Doctor Bluitt

[Chris]

Richardson seems to have been playing to a privileged group of cognicenti, rather like the way children's cartoons often have another level which appeals to grown-ups.

I think that hits the nail on the head.

The question is whether Sims was one of those in the know, or whether Richardson had taken his published account and added (a thinly disguised version of) the surname Druitt from another source.

Listening to Stewart Evans's discussion of the Littlechild Letter on the podcast that's just been released, I found it more believable that Sims might have known Druitt's name, but might have withheld it in his correspondence with Littlechild because he had given Macnaghten an undertaking not to reveal it. (This is also essentially one of the possibilities jason_c suggested earlier in this thread.)

Enquiring about a "Dr D" might have been a convenient way of specifying a particular suspect without giving the game away. If Littlechild volunteered the name Druitt they would be able to discuss him freely, but if he hadn't heard of a "Dr D" no harm would have been done.

In that case Sims would be the obvious choice as the source of all the information Richardson included in The Worst Man in the World.

[Johnr]

Clear Thinking Chris, Well Done.

Yes Chris,

I agree with everything you have proposed.
Although at this distance, it is hard to be definite about who-knew-what.

I have mentioned that somewhere in my subconscious, I have an impression the year 1891 is significant for this Bluitt/Druitt discussion.

Frank Richardson was called to the Bar from the Inner Temple, in 1891. Some six years after Montague Druitt from the same Inn.

Mr Farquharson - "the West of England member" broadcast his theory upon JTR being a "son of a surgeon", who had committed suicide. Both accurate points which applied to Montague Druitt in early 1891.

It is significant, I believe, that when " The Aberdeen Weekly" chose to repeat the "West of England member" story, on 14 February 1891, it also added :

" "It seems almost an irony* but a few days ago Mr Montagu Williams was reassuring us with the account of an interview which seemed to indicate that the murders were over, and still more recently a West of England member has, as mentioned a day or two since, been promulgating a theory that the Ripper has committed suicide."

The 'irony'* referred to here, is, no doubt, the paper's belief, both Williams and Farquharson were mistaken because another murder (Coles) had just occurred.

Of course, Farquharson was about to move to an East End seat. So he and Williams could have had common interests and contacts.

Particularly, as suggested, Richardson worked part-time at the Houses of Parliament.

I should add here my acknowledgement to Andy Spallek whose Dissertation on Farquharson provides a lot of this information.

Finally, Macnaghten's Memorandum did not reach its final draft till 1894.

But as Andy has pointed out, similar wording is employed.(?) JOHN RUFFELS.

[Johnr]

An Interesting Exercise In Blind Reasoning

In my opinion, a lot of the ground covered here has been gone over on a previous thread:

(See):Suspects Thread> M.J.Druitt> "Recovered Thread.The Drowned Doctor Theory". (Recovered by Dan Norder.)

What makes that thread all the more interesting is the standard of analysis and reasoning which went into trying to work out who knew what first? And from whom the information first came.We now know more.

I think, if you read both threads, you can see that perhaps, Macnaghten has based at least part of his "private information" about the Druitt Suspicion upon Farquharson's theory.Just as Andy has suggested.

What is needed, is an analysis of events surrounding the Coles murder of 1891Perhaps some newspaper will reveal just why Scotland Yard slowly
assumed that Jack the Ripper was finally dead.

Or at least, some officers at Scotland Yard. Interesting stuff. JOHN RUFFELS.

[Johnr]

Richardsons/Richards Moving In Druitt's World.

Since my second post above, I have waited politely hoping someone would post something, so that I could then add a third post to this thread without appearing a domineering thread-hog!

Anyway, no-one did, so, I'm a thread-hog.

I have looked back through my accummulated pages of names of people who went to school ,et cetera, with Montague John Druitt.

This time I was looking for those with the name: "Richardson/ Collins/ Richards".

Here is what I found:-

None qualifying at the Inner Temple between 1882-1885 when Druitt did.

There was one at Winchester College: "Nelson M. Richardson.Common Half Term, 1869", (along with a Charles W. Darwin!).

There was an: "Arthur R. Ricards(should that read 'Richards'?) at Valentine's school "aged 13, born Somerset".I think Chris posted this list and it was not during Druitt's teaching days.

