Upon what basis did the Druitt family suspect Montague?

[Phil H]

I have to disagree strongly with you, Wickerman, both in terms of your arguments and approach. Your criteria are so wide as potentially to encompass almsot every adult male in Britain in 1888 who possessed a reasonable income.

Your post about Druitt's possible links to the East End is entirely speculative and cites not a single piece of corroborative evidence to support it.

Druitt may have done many things, but we could as easily accuse him of unsolved murders elsewhere in the UK. Or indeed, we could accuse any male of the same crimes. Travel by rail was comparatively cheap and efficient.

Sudgen dismisses the east End connection because there is none, and no evidence for one. You make it sound as if the author is part of some conspiracy to exhonerate Druitt! he needs no exhoneration, though he has to remain a "contemporary suspect" and be discussed, given his mention by Macnaghten. Where sources raise an issue it has to be discussed and the rationale for dismissing it made clear, before moving on.

Wouldn't a man of his position take a room for the weekend at a local public house?

Do you still beat your wife? Your question is leading and includes as assumption. If Druitt did visit the East End as you allege, why not stay in a comfortable City hotel within walking distance? besides, we don't know whether the local public houses you refer to took guests.

But more pertinent, the standard of life to which Druitt was used would have made him appalled by the conditions etc in the East End. The gulf between a professional man such as he, and the poor of Spitalfields was immense. But there is NO EVIDENCE that he was someone who went "slumming"; no evidence that he ever visited the East End, so no basis for a "libel" against Druitt by making such unfounded allegations.

He may have rented a room for two or three nights at the Britannia for all we know.

An utterly utterly unsupported conjecture. I could equally allege that Druitt had an affair with lady randolph Churchill - there is as much evidence. He did not, by the way.

We do know people in his position often went 'slumming' in the East end.

before commenting on that, I'd need to know precisely what you envisage by slumming.

Druitt knew what was available, its not like prostitution was a secret, he knew where to go if, if, this was his intent.

He could have gone to the West End equally easily. We don't even know whether he used prostitutes. Moreover, the main allegation about him in the past is that he was, or was latently, homosexual.

Simply put, no-one needs a connection to the East end as a pre-requisit to be considered a suspect.

Therein lies the truth that undermines your whole post. Your remarks could refer to ANYONE.

The pre-requisit is, that a suspect must be able to get there if he chose to, and Druitt could.

As I have said, so could most of the adult male population of the UK with an income much above average. I would add that the people living in the area were even more handy to do the deed. Why are you so insistent on looking for an outsider, when there is not a shred of evidence that JtR was other than a local man?

The East end was thee hive of prostitution and some apparently derived a 'kick' out of cavorting with the 'great unwashed'.

This shows a lack of understanding of the period. The east End contained much formal and casual prostitution, but it was serving the markets, the docks and the immigrants. Much of it was rough trade. There were other equally vibrant centres in the west End serving the theatres (Haymarket etc) and clubs in places like Fitzrovia (Cleveland St?).

Could Druitt be counted among those who so chose to entertain themselves in that manner?

Could druitt be counted as a possible understydy for the Royal Ballet? As an opera singer? As a trainee surgeon? It is a question without an answer - IMHO an absurdity.

The dismissal was the only event we know of that blackened his character, so speculating here, if he was dismissed because he had been associated with a prostitute then his family may have investigated further into any nocturnal activities, hence the suspicions?

I recognise that you specifically state that you are speculating in this question, but where is any evidence that he was dismissed for the reason you give? there is no basis for this speculation. Ahead of it, in the order of prioority of possibilities, must be school-related reasons; such as violence or improper behaviour towards the boys; not doing his work properly, even homosexuality.

How would anyone know - unless Druitt told them that he had been with a prostitute? If he had been to the east end how would you locate an individual woman? How could the family "investigate". there is NOTHING in what Macnaghten wrote to sustain this line of enquiry.

Sorry to disagree so totally. I hope I have made my reasons for doing so clear.

Phil H

[caz]

How would anyone know - unless Druitt told them that he had been with a prostitute? If he had been to the east end how would you locate an individual woman?

Hi Phil,

But wouldn't that apply to anyone and everyone, including the ripper, who used East End prostitutes without wanting to advertise the fact?

That's what made it so hard to pin down the killer, because the only difference between him and a regular punter was that the latter left the women alive.

