failings. If we are told a piece of information and then think back and recall it, it’s hardly unlikely that we might get someone’s age and occupation wrong. But it’s hardly likely that someone could be told some information but you misremember it as a suggestion that someone might be Jack the Ripper.

[Michael W Richards]

I dont want to get into any snippy back and forth discussions on this, but my view is that the mentioning of Ostrog as someone he felt ranked among the top 3 "suspects" for the Ripper crimes...or at least better suspects than Cutbush, is important in this discussion. If a Senior Officer like Macnaughten didnt know that Ostrog could not feasibly be on anyones "suspect" list for the Ripper murders due to his being in custody during the crimes, then we are left with wondering what of that document is sound observation and what is just Macnaughten spouting off his opinions. In Ostrogs case, not a sound opinion at all.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Maybe Druitt was just behaving strangely and something about his behaviour made his family suspicious? Maybe he came home on the night of one of the murders with blood on him ...

Where is the evidence that Druitt lived with relatives of his in London?

If he had come home with blood on him, why would his relatives have known about that?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I take the approach that a suspect being named by a very senior police officer is worthy of interest at least. Especially when it involves a suspect that was mentioned by someone 3 years previously who came from the area where the suspects family lived ...

There are strong indications that Farquharson - the person who mentioned the 'suspect' three years before Macnaghten did so - made up the story about Druitt, including the 'private information', and fed it to a receptive Macnaghten.

Farquharson had the strange habit of telling stories about people who had been expelled or dismissed from schools for serious (possibly sexual) offences:

. . . . The defendant [Farquharson] was accused of maliciously saying to Mr. St. John Brodrick, M.P., that Mr. Gatty was expelled [from] the Charterhouse School, or was compelled to leave the school for a serious offence. . . .

(The Morning Post, 17 June 1893)

Witness [William Druitt] heard from a friend on the 11th of December that deceased had not been heard of at his chambers for more than a week. Witness then went to London to make inquiries, and at Blackheath he found that deceased had got into serious trouble at the school, and had been dismissed.

(Acton, Chiswick & Turnham Green Gazette, 5 January 1889)


Both Farquharson and Macnaghten repeated the erroneous idea that Druitt committed suicide very soon after the murder of Kelly:

I give a curious story for what it is worth. There is a West of England member who in private declares that he has solved the mystery of 'Jack the Ripper.' His theory - and he repeats it with so much emphasis that it might almost be called his doctrine - is that 'Jack the Ripper' committed suicide on the night of his last murder... He states that a man with blood-stained clothes committed suicide on the night of the last murder, and he asserts that the man was the son of a surgeon, who suffered from homicidal mania.

(The Bristol Times and Mirror, 11 February 1891)


A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder ...

(Macnaghten Memorandum, 1894)


... he committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888 ...

(Macnaghten, Days of My Years, 1914)


Farquharson’s liking for manufacturing fictitious stories and passing them off as fact is revealed in a letter to a friend who was a keen collector of historical artefacts:

You ought to write a short magazine article on it, not referring to your discoveries but based on them, a little fiction mixed in, on which to base your tale.

(letter from Farquharson to General Pitt-Rivers, 1892)


This seems to suggest that Farquharson exhibited an established pattern of behaviour where he told outlandish stories and then manufactured ‘proofs’ to support them.

...Farquharson broke into Browning’s study to steal his own exercises and had his friends lie about where he had been that morning.

What is interesting about all three stories is Farquharson seems to have deliberately set out to damage the reputation of a man who he considered to be socially beneath him, and (certainly in the cases of Browning and Gatty and possibly in the case of Druitt), rumoured to be a homosexual.

The purpose of this article has been to illustrate that there are links between the lies Farquharson told about Oscar Browning while at Eton, the stories he spread about Charles Gatty in 1892, and his claim that Montague Druitt was Jack the Ripper.

(Henry Richard Farquharson, M.P. The Untrustworthy Source of Macnaghten’s ‘Private Information’?
By JOANNA WHYMAN, Ripperologist 166 March 2020)


As I have argued previously, it is most unlikely that Druitt's relatives would have suspected him, and for two reasons: first, there is evidence that his brother had not been in contact with him for a considerable time, at least weeks, and, secondly, if they had known of his movements at the time when the series of murders began, they would have known that he was in Dorset.

There would have been no reason to suspect that he was even in Whitechapel, let alone eviscerating women there.

Furthermore, Macnaghten mistakenly thought that Druitt lived with his relatives:

I incline to the belief that the individual who held up London in terror resided with his own people ...

(Melville Macnaghten, Days of My Years, 1913)


It is that error on his part that enabled him to believe the private information he received:

A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor ... He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.

(Melville Macnaghten, Memorandum, 1894)


Macnaghten was not even aware that Druitt's brother had to be informed that he was missing, having evidently been unaware of his movements for some considerable time.

The whole story about Druitt was invented.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There are strong indications that Farquharson - the person who mentioned the 'suspect' three years before Macnaghten did so - made up the story about Druitt, including the 'private information', and fed it to a receptive Macnaghten.

Farquharson had the strange habit of telling stories about people who had been expelled or dismissed from schools for serious (possibly sexual) offences:

. . . . The defendant [Farquharson] was accused of maliciously saying to Mr. St. John Brodrick, M.P., that Mr. Gatty was expelled [from] the Charterhouse School, or was compelled to leave the school for a serious offence. . . .

