Montague John Druitt : Whitechapel Murderer ?

[Jeff Leahy]

It appears at least we agree about Oswald.

However I do not think we are looking for any local ‘madman’ there were lots of those.

Lust killers, who cut there victims once dead, are very rare.

I’d place the schizophrenic as a more likely match than the Manic Depressive.

But given that these type of killers are so rare, and it’s not proved beyond doubt that Kosminski or Druitt were definitely the above (although I’m happy kosminski was). Then caution would be wise.

So little is known about Druit’s state of mind, Kenith Stephen always stuck me as a more interesting psychological match however.

Pirate

[Jonathan H]

Pirate -- a hatrick!

1. I agree with you about Oswald. He's an open and shut case in terms of being the Dealey Plaza assassin. The question has always been -- did he have help? Was he doing it at the behest of anybody? Left-wing buffs, hustlers, vile lunatics like Jim Garrison, and the chronically naive [eg. Oliver Stone] long ago derailed that case way from the likeliest conspirators: anti-Castro Cubans.

2. Why would a serial killer who lived at Blackheath, who can kill anywhere in London, go to such enormous risks to kill in Whitechapel especially after it is crawling with police?

3. That Anderson went for Kosminski, a local madman, seems to make a lot more sense than Druitt.

[Jeff Leahy]

Shameless liars or not the human senses are easily deceived. A recent reconstruction of the plaza showing where everyone stood and what they saw, plus the directory of the supposed ‘magic bullet’ demonstrated pretty well that Oswald could have fired the bullets.

Invariably the most obvious is the most likely.

Which is why I agree with Adam. Druitt doesn’t make sense as a serial killer.

If Cadoushe did indeed hear the body strike the fence (which goes against the estimated time of death, but seems most probable) then its pretty unlikely Druitt could have been playing cricket that morning.

If Druitt were indeed the killer then there were other centers of prostitution he could have traveled to, we would have expected a wider spread of kills.

Walking the murder sites it soon becomes obvious that the Ripper was on foot and almost certainly a local man who didn’t look out of place and new the area like the back of his hand. As far as I’m aware only one suspect fits that description.

Interesting posts however.

Pirate

[Jonathan H]

Money

[Adam Went]

"Shameless liars" or not, they were mostly the ones who were there at the time, Jonathan. Why would they be lying about it in that way four decades later?

Anyway, to be honest, I'm no expert on the JFK assassination and it's not a topic of any special interest to me, so I won't say any more....suffice to say that from every documentary I have watched about it, and everything I have read about it, there are some serious question marks about Lee Harvey Oswald as the shooter.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan H]

Yes, I've seen that documentary series.

It's utter tripe and the people in it are the most shameless liars, on a par with the Roswell hustlers.

[Adam Went]

Nats:

Exactly my point. Druitt had no criminal record, and nothing to tie him to any of the murders. This stands out far more than anything else that can be said, and is in direct contrast to what we know of the majority of the leading suspects these days....

Hunter:

Going back a few years now, I watched a six part documentary on the JFK assassionation, containing new evidence, interviews with people who had never given permission for interviews before, etc. They conclusively showed that the fatal shot was fired from the grassy knoll, not the school book depository. And, overall, Oswald was most likely not the man - just the scapegoat.

I'm not sure if you've seen it or not, but if you haven't, I'd strongly recommend getting a copy of it....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan H]

Certain people become entrenched in a view-point, which they consider closer to the historical reality especially if it seems to have cynical modernity going for it.

I saw this with JFK Assassination Buffs, years ago. It was not just that they disagreed with the argument against Oswald -- they claimed that there was no case at all to be made for the lone assassin theory.

That is why, when I made mention of this observation, I fully expected Adam to post back -- if he had an opinion on the Dallas tragedy -- that for me to believe it was Oswald, well, that just shows me up for the utter fool I must be [my interpretation of his more polite put-down].

I think there is a strong case to be made for the plausibility of Macnaghten and Druitt.

Most people believe that this argument, whilst possible, remains weak. It lacks hard evidence not so much against Druitt, but of Macnaghten actually knowing who Druitt was-- for real.

For example, say a source which was a private letter, or notation, by Mac in which he expressed clear knowledge that Druitt was a young barrister.

Therefore, I have been told that I am combining an interesting, revisionist take on the fragmentary sources, but with great dollops of novelistic conjecture creating a new, semi-mythical Macnaghten -- for which there is no hard evidence to justify whatsoever.