To be fair to Jon, Druitt cannot effectively be eliminated by any of the arguments in your post. All one can say is that the evidence is lacking to put him in the right locations at the right time (as with almost everyone on the suspect list, so it's merely stating the obvious). Personally, I would consider it a tall order for Druitt to have played cricket and acted normally in that social setting, if he had just come from butchering Annie Chapman in the backyard of Hanbury St. But something made Macnaghten put him at the top of his list, and he therefore remains a suspect unless it can be shown that he had a cast-iron alibi, or Macnaghten's private information was misleading or plain wrong.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If Druitt was actually going down the road of a degenerative disease, I actually think that it exonerates him-- unless someone can find unsolved disappearances in areas where he used to live that were better planned crimes of which the Ripper crimes could be a degenerative form, but I'm not holding my breath.

Hi Rivkah,

But why would having a degenerative disease exonerate anyone from also having whatever it takes to be a serial killer? It wouldn't have to be the cause, would it? The ripper could coincidentally have fallen victim at any time in his life to any of the physical or mental health problems - hereditary or otherwise - that afflict the rest of us. His urge to kill could have been totally independent of, or unaffected by other conditions he may have suffered from. He only had to be physically and mentally capable of committing those murders in 1888, but that doesn't mean he couldn't have been suffering by chance from any number of conditions.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

Caz

To be fair to Jon, Druitt cannot effectively be eliminated by any of the arguments in your post.

Wickerman's criteria would allow us to eliminate almost no one from suspicion! My point is that, Macnaghten apart, there is NOTHING positive to link MJD to the murder area, victims or to provide a motive.

this should NOT be a site for INVENTING any of those things. Conjecture based on evidence is one thing, conjuring an idea from the air another.

But wouldn't that apply to anyone and everyone, including the ripper, who used East End prostitutes without wanting to advertise the fact?

I think you misunderstood my point. Druitt could have used any woman (supposing he ever visted Whitechapel) but tracing her would be an impossible task for anyone else. Hence it would have been very difficult for the family later to have tried to find out what MJD might have done or have seen (which is what Wickerman suggested might have happened).

That's what made it so hard to pin down the killer, because the only difference between him and a regular punter was that the latter left the women alive.

Precisely. IMHO the Ripper simply picked on the first suitable woman he came across in the streets.

But something made Macnaghten put him at the top of his list, and he therefore remains a suspect unless it can be shown that he had a cast-iron alibi, or Macnaghten's private information was misleading or plain wrong.

We know what it was - private information that said that the family believed him to have been "Jack" - what is unclear is whether MM ever spoke to the family or saw whatever the information was at first hand. It evidently convinced him - would it have convinced us.

BUT we do not know enough to reconstruct what it might have been.

In my personal opinion MM may have been influenced heavily by the fact that MJD committed suicide so soon after the Kelly murder, and that fitted MM's idea of a "glut" in Miller's Court.

Phil H

[Hunter]

Yes indeed.Macnaghten places much emphasis on his theory as to the mental state of the murderer and the possibilities as to why he stopped when setting up two of his choices over Cutbush.

[Stephen Thomas]

In my personal opinion MM may have been influenced heavily by the fact that MJD committed suicide so soon after the Kelly murder, and that fitted MM's idea of a "glut" in Miller's Court.

Ho ho, well spotted Phil.

[Wickerman]

Your post about Druitt's possible links to the East End is entirely speculative and cites not a single piece of corroborative evidence to support it.

Phil, you are coming at this from the wrong side.

I was not offering links between Druitt and the East end. I was raising objections to the argument that he is a poor suspect because he has no links, which is clearly rubbish. Anyone living within a short commuter distance of the East end does not need links, business, family, or otherwise.
He could simply have stayed there in a rented room.

Sudgen dismisses the east End connection because there is none, and no evidence for one.

What evidence would you expect, 124 year old room receipts?
Anyone with an interest in visiting a particular quarter of town rents a room there, its that simple. What do you think 'rooms-for-rent' means?

You make it sound as if the author is part of some conspiracy to exhonerate Druitt!

Reason's offered for dismissing Druitt must be rational one's. Arguing that he needed family or business connections in or near the East end for him to be considered a good suspect is wrong, neither were necessary.

Do you still beat your wife?

I'm intrigued as to how you will explain that question.

Your question is leading and includes as assumption. If Druitt did visit the East End as you allege,

I did not 'allege' he stayed in the city.
How does anyone stay in a city they do not live in?

...why not stay in a comfortable City hotel within walking distance?

Thats the same point!, he could have stayed anywhere within walking distance.

besides, we don't know whether the local public houses you refer to took guests.

You don't think public houses rented rooms?

But more pertinent, the standard of life to which Druitt was used would have made him appalled by the conditions etc in the East End.