The Canford House Ball Guest List in December, 1888 included one:
"Richards, The Rev. J. and Mrs, Wimborne"; AND "Richardson, Mr and Mrs and Mrs Noble, Bramley Dene, Parkstone".
I checked the Western Circuit Law List (unfortunately, I only have the list for 1897, and whilst a certain "C.W.Mathews"(the former Home Secretary appears,there are no ' Richardsons/Collins nor Richards.'

I found no "Collins" on any Druitt contemporary list. JOHN RUFFELS.

[Johnr]

I Could Note Work The "Quote Button.

In the paperback edition of Fason's book (but not the hardcover) he references an article from The Wycammist, the Winchester College newspaper from the 1970's which says that a "Kennyite" already knew of the Druitt family suspicions in the 1890's. The term "Kennyite" referred to a residence Druitt's residence house at Winchester. While at Winchester I found that article and verified it. A census search showed a man from Dorset by the name of Harvey (Ann Druitt's maiden name) living in a nearby residence house. Unfortunately, I failed to establish any familial relationship between this Harvey and Ann Druitt's family.
__________________
Andrew Spallek

[Jonathan H]

'Substantial Truth in Fictitious Form'

For what it is worth I have been speculating in several 'Ripperologist' articles that Macnaghten, Griffiths and Sims were promoting a chief suspect who was a fellow English Gentleman. That this argues in favor of Druitt's guilt -- at least as Macnaghten understood and judged the evidence -- because their natural prejudice was against it being a fellow English Gentile Gentleman.

That in the Edwardian era certain fellows were privy to the name, 'Doctor M J Druitt' as the 'Dr Bluitt' in-joke shows, but were not privy to the fact that Druitt was not a doctor, not middle-aged, and did not kill himself on the night of the Kelly murder.

That Macnaghten, if he did know the truth about Druitt and I think he did, was playing a game of double-bluff. He assumed that the Major, the playwright/journalist and the comic writer would not actually do anything as mundane or tedious as look up this 'Dr D' and sure enough they didn't.

What fascinates me is that during the Edwardian era there was no Ripper mystery [not unless you were aware that Anderson favored a different suspect entirely].

Regular readers of the famous George Sims 'knew' that the murderer was a middle-aged medico, though unemployed for several years and twice committed to an asylum, of such independent wealth that he did not need to work at all, who lived with chums as a semi-recluse at Blackheath -- and who was Sims' double.

An exhaustive and efficient police dragnet was fast closing on this suspect when he drowned himself in the Thames, a raving, shrieking fiend. The Bobbies practically pushed him in. The public were not to know the man's name but then that was appropriate as 'Jack' could not defend himself; could not receive due process.

Between 1899 and 1917, Sims knew all this to be 'true' -- and that Abberline was wrong -- because he was privy to a copy of the 'Home Office Report' by Commissioner Macnaghten, his pal. Actually this was the 'Aberconwway Version' of a Report never sent anywhere, and which cannot be traced in terms of when it was actually written before 1898 -- before we know Griffiths adapted it almost line for line for his 'scoop' in "Mysteries of Police and Crime".

Richardson, I think, is yet another glimpse into this inner circle of Gentleman who think they know the last detail [the suspect's actual name] when in fact the profile is mostly fictitious.

The question is why?

[Scott Nelson]

Post-modernism again. You and Simon Wood should get together.

[Supe]

If anyone has not read Jonathan's series of articles about Macnaghten, Sims, Griffiths and Druitt that have appeared in Ripperologist magazine over the past 18 months you have missed out on some fascinating new interpretations of Druitt as a major suspect. Back issues of the magazine are available and I would urge serious students to order them.

Don.

[Jonathan H]

Thanks for that Don.

I don't know who Simon Wood, is and I don't know what you mean by 'Post-Modernism' in this context,

I'm just an High School History teacher who is arguing that a source which goes against its expected prejudice is not only interesting but also suggestive that some sort of evidence [now lost to us] overwhelmed that ingrained bias.

A suicided barrister's family, a Tory MP [and his pals] and a Police Chief [and his clubby cronies] would all be expected to bend over backwards to exonerate a fellow family member, or a fellow Gentile Gentleman -- and enthusiastically latch onto a foreign Jew suspect -- and instead they 'believed', or were 'certain', or adopted as a 'doctrine', that it was 'one of us' who was the Fiend.

