Upon what basis did the Druitt family suspect Montague?

[Phil H]

Hamlet I believe. It was Irvings inconsequential legs that let him down!!

Phil H

[Wickerman]

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.

Would you include Mile End in that remark?

"Consider the case of one Jabez Druitt of Mile End Road. In the West Sussex Records Office in Chichester there lies a letter from Jabez and his wife Sophie to Gertrude Elizabeth Druitt. The letter was written in 1888 but its exact date and contents are unknown. Gertrude was the youngest daughter of Dr. Robert Druitt, making her Montague's cousin. The presence of this letter, whatever its contents, indicates beyond reasonable doubt a familial relationship between the Jabez Druitt family of Mile End Road and Montague Druitt. In fact, if Druitt were to choose to walk from Cannon Street Station to his relative's home, he would pass right through the heart of Whitechapel. Jabez was a sculptor of funerary art who had done well enough to employ a domestic servant."
Andy Spallek, 04-02-2008

So long as the possibility exists, its really not true to say he had no connection to the East end. Which does not make him JtR, but neither does it dismiss him, which is typically the intent of the argument.

Regards, Jon S.
(My emphasis)

[RivkahChaya]

Monty may have been gay. I don't dispute that. But i don't infer his gayness from his photo, or from his love of sport. Now, if he came out to bat wearing a bonnet and dress....

Wait-- was Polly Nichols "jolly bonnet" still with the body when it was found...?

He deliberately postured in a manner that I have no difficulty in characterising as an effete wimp. I do not doubt that druitt imagined he was creating a different image - a thoughtful, sensitive, soft hearted man.

In drawing his conclusions from Druitt's photographs, Lechmere is being anachronistic.

I think you nailed it, Phil, and I wouldn't even put such a fine point on it, to mix metaphors. Just to begin with, everyone paid a lot more attention to their clothes back them; people starched them, and changed them multiple times during the day, so they were wearing "work clothes," or "evening wear," or "business attire," or whatever. Even people in the poorest areas of town paid attention to things like women wearing aprons, and men wearing hats and ties and collars. In the middle and upper classes, fashions changed, such as the width of skirts, and even hems went up and down a little, men's lapels changed, and collars changed; very wealthy people bought new things every year, and middle class people had their things altered.

Nowadays, we associate that kind of fussiness mainly with wealthy women who have time on their hands, and gay men, but 125 years ago, everyone did it. It's just faddishness.

Also, we expect athletic people to be big and brawny, because pretty much any sports player works out with weights; fans expect it, and people who want followings, and to get endorsement contracts, etc., bulk up. Looking like Arnold Schwarzenegger in the 1980s isn't strictly necessary, but the bodybuilding craze in the 1990s is still affecting athletes. Baseball players are much brawnier than they used to be. Plenty of them were either skinny, especially pitchers, for some reasons, and a lot of catchers were tubby (probably to keep from getting knocked over). So you can't judge Druitt's athleticism by trying to imagine what he looks like under his clothes.

And a note on posing for cameras: before flash photography, people were usually given something to hold, because it made it easier to sit still. Some of people have resting tremors, and a lot of people just get self-conscious when they have to sit still. A lot of people were photographed holding a book for that reason. The chin-in-hand for close-up portraits was used to help people hold still as well. Both those poses might look slightly fey to us, but they were purely practical for Victorians.

[Phil H]

Sorry phil
I am only only contributor to his discussion who does understand that people in that period chose to portray themselves in photographs in the manner in which they wanted their personality to be captured.
You seem to think there was only one type if posture that was photgraphically en vogue. There were many options available as I mentioned in an earlier post.
Druitt self consciously chose the effete posture. His photographs are very self conscious.
I recommend you study a variety of late victorian photographic portraits. Druitt's is indeed somewhat reminiscent of some famous Oscar Wilde portraits - which were not typical of the age. Just as Oscar Wilde was not typical of his age. If it were then no doubt druitt wouldn't have felt comPelled to commit suicide.

Thank you Lechmere - but I don't need to be told how to suck eggs by you. On the contrary, YOU are the "only contributor to his discussion" who does NOT understand how people in that period chose to portray themselves. That is clear from your every post.