Now thats what I call an assumption.
One major reason anyone of the middle-class ventured into Whitechapel was the attraction of the contradistinction with their everyday life.
That is the appeal!

But there is NO EVIDENCE that he was someone who went "slumming"; no evidence that he ever visited the East End, so no basis for a "libel" against Druitt by making such unfounded allegations.

"Libel"?, thats just plain silly Phil!
There is no evidence of any kind against Druitt, we know nothing of his personal life.
I'm not claiming he did go to Whitechapel, I am making the point that he cannot be dismissed on the grounds he didn't go. For the simple reason, any contemporary connection between Druitt and Whitechapel could have been so ephemeral as to not leave any lasting record.

He may have rented a room for two or three nights at the Britannia for all we know.

An utterly utterly unsupported conjecture.

Phil, thats what "may have" means, by its very nature it is conjecture.
I think you are intent on creating an argument where none exists.

We do know people in his position often went 'slumming' in the East end.

before commenting on that, I'd need to know precisely what you envisage by slumming.

You have not read about how the upper classes entertained themselves by visiting Whitechapel when the mood takes them?
People dressed like Druitt were not uncommon in the streets of Whitechapel.

Druitt knew what was available, its not like prostitution was a secret, he knew where to go if, if, this was his intent.

He could have gone to the West End equally easily. We don't even know whether he used prostitutes. Moreover, the main allegation about him in the past is that he was, or was latently, homosexual.

There are any number of places he could have gone, and whether he was overtly heterosexual or a latent homosexual are both conjectural. Either could be the case. Then there's bi-sexual?
Regardless, Macnaghten seems to have known of some sexual impropriety in connection with Druitt, in what 'direction' remains unclear.

Why are you so insistent on looking for an outsider, when there is not a shred of evidence that JtR was other than a local man?

There's not a shred of evidence either way, he could have lived local, he could have lived in the suburbs, likewise, he could have lived further afield but rented rooms in Whitechapel.
You don't need to be brought up in the East end to be familiar with the backstreets and alleyways.

The East end was thee hive of prostitution and some apparently derived a 'kick' out of cavorting with the 'great unwashed'.

This shows a lack of understanding of the period. The east End contained much formal and casual prostitution, but it was serving the markets, the docks and the immigrants. Much of it was rough trade. There were other equally vibrant centres in the west End serving the theatres (Haymarket etc) and clubs in places like Fitzrovia (Cleveland St?).

This is another example, you trying to make an argument where none exists.
I know full well what the East end was like and nothing I wrote indicates otherwise.

The dismissal was the only event we know of that blackened his character, so speculating here, if he was dismissed because he had been associated with a prostitute then his family may have investigated further into any nocturnal activities, hence the suspicions?

I recognise that you specifically state that you are speculating in this question, but where is any evidence that he was dismissed for the reason you give? there is no basis for this speculation.

See here again, forcing a pointless argument, "basis for speculation"?, speculation requires no basis that is what speculation means.

Speculation:
A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.

Conjecture:
An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

Can I assume that you agree that we have "incomplete information" concerning Druitt's dismissal? Which then leads to conjecture, which in turn leads to speculation.

Ahead of it, in the order of prioority of possibilities, must be school-related reasons; such as violence or improper behaviour towards the boys; not doing his work properly, even homosexuality.

These have been the obvious choices for decades, and to date have led nowhere.

How would anyone know - unless Druitt told them that he had been with a prostitute?

Being seen with one, of course.

How could the family "investigate". there is NOTHING in what Macnaghten wrote to sustain this line of enquiry.

Macnaghten destroyed all his papers, did you forget?
What he wrote in his memorandum was just the briefest of details.

Just as a footnote, I am not defending Druitt, neither am I incriminating him. What I object to is when people dismiss him as a suspect on false grounds, in fact inadequately false grounds.
It is clear that today there is nothing known about him which supports Macnaghten's claim that he was a suspected murderer, yet he apparently was. So, what was it he did, and what was it he could have done to make him a suspect - that is the question.

One of the past arguments against Druitt was, if he was homosexual, then he is a poor suspect because homosexual's rarely (never?) kill female prostitutes.
Whether he was a homosexual is conjecture.

Macnaghten's "sexual insane" may have meant "an over active sexual appetite" (ref: Andy Spallek), if so, that changes the picture entirely.
Coupled with the fact he was not married, then how did he release his sexual desires?, one solution might be with 'women of the night'?
Some people are drawn to the "low" night-life in the sleazy parts of town.

Regards, Jon S.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

There is not one jot of evidence to suggest that Druitt's family suspected MJD of being Jack the Ripper.