I totally respect that counter-argument, and have tried to play Devil's Advocate on these Boards to show that I do appreciate the conventional wisdom -- which maybe correct after all?

Whereas, people I see as 'entrenched' claim that there is no case at all for Druitt, reminiscent of what I was once told about Oswald -- or for that matter for Kosminski, or for Tumblety, or for Hyam Hyams, or for ... et. al.

[Hunter]

Hi Jonathan,

I believe you misunderstood my point to Adam.

[Jonathan H]

I don't find it a paradox at all.

[Hunter]

As for JFK/Dallas.....that you still think it was Lee Harvey Oswald says more about the way you think than I ever could....

Come on Adam,

As strict as you are about the JTR evidence... that you can't see the obvious JFK evidence... I find that a paradox.

[Jonathan H]

You make a good point about the primary sources available about Toynbee Hall, but there's the rub; the ones available to us. Plus, it is not a claim Macnaghten makes, simply a possibility we can consider.

Macnaghten in his 1914 memoirs, quite different from Anderson, claims he went down to Whitechapel and spoke with prostitutes. His attitude is one of sympathy and compassion for their terrible plight.

The positive portrait of him by Major Griffihs in 1898 is that of a restless desk-jockey anxious to insinuate himself in the action, and one knowledgeable about C.I.D.'s various cases: Mr Hands-On [one with the gruesome Ripper pics in his draw].

Regarding the Ripper mystery there is nothing about Mac's involvement, as a detective making judgments, in any public source I know of until, suddenly, in 1903 Sims revealed that Griffiths had received his information from an allegedly definitive 'Home Office Report' written by the [then] Assistant Commissioner, Macnaghten.

Unlike Anderson, Mac was not pilloried by the press -- partly because he arrived after the 'autumn of terror'. However, the police were acting on the belief that the murderer was inactive but still at large. Hence, Macnaghten was there for the rest of the investigation, right up until the alleged successful identification of Grainger in 1895 which, apparently, came to nothing.

In other words, Macnaghten arguably had nothing to prove about the case and was not publicly indentified with its failure, unlike the pressure which Anderson was put under both by the press and the government.

Yet we know now that behind the scenes, Macnaghten was indeed active about this case. He produced a very ambiguous document which went into the Scotland Yard archive. A second, singificantly different version was produced by this same police chief and in 1959/1965 was revealed to be not a Home Office Report at all, though it is clearly the one which Griffiths adapted, and which Sims had lauded (?)

That Mac was not an experienced and/or trained detective, which is a fair point, nevertheless does not -- for me -- even begin to consider what on earth he was up to?

I think that Mac viewed the 'Ripper mystery' as a political and media problem, not an investigative or legal one as the fiend was, from 1891, now known -- and long dead.

The challenge for him was what to do about it, if anything?

For he also felt pressures regarding this case, but I think quite different ones from Anderson [in fact, Anderson beginning to claim in 1895 that it was a 'locked-up lunatic' is one of those pressures].

Incidentally, Griffiths' book has an entire chapter devoted to police ****-ups. But, Jack the Ripper, thanks to what Mac had shown the major -- a copy of the so-called 'Home Office Report' -- is not among them.

Instead Griffiths revealed two aspects of the Ripper mystery unknown to the general public [or Abbeline, Reid, et. al.]; that the last murder was all the way back with Kelly, and that there were a handful of promising suspects, the most important of which was not one of the foreign wretches but instead an English, Gentile, Gentleman, physician. What a shocker!?

Again, what is he up to?

The indefatigueable Chris Scott recently found a press story from the Edwardian era in which some unlikely figure has confessed to the cimes in the States. Sims is wheeled out on cue to scoff at this. Also, an un-named source at the Yard claims that the suspect who drowned himself [interestingly not described as a doctor] was definitely the killer, and that this is known to the Home Office [news to that dept?] Is this Mac? Surely, it must originate with the -- by then -- Assistant Commissioner as who else would know about this Home Office Report? Since it never existed.

In 1914, we might have expected his memoirs to clarify some of these puzzles. Instead he never refers to any Home Office Report, never refers to his actual Scotland Yard Report -- let alone that it was in two markedly different versions -- and never puts the story that Sims had done [though the chapter appears to be another adaptation of his Report, the real 'third' version].

