Montague John Druitt : Whitechapel Murderer ?

[Steelysama]

And I understand what you are saying. It is a pity we can't analyze Macnaghten's information. That's why I must say that I haven't the foggiest whether Druitt is Jack the Ripper. However, you are not entirely accurate. It is not only "one man" who thought Druitt was Jack the Ripper. Farquharson was clearly referring to Druitt when he spoke of the "son of a surgeon." This pre-dates Macnaghten's memorandum by three years and is almost certainly how Macnaghten learned of Druitt. Griffiths and Sims thought enough of Macnaghten's theory to repeat it -- even if not wholly accepting it. And, of course unless Macnaghten is lying, at least one Druitt family member was convinced he was Jack the Ripper. So it is not only one man's opinion.

We should really be asking what made Henry Richard Farquharson so sure that this "son of a surgeon" was Jack the Ripper. It's clear he must be describing Druitt and he must have known the family well.

Yes, that is right. It slipped my mind.

Is there a reason that I am not aware of that Farquharson would have known the family well?

[aspallek]

I understand what you are getting at. Still, I think that without any way of having access to more information on the family suspicions, all we really have is that one man thought it worthwhile.

And I understand what you are saying. It is a pity we can't analyze Macnaghten's information. That's why I must say that I haven't the foggiest whether Druitt is Jack the Ripper. However, you are not entirely accurate. It is not only "one man" who thought Druitt was Jack the Ripper. Farquharson was clearly referring to Druitt when he spoke of the "son of a surgeon." This pre-dates Macnaghten's memorandum by three years and is almost certainly how Macnaghten learned of Druitt. Griffiths and Sims thought enough of Macnaghten's theory to repeat it -- even if not wholly accepting it. And, of course unless Macnaghten is lying, at least one Druitt family member was convinced he was Jack the Ripper. So it is not only one man's opinion.

We should really be asking what made Henry Richard Farquharson so sure that this "son of a surgeon" was Jack the Ripper. It's clear he must be describing Druitt and he must have known the family well.

[Steelysama]

Yes, for us the "evidence" that the Druitt family was convinced Montie was Jack the Ripper is second-hand. Yet, that doesn't make it worthless. That only makes it circumstantial. While Macnaghten was not a professionally-trained detective, he was no fool either. He was an educated, experienced administrator who knew how to analyze and process information. Whatever information he possessed absolutely convinced him of Druitt's guilt. That's circumstantial but by no means worthless.

I agree that it is difficult to imagine the seemingly mild-mannered Druitt as a ruthless killer. But, you see, that only makes him a better suspect. It means that the information that convinced Macnaghten must have been all that much stronger.

Yet, we just don't know.

I understand what you are getting at. Still, I think that without any way of having access to more information on the family suspicions, all we really have is that one man thought it worthwhile.

We don't know why he thought it worthwhile. We have no way of checking the sources and their reliability. So even if it was fantastic evidence at the time, without access to it, it is extremely limited in what we can do with it now.

In my own opinion, it does not succeed in raising Druitt's viability as a suspect beyond the level of any other male who could have been in Whitechapel at the time.

It really is a pity that we do not have access to this evidence which Macnaghten referred to. No matter what, it would be interesting to analyze it.

[aspallek]

Hi Andy,

Doesn't the remark, "A rational and workable theory to my way of thinking is that the Ripper's brain gave way altogether after his awful glut in Millers Court and he then committed suicide" rather suggest that Macnaghten had decided for himself what the most plausible explanation was for the apparent cessation of the murders? Unfortunately for that particular theory, it doesn't mesh up terribly well with what we know to be true of the vast majority of serial killers when they appear to cease criminal activity.

Best regards,
Ben

I have no intention of getting into another fruitless discussion with you, Ben, but the answer is no it doesn't. The words you quote were written by Macnaghten after he learned from Farquharson that the "son of a surgeon" who committed the murders committed suicide on the night of the last murder. It says nothing about any pre-conception. We simply do not know what Macnaghten thought about the murderer before Farquharson informed him of Druitt.

Look, Macnaghten joined SY in 1889. Farquharson began blabbing about Druitt in early 1891. We do not know what impressions Macnaghten had of the killer in that year and a half or so pre-Farquharson. I suspect that he, like everyone else, assumed that the killer either died, was incarcerated, or "went abroad." But there is no reason to assume that Macnaghten thought the killer suicided before he learned of Farquharson's tale.

[Celesta]

Thanks for the poll, Barry.

[Ben]

Hi Andy,

Doesn't the remark, "A rational and workable theory to my way of thinking is that the Ripper's brain gave way altogether after his awful glut in Millers Court and he then committed suicide" rather suggest that Macnaghten had decided for himself what the most plausible explanation was for the apparent cessation of the murders? Unfortunately for that particular theory, it doesn't mesh up terribly well with what we know to be true of the vast majority of serial killers when they appear to cease criminal activity.

Best regards,
Ben

[aspallek]

Macnaghten did see the suicide theory as "much more rational", Andy, so it does seem to have appealed to him as a generic solution to the problem of why the Ripper stopped after Miller's Court.

Note my use of the word "seem" in my original post, and here. It's an impression I get, that's all - and an assumption I'm prepared to make.

Forgive me, Gareth, but that seems to be a dangerous assumption in light of what we now know regarding Farquharson. Farquharson clearly said in 1891 that the killer, that "son of a surgeon," committed suicide on the night of the last murder. If we are to make assumptions, the logical one is that Macnaghten got this information from the MP, as we know the story was communicated to the police. As a matter of fact, this information clearly puzzled Macnaghten as he learned the correct details of the timing of Druitt's death. Macnaghten can be seen trying to reconcile his notion, derived from Farquharson, that the killer committed suicide on the night of the last murder with the information that Druitt apparently committed suicide three weeks later. No, his information about a suicided suspect came from the MP. There is no reason to suppose it was a preconceived idea.