And if, in the exceedingly unlikely event of his being guilty, his family did suspect him I would suggest that such a respectable county-set would have kept extremely quiet and not tipped an exclusive secret wink to the indiscreet Melville Macnaghten.

All we have for any of this farrago of nonsense is Melville Macnaghten's word which, on the basis of his inclusion of Ostrog [he of the iron-clad alibi] as one of his three more likely lads, ain't worth an awful lot.

So let's do the decent thing this Christmas by allowing Montague John Druitt to finally rest in peace.

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

All we have for any of this farrago of nonsense is Melville Macnaghten's word which, on the basis of his inclusion of Ostrog [he of the iron-clad alibi] as one of his three more likely lads, ain't worth an awful lot.

So let's do the decent thing this Christmas by allowing Montague John Druitt to finally rest in peace.

Amen to that.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Wickerman]

Hi All,

There is not one jot of evidence to suggest that Druitt's family suspected MJD of being Jack the Ripper.

Given that Macnaghten claimed to have destroyed all his notes, presumably his personal notes, not police files, then it is not surprising that not a jot of evidence exists. There is little point in bewailing a lack of evidence when we are told it was all destroyed.

And if, in the exceedingly unlikely event of his being guilty, his family did suspect him I would suggest that such a respectable county-set would have kept extremely quiet and not tipped an exclusive secret wink to the indiscreet Melville Macnaghten.

The family wouldn't need to admit anything for Mac. to be suspicious. Seemingly they did not 'give a wink, nod, nudge, or private handshake' because if they had Macnaghten would not need to have been so vague. "...from private information I have little doubt", is a very indirect statement. No-one told him anything, he inferred something was suspicious by indirect means.

All we have for any of this farrago of nonsense is Melville Macnaghten's word which, on the basis of his inclusion of Ostrog [he of the iron-clad alibi] as one of his three more likely lads, ain't worth an awful lot.

The difference with Macnaghten is, he was still in his official position as Chief Constable when he wrote those notes. Unlike both Swanson & Anderson who were reminiscing over a decade after the fact.
Ostrog being incarcerated in Paris does not invalidate Macnaghten's claim that his whereabout could not be ascertained. That would require communication between the London and Paris police, on what grounds?

Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog were all weak suspects, but the police had no good suspects.

Regards, Jon S.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

You appear to be trying to establish MJD's guilt.

I am trying to establish his innocence.

Regards,

Simon

[c.d.]

As has been put forth here by others, it certainly could have been the old which came first the chicken or the egg argument. If the police approached the family as a results of Monty's suicide, any stange (but harmless) behavior on his part could now easily be seen in a much more sinister light. That kind of mindset easily feeds on itself.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

You appear to be trying to establish MJD's guilt.

I am trying to establish his innocence.

Regards,

Simon

Druitt's circumstantial death is what launched him into the spotlight, there is nothing to incriminate him, and I don't think there ever was. Whether the family truly had suspicions is neither here nor there, many people voiced suspicions of others, friends, neighbours, etc. Macnaghten just might be trying to bolster his argument.

On the other hand, if some think the killer needed a 'base' in Whitechapel to commit the murders from, they are wrong.
To date, there has not been one adequate point raised by anyone to make MJD an unlikely suspect.

Druitt and Kosminski are very similar 'suspects' in some respects, but at least with Druitt you have a man who fits some of the witness descriptions given to police, and his age is right.
As opposed to Kosminski, where we have no idea what he looked like, and his age at 22/3 is altogether too young when the majority of witnesses saw a man between 30-40 years old.
No 23 year old is going to be mistaken by several different people for a 30-40 year old man, but a 31 year old is clearly more acceptable.

What we have is two poor choices for suspects. In both cases the police admit they had no evidence on anyone.
So, neither one was suspected by the police at the time the crimes were committed, but if push comes to shove, based on our limited knowledge today, Druitt is clearly the better 'fit' of the two.

Regards, Jon S.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Never mind the bollocks.

Upon what evidence, other than Macnaghten's shaky word, do you have to incriminate Montague John Druitt?

Regards,

Simon

[Phil H]

Sorry, Wickerman, but I still disagree with your arguments.

Phil, you are coming at this from the wrong side.

I am not coming at thuis from any "side". Indeed, to suggest there is one seems odd to me.

I was not offering links between Druitt and the East end. I was raising objections to the argument that he is a poor suspect because he has no links, which is clearly rubbish.

His ability to get to the East End or anywhere else is irrelevant unless one can show some other connection that might link him to thses crimes. there is NONE save MM.

