Upon what basis did the Druitt family suspect Montague?

[caz]

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.

Hi Phil,

Well there's the rub, because unfortunately we can't take the Macnaghten part out of the story, much as you or I would consider his destroyed 'private information' useless as evidence for Druitt's guilt. (Even Macnaghten himself conceded there was no shadow of proof there, or anywhere else for that matter, against any suspect.) It is merely evidence for him being suspected, for whatever reason.

I agree with you that the family is unlikely to have found anything to connect Druitt directly to a victim or murder location, but providing a motive for anyone committing crimes like these need not trouble us, when the offender himself is unlikely to understand the reasons behind his behaviour.

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

I tend to agree, but I disagree that this necessarily makes him a local man. If he was smart enough to target total strangers who could not be connected back to him in any way, he could have been smart enough to operate in an area he was not connected with at the time, or known to frequent. There are two options for what made it particularly difficult to track him down: he was either a needle in a very large and anonymous haystack, coincidentally living or working within this teeming, victim rich zone, with all sorts coming and going or just passing through, or he wasn't in the haystack at all, and could see the obvious benefits of popping in when it was absolutely imperative that he keep his activities secret from all who knew him.

So for me, a suspect with no known connections with the murder streets is no less worthy of consideration than one with ties to the area, but still nothing to put him at a murder scene.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

But IMHO, Caz, we should surely give locals the priority over "outsiders". "Jack's" knowledge of the area, ability to escape tricky locations (No29, Mitre square) seems to indicate detailed knowledge.

The study of the cae has been bedevilled by rather ill-judged attempts to point the fingers at outsiders (ofetn simply because information is known about them - or so it seems to me). thus we have barnardo, Carroll, Van gogh and many others fingered as suspects form no apparent reason.

Since there is nothing in the murders to suggest someone from outside, I see only a secondary purpose in considering them WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CONTEMPORARY SUSPECTS such as MJD, Ostrog and Tumblety. But we should not (again in my opinion) allow flights of fantasy, and unsupported speculation, to carry us away.

We DO have reason to connect MJD with the crimes, but only because a senior official named him. We should, I believe, be circumspect, and sensible in how we take that nomination forward. Muddying the water helps no one (and I am not saying that YOU, Caz, are doing that for one moment).

Phil H

[Lechmere]

'no known connection' shouldn't categorically rule a potential suspect out, but certainly should be a factor when weighing up viability or likelihoods viz a viz other suspects.
Quite simply perpetrators of this type of crime tend to prefer to operate on familiar territory, where they feel safe. Not necessarily too close to home but close enough for them to be familiar with the back doubles. This criminal geographic relationship is not restricted to serial killers.
The east end was an intimidating area - it would have seemed like a heaving mass of threatening and dirty people with a confusing multitude of small alleys.
When I first moved to the east end (early 1980s when it was not at all yuppified) it was considerably less threatening i would guess than the 1880s, yet still it took some time to get my bearings and before I was comfortable cutting through estates or down the back streets late at night.and I knew local people.
Druitt was an effete introspective soul searching cricket player.
He wouldn't have lasted five minutes on his own in that environment.
I very much doubt he ever set foot there still less rented a room.

[Phil H]

'no known connection' shouldn't categorically rule a potential suspect out, but certainly should be a factor when weighing up viability or likelihoods viz a viz other suspects.

No known connection would rule out ANY individual, unless there are alternative reasons for suspicion - as in this case, the MM meoranda.

The east end was an intimidating area - it would have seemed like a heaving mass of threatening and dirty people with a confusing multitude of small alleys.

A picturesque summation, and one i would agree with.

Druitt was an effete introspective soul searching cricket player.

I don't know where you get most of that from!!

I very much doubt he ever set foot there still less rented a room.

I very much doubt he ever set foot there at all, and once again, there is absolutely no evidence he did.

Phil H

[Bridewell]

Druitt was an effete introspective soul searching cricket player.

Hi Edward,

Is there any evidence that Druitt was effete?

Regards. Bridewell.

[Robert]

Well I guess most people who commit suicide are introspective and soul-searching at the time of their suicide.But really, the evidence shows that Druitt was a clubbable sort of fellow, taking a full part in team games. As for effete, why should he have been effete?