That proves absolutely nothing forensically, or in terms of evidence presented in a court, but in terms of historical methodology, however, it is a very strong indication that a belief got about which stormed the citadel of prejudice and subdued it.

But then people believe all sorts of things that are not actually true, for any number of reasons. It is just that the usual reasons given for dismissing Druitt are the ones these gentleman would have used too -- and yet still they believed.

Family members are usually the last people to accept, if they ever do, that one of their own is a ghastly criminal, and yet the Druitts -- or a Druitt -- came to the extraordinary conclusion that Montie was not only sexually dangerous, and not only a murderer -- but also Jack the Ripper?!

Perhaps they were all unbalanced?

It is just that Mascnaghten's Memoirs show a jaunty fellow mostly free of sectarianism who is, nevertheless, temperamentally unsuited to accepting that a fellow member of his class, an Oxonian, was a serial killer. You would expect Mac to hose down such views, to convince the family that they are mistaken -- in spite of any evidence. Instead, probably around 1891, it became his belief too, and he moved in 1898 to disseminate this suspect -- his suspect alone amongst police -- onto the public via literary cronies who would do no real research.

Richardson and 'Bluitt' are just another example of the knowledge about Druitt amongst an inner circle.

Yet I think Mac indulged in a gentlemanly sleight-of-hand to hide Druitt from these same pals, and from tabloid vultures, to both protect a 'good family' and his beloved Yard from libel.

I maybe missing something -- I often do -- but I don't see how this theory, or interpretation of fragmentary and contradictory sources, is 'post-Modernism'?

[Tom_Wescott]

Just seeing this. Damn, where's Chris digging to find all this gold of late? Awesome find. I took the comment that he 'might have founded a school one day' as a reference to Druitt having been a teacher. Perhaps that was a goal of Druitt's.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

I totally agree Tom. It might be a bit of in-the-know cheekiness that they, the clubby insiders, are only all pretending that Druitt was a doctor. After all, this Richardson was already pushing the joke right to the edge by his Druitt/Bluitt allusion.

It is just that these elite gentlemen seemed to be all working from the template of Macnaghten's 'Aberconway Version' of his Home Office Report [never actually sent rthere, and never requested by that dept.] in which 'Dr Druitt' is a middle-aged medico who lived with family at Blackheath.

[Tom_Wescott]

Keep in mind his 'character' is called a doctor. The 'school' comment makes me think Richardson knew better. Chris just opened a fresh new line of inquiry through Richardson. Where's Andy Spallek?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

Just seeing this. Damn, where's Chris digging to find all this gold of late? Awesome find.

Thanks for the kind comments, but it's a question of 90% perspiration, as I've just been laboriously working through the Ripper references that have been appearing on Google Books.

[jason_c]

Is there any evidence that MM had a "natural prejudice was against [the Ripper] being a fellow English Gentile Gentleman?"

[Jonathan H]

No, there is no direct evidence of Macnaghten overcoming a prejudice against the killer being a fellow Gentleman.

It is an assumption and an inference drawn from reading Macnaghten's memoirs "Days of My Years" where he comes across as a man somewhat free of prejudice in that he declassed himself by becoming a police administrator, and that for him Englishmen are the best fellows in the world, especially hardy, honest, beat cops, and there will always be an Eton.

Contrast Anderson's heartless feelings towards the prostitutes of the East End in his memoirs, with the Tycoon Super-cop, Macnaghten, who visits Whitechapel and sits with 'whores' and feels sorry for their terrible plight, and asks his readers to feel compassion.

Macnaghten was a premature Edwardian with Liberal sympathies and thus, in my opinion and that is all it is, had just the right combination of background and personality to not want it to be an English gentleman, but if that is where the chips fell then we must not be sectarian and falsely accuse a poor Jew.

You can see this dual effect in his Pythonesque line of 1913:

'That remarkable man was one of the most fascinating of criminals. Of course he was a maniac ...'

Read again Macnaghten's chapter 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' which, in my opinion for what it is worth, is the great unsung source which [arguably] unlocks the entire mystery.