Anyone living within a short commuter distance of the East end does not need links, business, family, or otherwise.

Si in modern criminology you would arrest the whole population of New york and anyone who could travel there because any might have committed a particular crime? You would first NARROW your search surely?

He could simply have stayed there in a rented room.

So you say. He could as easily never have gone there

Sudgen dismisses the east End connection because there is none, and no evidence for one.

With respect, my remark was not directed at Sugden but at your assertion that he had dismissd it as if for some ulterior motive.

Anyone with an interest in visiting a particular quarter of town rents a room there, its that simple. What do you think 'rooms-for-rent' means?

When I lived in South West London, if I went to Whitechapel, I did not rent a room there - I travelled there and back the same day - even the same afternoon. Druitt, would not have needed to stay - how far do you think Blackheath is from Aldgate or other spots in Spitalfields? He had NO NEED to rent a room - hence you need to provide some sort of support for the contention he did.

Reason's offered for dismissing Druitt must be rational one's. Arguing that he needed family or business connections in or near the East end for him to be considered a good suspect is wrong, neither were necessary.

Suden's reasons for dismissing MJD are rational. As an historian, he is right.

Do you still beat your wife? I'm intrigued as to how you will explain that question.

In Britain it is the usual response to a "leading" question - one that makes an assumption which may not be true. So to be asked "Are you still beating your wife?" Assumes you do, or have in the past - neither of which assumptions may be true. I thought you might have known the allusion.

How does anyone stay in a city they do not live in?

In British English, to "stay" can mean to live in a place for a while (among other meanings). So if someone goes for a holiday in Eastbourne for a week (but usuaslly resdides elsewhere) they might say: "I stayed in Eastbourne last week."

...why not stay in a comfortable City hotel within walking distance?

Thats the same point!, he could have stayed anywhere within walking distance.

No it's not. I was referring to the social gulf that in 1888 marked the distinction between rented accommodation in the East End and a hotel either in the West End or the City of London (closer) which would more have reflected Druitt;s life-style and expectations.

You don't think public houses rented rooms?

Again, in Britain a "pub" does not always have rooms. And before you start drawing dictionary distinctions between public houses, inns, taverns etc, remember that the terminology of "pub" was then and is now loose.

One major reason anyone of the middle-class ventured into Whitechapel was the attraction of the contradistinction with their everyday life.
That is the appeal!

I don't think you have the remotest ideas what the East End would have been like, or how utterly alien a man like Druitt would have seemed to a man like (say) Kosminski - in dress, speech, education, hygiene, manners... Equally, a "room" - even a better than average one - in Whitechapel would have been unimaginably crude to a professional man in 1888. Jack London had to flee a lodging house it so revolted him. Slumming, might well have involved visiting the area - I doubt whether it did staying overnight, or getting to close to the unfortunates.

If you believe "slumming" involved renting a roonm and having sex with the likes of Polly or Annie please provide a source. I challenge that assumption.

There is no evidence of any kind against Druitt, we know nothing of his personal life.

And yet you are conjecturing about how he MIGHT have gone there, what he MIGHT have done. None of which has any known relevance to MJD.

I'm not claiming he did go to Whitechapel, I am making the point that he cannot be dismissed on the grounds he didn't go.

So do you consider the Prince of Wales, or Gladstone too? After all they have been fingered as suspects. What about Van Gogh, Carroll or Barnardo - all equally named as susopects by some. Your remark is true for all.

For the simple reason, any contemporary connection between Druitt and Whitechapel could have been so ephemeral as to not leave any lasting record.

And thus is outside the purlieu of an historian with any claim to the name, without some evidence to support the conjecture.

People dressed like Druitt were not uncommon in the streets of Whitechapel.

On the streets, not renting rooms there.

Regardless, Macnaghten seems to have known of some sexual impropriety in connection with Druitt, in what 'direction' remains unclear.

Please explain that.

I know full well what the East end was like and nothing I wrote indicates otherwise.

well your post doesn't demonstrate that, I must say.

See here again, forcing a pointless argument, "basis for speculation"?, speculation requires no basis that is what speculation means.

LOL

How would anyone know - unless Druitt told them that he had been with a prostitute?

Being seen with one, of course.

That would imply someone who knew him saw him - who, when where. Oh sorry its just legitimate speculation!!

What I object to is when people dismiss him as a suspect on false grounds, in fact inadequately false grounds.

And what I object to is when people incriminate him on false grounds.

I'll leave it there, Wickerman. If I haven't reponded to all your points, please let me know and i'll do so.

Phil H