Motive?

[albie]

It is noted that M Druitt only received £500 from his father, three years before his father's death. His £16, 579 inheritance was split with Monty's three sisters.

It is also noted that on his body, M Druitt had two cheques for £16 and £50, which have not be accounted for-although some believe this was used school fees or wages?

16 and 50. Could these be symbolic of the £16, 579 and £500?

His father died 1885 september. The ripper killings took place mostly during september and on the cusp of that month.

One of the victims had her belongings laid out at her feet, including rings and coins. Symbolic?

Was this a crime of misplaced hate of his sisters and their inheritance? He had three years for this hate to fester.

I do not propose that the jealousy caused his mania but was a frame work for it.

His body also had gold, silver and other coins. Were these a symbolic weighing down?

Was the taking of body parts symbolic of taking back the money and affection he felt he was owed?

[aspallek]

Hello, albie, and thanks for your post.

My opinion is that motive played very little part in these crimes, save the motive of self-gratification and indulgence in the violence itself.

I doubt his inheritance had anything to do with it. His eldest brother received the property as was the custom of the day. His sisters received monetary sums as dowries, again as was the custom. Montague and his brothers had received or were offered university educations and so would be able to provide for themselves. Thus, again as customary, they did not receive as large an inheritance. In Montague's case, much of his inherited was advanced to him while his father was alive in order to fund his law studies.

The £50 cheque was almost certainly his wages for the term just completed. It is an appropriate amount and it was customary to pay for the services of the entire term at the conclusion of that term (November 30). The other cheque was probably also from the school. Perhaps it was a severance settlement or possibly even payment for some legal services rendered.

The items laid at Chapman's feet is largely a myth.

I don't think there is any significance in the gold and silver coinage found on Druitt's body other than he had taken all his worldly wealth with him to his watery end.

[albie]

Wouldn't a cheque have a signature of someone from the school on it? I assumed they had no such signature.
Therefore they were written out by him. You'd have to wonder why. If he were taking out his money to spend in hell then maybe he would also write himself a cheque.

The coins at the feet of the victim are perhaps myth. But isn't there a case for it being evidence the police kept back and then that fact was leaked and therefore word of mouth?

[aspallek]

All we know about the cheques is the amount and that they were both drawn from the London and Provincial Bank. Unfortunately, we do not know who signed them or whose account they were drawn from. Presumably, they were written to him as they are listed in the news report along with the cash (coin) found on him. Also, £50 is the right amount for a term's wages and the school term was just completed. I think we can conclude safely that the cheques were written to Druitt and were probably from the school.

[albie]

>>Presumably, they were written to him as they are listed in the news report along with the cash (coin) found on him.

This I disagree with. I would have thought it important evidence who the cheques came from. It could show who he was last in contact with. Hence they could demonstrate his state of mind at the time. But the info may not have been relayed to the press.

>>Also, £50 is the right amount for a term's wages and the school term was just completed.

This I agree with.

It shows some lack of disregard to his family though, that he would not cash the cheques into his account for his family to inherit. And that he also risked losing the coinage on his body. Hmm.

[aspallek]

>>Presumably, they were written to him as they are listed in the news report along with the cash (coin) found on him.

This I disagree with. I would have thought it important evidence who the cheques came from. It could show who he was last in contact with. Hence they could demonstrate his state of mind at the time. But the info may not have been relayed to the press.

Yes, it would be important to know the cheques were from. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing this. All we know is that they were drawn off the London and Provincial Bank. Someone once presented information that suggested Valentine (the owner of the school where Druitt taught) had an affiliation with this bank but we can't say for sure.

>>Also, £50 is the right amount for a term's wages and the school term was just completed.

This I agree with.

It shows some lack of disregard to his family though, that he would not cash the cheques into his account for his family to inherit. And that he also risked losing the coinage on his body. Hmm.

Yes. Presumably that was not his concern at the moment he committed suicide.

[albie]

"doubt his inheritance had anything to do with it. His eldest brother received the property as was the custom of the day. His sisters received monetary sums as dowries, again as was the custom. Montague and his brothers had received or were offered university educations and so would be able to provide for themselves. Thus, again as customary, they did not receive as large an inheritance. In Montague's case, much of his inherited was advanced to him while his father was alive in order to fund his law studies."

Hmm. This would make sense for a mentally sound man. But given he's killed himself and left a note about his mental health...

[Nothing to see]

albie, Druitt wasn't Jack. Sounds good, looks good, ends up as a dead end.
In the Thames. It wasn't Druitt.

[aspallek]

Hmm. This would make sense for a mentally sound man. But given he's killed himself and left a note about his mental health...

Well, we will never know for sure. Druitt's guilt can never be proven. It may be that we will find an alibi for him and prove his innocence. I have been searching hard and have not found one as of yet, however.

The intriguing thing about Druitt is that he is a most unlikely suspect. He's not an insane Jew or a mad Russian. He's not a seedy sailor or a quack doctor or even an insane medical student. He does not at all fit the profile of contemporary suspects at all. He is an "English gentleman of otherwise unblemished character." Yet by February 1891 his name has come to the attention of Scotland Yard as a Ripper suspect. By 1894 he is the preferred suspect of (at least) one of SY's chief officers. From the 1890's on, Druitt is perpetuated as a suspect in the many "drowned doctor" tales, traceable to Macnaghten through Griffiths.

[Graham]

I've always thought it astonishing that, after a month in the cess-pool that was the 19th-century River Thames, the cheques could have been read at all.

Unless McNaghten's "private info" was really conclusive, I think he included Druitt in his list of suspects for the simple reason that he was dredged out of the river when he was, and that he'd been missing since a time very close to the last WM killing. I always felt very sorry for Druitt - he was plainly a decent but an unhappy man, and to be linked forever to the Ripper Murders seems somehow unfair.

Cheers,

Graham

[aspallek]

No, I can't agree. There were many other suicides in that tome period and none of the others were suspected of being Jack. This also ignored Farquharson's tale. By February 1891, Druitt's own MP was identifying a "son of a surgeon" as being Jack the Ripper. The police had been notified, hence Macnaghten would have learned of Druitt from Farquharson. This formed the basis for the beginning of the case against Druitt in Macnaghten's mind. Macnaghten also learned other things about his suspect -- such as that his own family was convinced he was Jack. There was much more to it than a mere convenient suicide.

[albie]

Are we discounting the fact that the word JUWES is a code for his name? I know it seems ridiculous but if you look at it from the killer's viewpoint it is not so odd. He uses a simple code trick on his own name, notices the possibility of a word that looks like "jews"- which is easily spotted. Plays around with it.

Not that weird really.

[albie]

Do we know if there was anyone dodgy in his cricket club?
Suppose killing the women was part of some bizarre drinking/cricket club bet. Maybe the money was what he owed for failing something. Maybe he had to kill a certain number of women.

Sounds crazy, but, well, they were cricketters.

[Moriarty]

I've always thought it astonishing that, after a month in the cess-pool that was the 19th-century River Thames, the cheques could have been read at all.

Maybe someone laundered the money?

[Robert]

At least Monty had no financial problems with liquidity.

Graham, normally people protest that the papers must have disintegrated in the water, and then they are told of other examples of papers remaining intact. But you seem to be surprised that the papers were clean enough to read. I suppose that, for one thing, the water was cleaner upstream in Chiswick.