(The Morning Post, 17 June 1893)

Witness [William Druitt] heard from a friend on the 11th of December that deceased had not been heard of at his chambers for more than a week. Witness then went to London to make inquiries, and at Blackheath he found that deceased had got into serious trouble at the school, and had been dismissed.

(Acton, Chiswick & Turnham Green Gazette, 5 January 1889)


Both Farquharson and Macnaghten repeated the erroneous idea that Druitt committed suicide very soon after the murder of Kelly:

I give a curious story for what it is worth. There is a West of England member who in private declares that he has solved the mystery of 'Jack the Ripper.' His theory - and he repeats it with so much emphasis that it might almost be called his doctrine - is that 'Jack the Ripper' committed suicide on the night of his last murder... He states that a man with blood-stained clothes committed suicide on the night of the last murder, and he asserts that the man was the son of a surgeon, who suffered from homicidal mania.

(The Bristol Times and Mirror, 11 February 1891)


A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder ...

(Macnaghten Memorandum, 1894)


... he committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888 ...

(Macnaghten, Days of My Years, 1914)


Farquharson’s liking for manufacturing fictitious stories and passing them off as fact is revealed in a letter to a friend who was a keen collector of historical artefacts:

You ought to write a short magazine article on it, not referring to your discoveries but based on them, a little fiction mixed in, on which to base your tale.

(letter from Farquharson to General Pitt-Rivers, 1892)


This seems to suggest that Farquharson exhibited an established pattern of behaviour where he told outlandish stories and then manufactured ‘proofs’ to support them.

...Farquharson broke into Browning’s study to steal his own exercises and had his friends lie about where he had been that morning.

What is interesting about all three stories is Farquharson seems to have deliberately set out to damage the reputation of a man who he considered to be socially beneath him, and (certainly in the cases of Browning and Gatty and possibly in the case of Druitt), rumoured to be a homosexual.

The purpose of this article has been to illustrate that there are links between the lies Farquharson told about Oscar Browning while at Eton, the stories he spread about Charles Gatty in 1892, and his claim that Montague Druitt was Jack the Ripper.

(Henry Richard Farquharson, M.P. The Untrustworthy Source of Macnaghten’s ‘Private Information’?
By JOANNA WHYMAN, Ripperologist 166 March 2020)


As I have argued previously, it is most unlikely that Druitt's relatives would have suspected him, and for two reasons: first, there is evidence that his brother had not been in contact with him for a considerable time, at least weeks, and, secondly, if they had known of his movements at the time when the series of murders began, they would have known that he was in Dorset.

There would have been no reason to suspect that he was even in Whitechapel, let alone eviscerating women there.

Furthermore, Macnaghten mistakenly thought that Druitt lived with his relatives:

I incline to the belief that the individual who held up London in terror resided with his own people ...

(Melville Macnaghten, Days of My Years, 1913)


It is that error on his part that enabled him to believe the private information he received:

A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor ... He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.

(Melville Macnaghten, Memorandum, 1894)


Macnaghten was not even aware that Druitt's brother had to be informed that he was missing, having evidently been unaware of his movements for some considerable time.

The whole story about Druitt was invented.

Opinion stated as fact.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Where is the evidence that Druitt lived with relatives of his in London?

If he had come home with blood on him, why would his relatives have known about that?

I didn’t say that he lived with his family. When someone hears of something it doesn’t follow that they heard it directly.

I don’t know what happened and neither do you. The difference is that I don’t claim to know.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I didn’t say that he lived with his family. When someone hears of something it doesn’t follow that they heard it directly.

I don’t know what happened and neither do you. The difference is that I don’t claim to know.

I agree with you that you do not know what happened.

That is why I find it curious that you should think that Druitt's relatives would have learned that he came home with blood on him, especially when you appear to concede that he did not live with them.

The man who you say backs up Macnaghten's story claimed that Druitt had blood stained clothes on the night of Mary Kelly's murder.

When I say that he made up that story, you describe that as 'opinion stated as fact'.

I would be interested to know why you take seriously a story told by someone who by his own admission liked to mix fiction with fact.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree with you that you do not know what happened.

That is why I find it curious that you should think that Druitt's relatives would have learned that he came home with blood on him, especially when you appear to concede that he did not live with them.

The man who you say backs up Macnaghten's story claimed that Druitt had blood stained clothes on the night of Mary Kelly's murder.

When I say that he made up that story, you describe that as 'opinion stated as fact'.

You said that the ‘whole story’ was made up just after specifically writing about Macnaghten (not Farquaharsen) Plus, when you did mention Farquaharsen it was simply to quote the opinion of another person.

I would be interested to know why you take seriously a story told by someone who by his own admission liked to mix fiction with fact.

And I would be interested to know why you think that an MP, with no connection to any investigation, three years after the ripper murders and three years before the memorandum just happens to point a finger at the guy mentioned in that memorandum?

The fact that he mentions blood stained clothing is clearly inaccurate. People often add colour to a sensational story….it doesn’t prove the story false.

You have your opinions and I have mine. I’ve explained why I think it extremely unlikely that Macnaghten plucked Druitt’s name out of thin air (which you have chosen not to address - but you’re not alone in that omission of course) I don’t know why you feel the need to keep on with this?