[Sam Flynn]

We don't have any indication that Macnaghten thought the killer "put an end to himself" before he suspected Druitt, so I'm not sure how you can assume that Druitt merely "matched his personal preconceptions." What preconceptions are you aware of?

Macnaghten did see the suicide theory as "much more rational", Andy, so it does seem to have appealed to him as a generic solution to the problem of why the Ripper stopped after Miller's Court.

Note my use of the word "seem" in my original post, and here. It's an impression I get, that's all - and an assumption I'm prepared to make.

[aspallek]

Macnaghten's pet theory seems to have been that the Ripper was someone who "in all probability put an end to himself" and that "the Ripper’s brain gave way altogether after his awful glut in Miller’s Court and he committed suicide". Bearing that in mind, MM might have found MJD a strong suspect irrespective of whether he had any concrete evidence at his disposal, simply because Druitt matched his personal preconceptions of the type of behaviour a plausible "Ripper" should exhibit. Macnaghten wouldn't be the last person to have thought that way, because suspect-based Ripperology has produced several instances of people doing precisely the same thing.

We don't have any indication that Macnaghten thought the killer "put an end to himself" before he suspected Druitt, so I'm not sure how you can assume that Druitt merely "matched his personal preconceptions." What preconceptions are you aware of?

The detail about the killer "putting an end to himself" after the last murder seems to be derived from Farquharson, who obviously suspected Druitt.

[Sam Flynn]

Macnaghten's pet theory seems to have been that the Ripper was someone who "in all probability put an end to himself" and that "the Ripper’s brain gave way altogether after his awful glut in Miller’s Court and he committed suicide". Bearing that in mind, MM might have found MJD a strong suspect irrespective of whether he had any concrete evidence at his disposal, simply because Druitt matched his personal preconceptions of the type of behaviour a plausible "Ripper" should exhibit. Macnaghten wouldn't be the last person to have thought that way, because suspect-based Ripperology has produced several instances of people doing precisely the same thing.

[Ben]

Hi Andy,

Whatever information he possessed absolutely convinced him of Druitt's guilt.

But that doesn't mean that the information would necessarily be "convincing" to us if we were in possession of it. It clearly wasn't to Abberline, who believed that there was nothing beyond the date and circumstances of his death to incriminate him. As Philip Sugden observed rather astutely, Macnaghten's convictions concerning Druitt may have owed more to his personal theory (i.e. in relation to why the murders stopped etc) than anything of incriminating value.

I agree that it is difficult to imagine the seemingly mild-mannered Druitt as a ruthless killer. But, you see, that only makes him a better suspect. It means that the information that convinced Macnaghten must have been all that much stronger.

No, I'm afraid none of that follows at all.

The image of the killer as a mild-mannered, educated gentleman is not a modern-day myth. Jekyll and Hyde was undoubtedly a factor in the creation of that mental image of the killer at the time of the murders, and it may have been fuelled by some of the more outlandish "eyewitness" accounts to have emerged from the case.

Macnaghten was not only completely untrained as a professional policeman, he had no knowledge whatsoever of serial killers.

Best regards,
Ben

[aspallek]

Exactly. If we had actual testimony from his family about what they suspected him of and why, then that might be of more interest. We could judge the merit of their suspicions based on their testimony.

We have a claim that the family suspected him. But the following holes exist:

1) His family may not have suspected him in reality.

2) Only one or a very few members of the family, possibly unreliable people for one reason or another, might have been suspecting him.

3) The reasons that the family suspected him might have been flimsy. For instance, it could have been "Oh, well, Monty's been gone late a lot, hasn't he?"

Without being able to examine the testimony, I would call it worthless as evidence.

Yes, for us the "evidence" that the Druitt family was convinced Montie was Jack the Ripper is second-hand. Yet, that doesn't make it worthless. That only makes it circumstantial. While Macnaghten was not a professionally-trained detective, he was no fool either. He was an educated, experienced administrator who knew how to analyze and process information. Whatever information he possessed absolutely convinced him of Druitt's guilt. That's circumstantial but by no means worthless.

I agree that it is difficult to imagine the seemingly mild-mannered Druitt as a ruthless killer. But, you see, that only makes him a better suspect. It means that the information that convinced Macnaghten must have been all that much stronger.

Yet, we just don't know.

[sdreid]

He's not my #1 but he is in my top three so I gave him a 3.

[babybird67]

i voted never

I will never understand poor Druitt's candidacy.

He was a depressive, a self-harmer. I have a lot of experience with such concerns and i don't accept for one moment that those who self-harm have any inclination to harm or murder other people. They look inwardly, not outwardly, in that sense.

[Steelysama]

His "family suspected him" we hear second hand.

Roy

Exactly. If we had actual testimony from his family about what they suspected him of and why, then that might be of more interest. We could judge the merit of their suspicions based on their testimony.

We have a claim that the family suspected him. But the following holes exist:

1) His family may not have suspected him in reality.

2) Only one or a very few members of the family, possibly unreliable people for one reason or another, might have been suspecting him.

3) The reasons that the family suspected him might have been flimsy. For instance, it could have been "Oh, well, Monty's been gone late a lot, hasn't he?"

Without being able to examine the testimony, I would call it worthless as evidence.