Montague John Druitt : Whitechapel Murderer ?

[Jonathan H]

The entire case against Druitt is a house of cards?

Is that so?

There is a strong case to made against Druitt as a serious Ripper suspect, but you do not make it.

He lived in the area?
No, he lived six miles away.

Just his height?
Not according to the description given by Lawende.

Mac the only source?
You do not appreciate the importance of the indentification of the MP as a Druitt neighbor.

Plus, in his memoirs Mac makes no 'case' against the un-named Druitt at all.

Look, I seem to have touched a nerve about Druitt, and not for the first time?

[Adam Went]

Jonathan H:

Touched a nerve? Not really, but it can be said that Druitt is one of the oldest suspects in the case, and should well and truly have been exonerated by now.

Six miles is still "living in the area". Druitt doesn't fit any of the witness descriptions that describe a foreigner with a moustache, etc.

In short, there is nothing at all against Druitt.....as I said, compare him with any of the other major suspects in the case and you will see that he comes up appallingly short.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan H]

I do not agree with anything you write, and simply repeating them is not an argument.

If I am to be really honest, you remind me of JFK/Dallas buffs -- who become entrenched in what they perceive to be a modern postion when I have argued it was Oswald after all.

[Natalie Severn]

The difficulty for me Jonathan, is not simply that Druitt was not known to have even visited Whitechapel, and therefore to have been able to work its alley ways such as escape routes from Bucks Row, Hanbury Street [a high risk spot], Dutfields Yard ---then post haste to Mitre Square.Nearly all these murders were performed within yards of patrolling policemen doing 15 minute beats on either side of the murder spots---this certainly in the case of Bucks Row and Mitre Square.
Druitt would therefore have had to have been "au fait" with those "beats" in my opinion.He would have had to take account of them because,if he hadnt,he would have been caught.

Its all very well to dismiss the timing of the Hanbury Street murder as though it was somehow nothing much.
Annie Chapman"s murder was extraordinary in its accomplishment, in so far as daring went.There was no escape except back through the house,and people were already getting up and going to work.If this was Druitt he would have had to escape from the house,find a wash and brush up, wend his way to Cannon Street----a twenty five minute walk,catch the train to Blackheath which takes a good half hour, then walk through Blackheath to the cricket club which is three quarters of a mile from the station -at least.

All this in the wake of a murder that might well have shattered him,judging by the accounts of known serial killers when they have murdered.

Yet we are expected to believe he put on his white flannels,etc etc and got down to it by 11.30 am.Most unlikely and why on earth choose to murder and mutilate in a dirty back yard in Whitechapel the very same morning as he had to look fresh and clean for a cricket match a half hour train ride away-thats forgetting about the twenty five minutes to Cannon Street,then twenty minutes from Blackheath Station etc making it close to a two hour journey from the Hanbury Street murder site ie given the time spent at the wash and brush up -10 to 15 minutes ?-and then waiting for the train-lets again say 10-15 minutes?

I also do not follow your reasoning about Macnaghten"s personality.He had led a fairly ex pat life in India as a Tea Planter,He was a pretty loyal friend of Monro and had not been used to "catching murderers" prior to 1889 so would have been unlikely to have had anything like the hands on knowledge of Whitechapel and its inhabitants that Abberline would have had.He therefore would not have been familiar with the logistics of "working the patch"---its alleyways in particular and I dont believe he took any account of them when he put forward his "most likely" candidate as Druitt.

Finally, I strongly believe, that Macnaghten, had he truly known who the Ripper was, would have been exactly like everybody else in the police force----or in the UK for that matter.Had he known he would have told us in no uncertain terms----and been delighted to do so for its kudos!
Best
Norma

[Iain Wilson]

Annie Chapman"s murder was extraordinary in its accomplishment, in so far as daring went.There was no escape except back through the house,and people were already getting up and going to work.If this was Druitt he would have had to escape from the house,find a wash and brush up, wend his way to Cannon Street----a twenty five minute walk,catch the train to Blackheath which takes a good half hour, then walk through Blackheath to the cricket club which is three quarters of a mile from the station -at least.

Wonderfully argued!

*applauds*

[Jonathan H]

I think that Druitt could have been one of the Oxonians who went to the East End to help the poor, via Rev. Barnett and Toynbee Hall.

In a previous post I outlined a detailed argument about the pressures on Macnaghten, and how his Report could be interpreted against those pressures.

Since all that must be so unconvincing that none of it has been addressed, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

I believe that reasons people give today for Druitt not being the fiend would have been known to Macnaghten at the time, and yet he was certain. He had every reason to get a fellow gentleman off the hook -- and did not take it.

[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!

[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]

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

[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.

[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]

I don't find it a paradox at all.

[Hunter]

Hi Jonathan,

I believe you misunderstood my point to 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.

[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.