[Lechmere]

I've seen his photo.
Plenty of his type go through the public school system - fagged and bullied probably. It - and the 'clubable world' - is very unforgiving and can be quite vicious against their 'own' - there would be no cover ups from that strata of society particularly with respect to small fry like druitt.

[Robert]

Lechmere, if you're joking and I haven't got the joke, then I apologise. But just to check : you're not saying that Monty was effete because you have detected effeteness in his photo, are you?

[caz]

But IMHO, Caz, we should surely give locals the priority over "outsiders". "Jack's" knowledge of the area, ability to escape tricky locations (No29, Mitre square) seems to indicate detailed knowledge.

Hi again Phil,

Are you talking now about men in general, with no suspicion against them, or just those individuals who came to police attention in direct or indirect connection to one or more of the murders? We should not be giving just any old locals priority over outsiders, because that would be pure conjecture with no proper basis at all.

There are all sorts of reasons why Jack could have had prior local knowledge, or made himself familiar with the territory where he chose to commit murder, without actually having to live or work there during his brief active period. But really, if his victims tended to lead him only a short distance from one of the main roads to each murder location, it wouldn't have overtaxed him simply to retrace his steps and be away on his toes along the same main road in moments. He didn't need to know the back streets like the back of his hand to do that much and get away with murder each time. In fact, if we assume he wasn't smoked out during the house-to-house searches, a simple enough reason could be that he just wasn't there, because he chose to offend in an ideal location for this type of murder, but not one where he was known.

The study of the cae has been bedevilled by rather ill-judged attempts to point the fingers at outsiders (ofetn simply because information is known about them - or so it seems to me). thus we have barnardo, Carroll, Van gogh and many others fingered as suspects form no apparent reason.

But that's a totally different argument. Nobody on this thread is pointing the finger randomly at 'outsiders' just for the fun of it. On the contrary, you seem to be pointing the finger randomly at local men, implying that any one of them is more likely to have been the killer than someone coming in from the outside, even one who was actually suspected and named by a top cop.

Since there is nothing in the murders to suggest someone from outside, I see only a secondary purpose in considering them WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CONTEMPORARY SUSPECTS such as MJD, Ostrog and Tumblety. But we should not (again in my opinion) allow flights of fantasy, and unsupported speculation, to carry us away.

Now you're talking, and I agree, except that there is equally nothing about the murders themselves to suggest where the killer was between them, how near or how far, so it's a wasted point.

We DO have reason to connect MJD with the crimes, but only because a senior official named him. We should, I believe, be circumspect, and sensible in how we take that nomination forward. Muddying the water helps no one (and I am not saying that YOU, Caz, are doing that for one moment).

And we agree here. But muddying the water includes dragging all the more colourful 'outsider' non-suspects into your argument for a local ripper. If you favour a named local suspect, because you consider he has more going for him in terms of actual evidence than Druitt, that would of course be fair enough. But if it's purely on the basis that one was known to be permanently available within the murder zone while the other would have had to dip in and out without anyone being aware of his movements, I'd call it conjecture mixed with not a little prejudice.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Quite simply perpetrators of this type of crime tend to prefer to operate on familiar territory, where they feel safe. Not necessarily too close to home but close enough for them to be familiar with the back doubles. This criminal geographic relationship is not restricted to serial killers.

Hi Lechy,

Of course, we can only really go by those who got caught, so while they may have felt safe operating relatively close to their home or work, they might in fact have been less safe than if they could have offended in one place, and lived or worked in another. No reason (apart from perhaps the direst longterm poverty) why any criminal could not be familiar with other areas and other streets, from past associations or because of rich pickings to be had there.

Mark Dixie, Peter Sutcliffe and Colin Ireland, among others, offended in locations with enough familiarity to make them feel safe, but at some distance from their living environments - and they still got caught eventually, but only because of modern forensics and technology like DNA or cctv, or sheer luck in Sutcliffe's case. They might have been caught a lot quicker if they had chosen to offend within a short walking distance of home.

He wouldn't have lasted five minutes on his own in that environment.
I very much doubt he ever set foot there...

If Druitt was the murderer then he obviously did choose to set foot there and did last more than five minutes. If he wasn't, then I too doubt he would have had any particular reason for going there. It's a non-argument.