Unexpectedly, Mac does not repeat the myth of the 'Drowned Doctor' since he is its progenitor; a Super-suspect who was somehow zeroed in on by excellent detective work. Instead, going against the expected bias, he comes very close to conceding that the real Ripper was not the subject of an official investigation AT ALL, holding back just slightly by saying that 'certain facts' about this man came out only years later.

This is the lone fingernail by which the un-named Druitt allegedly clings as a contemporaneous 1888 suspect.

If the publisher of 'Days of My Years' was hoping for another Anderson-style scoop, with bold claims of definitely identifying the killer -- and a plausible version of how exactly this was done with maybe Super-witnesses -- then they must have been sorely disappointed! 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' does not give any kind of inkling as to how the police got onto this suspect? It does not, at the very least, repeat the colourful Sims story. An entire chapter devoted to the mystery, unlike Anderson, and yet most of the story remains frustratingly veiled from us.

As a piece of exciting memoir writing it is ... a flop?

Why did he do that?

In fact, in answer to your point about Mac not being much of a cop, this chapter agrees with you. Alone amongst all police reminiscences on this subject it does not read as a police-style chapter at all. Nor does it have the tone of desperation, the need to prove something. It maybe a self-serving over-reach but the tone is completely laid-back -- and drained of ego strutting.

What's he up to?

The theory I subscribe to is that there was a much, much bigger story concerning Druitt which, thanks to Mac, is now forever lost to us. We can catch only glimpses of it via Macnaghten's machinations as he, in sources he hoped would never surface, pulls us from one version to another -- shredding his credibililty at every twist and turn in the eyes of modern researchers.

He hoped that his memoir would be definitive. He hoped in vain. That source tells us two vital aspects of the mystery. 1) Druitt was not a suspect whilst alive and was unknown for years 2) Macnaghten is the prime mover regarding this suspect: I identified him.

[Natalie Severn]

Adam,
What criminal record? Druitt never had a criminal record .......

[Adam Went]

Jonathan H:

Find me one thing in any of Druitt's criminal record which would suggest he could be Jack the Rippe? Infact, find me one thing in his criminal record at ALL?

Then, find me one piece of evidence, even just circumstantial or hearsay, that would actually link him to any one of the five canonical murders?

You'll struggle to do that, and the reason for that is that Druitt is a far, far outdated suspect, who has nothing going for him as a suspect, and who's whole mention in the case in the first place is built out of a load of garbage!

As for JFK/Dallas.....that you still think it was Lee Harvey Oswald says more about the way you think than I ever could....

Nats:

Good posts. Agree with what you're saying entirely.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Natalie Severn]

A couple of years ago I visited Toynbee Hall on several occasions and went through all the minutes available about its opening.I still have the list of luminaries who went to its opening and then went on to the monthly general meetings.The Duke of Clarence spoke at its opening and several times later on.However Druitt's name was not amongst those who offered their services,though his neighbours from King"s Bench Walk were there, such as Dyke Acland---- a brother or cousin of Gull"s son in law, and many others,several from Monty"s old college---one who had been through school with him and went on to the same University.
Nothing though about Monty.
I have stated in my previous post my views about Macnaghten and his late entry into the Police Force, having been a Tea Planter in India before 1888 and and a friend of Monro -who was also in India with him for a while. Macnaghten only took up his Scotland Yard post in 1889.He appears to not be familiar with the backstreets of Whitechapel nor to have given much serious study to the logistics which determined the ripper"s successful escapes.
I dont share your understanding of Macnaghten"s character at all,Jonathan.To my mind he was much more superficial and dilettante about his detective work than say Abberline who,had he written his memoirs, might have given us some really useful insights into the ripper"s reign of terror and given us his understanding of how he avoided capture -all this from a much wider knowledge and a concrete experience of the reality of Whitechapel and Crime -including the real, hands on experience of murderers and criminals of the East End ,that left Macnaghten , a "newcomer" to the field ,looking like a green boy .Ok ,he was an "Old Etonion" ---well how does that in any way equip him with an understanding of the mind of a serial killer of East End "unfortunates"? Then we have Farquharson, yet another "Old Etonion"--- apparently busy pouring poison down his ear about Druitt !So what? Who was Farquharson ? Well his "main" claim to fame was that he had been successfully sued for slander!

But above all else, when Macnaghten took up his post as Assistant Commissioner in 1889 his "credentials" as a detective were minimal and his knowledge of Whitechapel and East End crime barely touched the surface .And by then most of the fuss was over---the ripper had gone to earth!