Are you suggesting that no teachers, no doctors, no lawyers, no vicars, were ever out on their own in that environment, or ever had reason to set foot there? At least the murderer had a sharp knife if he needed to defend himself against - er - the worst types of criminal in the area.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

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

Once again...

... there is nothing to incriminate him, and I don't think there ever was.

Jon S.

[Lechmere]

Caz
We have no known reason for druitt to have ever, at any tine in his life, obtain any familiarity with the east end, even briefly.
But maybe he was a master serial killer who worked out that he should commit his crimes in a place where he was unknown, even though you will be pushed to find such an example - as according to you all such master serial killers get away with it - a circular argument if ever there was one,

[Phil H]

Plenty of his type go through the public school system - fagged and bullied probably. It - and the 'clubable world' - is very unforgiving and can be quite vicious against their 'own' - there would be no cover ups from that strata of society particularly with respect to small fry like druitt.

Fantastic - we have here not only unfounded assumptions, but class warfare and generalisation. All from a photograph!!!

I'm rolling on the floor.

Druitt was a man of his time and class, he seems genuinely to have got on well with his cricket club friends and to have been an effective sportsman. He was energetic enough to hold down two professional jobs - teaching and the law.

i recall once, some years ago, discussing on here one of his few remaining letters. IIRC it related to a young relation who was studyng Greek or Latin. MJD came across as slightly pompous and condescending, but that could have been an affectation, or ironic, and would have been spotted at once by those who knew him.

We know next to nothing about the personality of this tragic young man.

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

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.

I tried to be clear about this, but I was writing pretty late at night, so I guess I wasn't.

People seem to have a general working assumption, and MacNaughten seems to, that Druitt felt he was "going crazy," and part of his "going crazy" involved becoming homicidal, when he had not been previously (if he had been, we'd expect evidence of it).

I agree that there is no reason a serial killer cannot develop Alzheimer's, or Huntington's disease, and it wouldn't surprise me if they had a somewhat higher than average incidence of tertiary syphilis, or Korsakoff's syndrome; what I am saying is that a non-homicidal person is not going to become homicidal as some kind of dementia progresses, particularly since a lot o these diseases involve motor control problems as well as cognitive problems.

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.

I'm not even sure what he had "little doubt" over. Did he have little doubt that Druitt was in fact guilty, or simply little doubt that Druitt's family thought so? Or just little doubt that his informant was reliable? that says nothing about his informant's original source.

[Wickerman]

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.

Then you write...

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

That is what I meant by,"coming at this from the wrong side", you are assuming I see Druitt as a suspect, no I do not, I never have.

As I alluded elsewhere, I do see a number of fallacious arguments thrown up in his defense. It is these fallacious arguments that need addressing.
There's no need to cloud the issue with arguments that do not stand scrutiny. He may have been the killer, that is a possibility, but just as likely he was merely another sad case of dementia.
The intriguing aspect as we all know is Macnaghten's assertion that he was a suspect, and Farquharson's story consistent with this view.

That aside, 'any' killer does not need to live in Whitechapel to be responsible for the murders, and there is no evidence the killer was a local man (whatever 'local' means).
The very fact the murders occurred around holidays & weekends also lends itself to a killer from out of town, or from outside the immediate area. The police knew this, or they would not have been so excited about the seaman hypothesis, or indeed the "drover on a cattle boat".

Although there is always the temptation to look back on these murders from the perceived 'all-knowing' well informed 21st century couch potato, we must take into account how the police viewed these murders, they knew more about the overall investigation than we can even hope to.

Then there's the other argument, Druitt's chambers at Kings Bench Walk were in the opposite direction to the flight-path taken by Eddowes killer when he deposited the apron in Goulston St. - ergo, Druitt cannot be the killer!

Whats wrong with that assumption?
Well, who said he was finished that night, no-one has taken into account the killer could have gone looking for a victim No. 3.
Consistent with Spicer's story about arresting a suspect (with blood on his cuffs) with a prostitute on the night of the double murder.

Bottom line is, it is wrong to assume the killer was heading 'home' when he passed Goulston St., which makes for another fallacious argument created in Druitt's defense.

Regards, Jon S.