I recognise that you NEED to establish Druitt as fitting all your misditrected and inappropriate generalisations (I have pointed out my specific reasons for saying that in previous posts so this is a discussion-related issue). It appears that I am not alone in rejecting your portrait of druitt AND the arguments you employ. I suggest you need to rethink.

Phil H

[Lechmere]

Phil
Don't make me laugh.
The blind leading the blind.
The photographs are for identification purposes only and just as the dullest and most unimaginative policeman would think, nothing else can be discerned from them.

[Phil H]

The photographs are for identification purposes only and just as the dullest and most unimaginative policeman would think, nothing else can be discerned from them.

What are you talking about Lechmere - are you getting two discussions confused? I have never mentioned policemen or identification - though there is talk of "inmate photos" in (I think) another current thread.

Druitt self consciously chose the effete posture. His photographs are very self conscious.

The falsity of your logic is shown up by that comment.

Even if we could be sure we were correctly identifying and interpreting the "message" of the photo, in terms of druitt's character, all we would discover is what he CHOSE to convey, NOT what he actually was.

Phil H

[Lechmere]

No I'm not getting two discussions confused.
Let me explain.
It seems to be the case that various posters - you included - think that nothing can be inferred by druitt's pictures. Nothing beyond a visual representation that establishes what he looked like - his identity - as would be the case in a photograph used for Id purposes by the police.
I on the other hand believe that a lot can be inferred about the man from these photographs. Indeed it Could be the case that he was a poseur and he wanted to convey a false impression about himself - that he was putting on an act for the photographer for whatever reason. This is similar to the argument put forward (by robert I think) that the two speach/debate topics that we know about may havE been druitt playing devil's advocate as a test of his debating skills.
In that instAnce as those are the only two debates we know about (or more accurately perhaps, that I know about) it is fair to assume he was taking the side he believed in, otherwise it would be unlucky indeed for just those two - supposedly unrepresentative - debate topics to survive.
In the same way I take it that druitt wanted sincerely to be depicted in the manner shown in the two well known photos (the side profile of his face and the one with him resting on the books). That is the only reasonable conclusion.

For the benefit of all concerned I will demonstrate exactly what is meant by 'effete' and the various cultural models and genres prevalent in the later part of the 19th century so we can see where druitt fits most closely.

[RivkahChaya]

Druitt self consciously chose the effete posture. His photographs are very self conscious.

The falsity of your logic is shown up by that comment.

Even if we could be sure we were correctly identifying and interpreting the "message" of the photo, in terms of druitt's character, all we would discover is what he CHOSE to convey, NOT what he actually was.

Phil H

I think he's begging the question. "Druitt was effete, and I can prove it, because he looks effete in his pictures, where he is trying to show his true self."

Can't do that. There are two premises there, one, that Druitt was trying to show his true character in the photographs, and two, that Druitt was effete. You need independent verification for one of them.

[caz]

Hi Lechy,

You wrote:

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,

We have no known reason, but evidently Macnaghten did. He must have believed that Druitt was familiar enough with the meanest streets of the East End to have committed the ripper murders there. Now while I am quite sure he didn't have any actual evidence to put Druitt there at the right time, I'm more inclined to accept his contemporary views on who would or would not have lasted five minutes in Whitechapel than those of today's commentators, who seem to have this idea that the place was a complete no-go area after dusk for anyone but the absolute dregs.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Phil,

You wrote:

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

Exactly. That's why it's impossible for any of us today to conclude that he was or wasn't cut out to be the ripper. Macnaghten claimed to know more about him and his private life than we do, and his knowledge led him to believe the worst about him.

We don't have enough to accuse him of anything, that's all.

Love,

Caz
X

[RivkahChaya]

Macnaghten did. He must have believed that Druitt was familiar enough with the meanest streets of the East End to have committed the ripper murders there.

They're a crazy maze, I can tell you that. I realize that any city going back to the middle ages is like that, but it does raise an eyebrow over proposed American suspects. I think an American in the East End would be flummoxed, because even really old cities here have a certain amount of planning and surveying-- which doesn't, of course, mean it couldn't have been an American, just that it probably wasn't an American fresh off the boat.

[caz]

Hi Rivkah,

You wrote:

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 see what you mean, and I agree that this is a problem if it is the main - or only - reason why Macnaghten and others (his family for instance) suspected him of being the killer.

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.

Absolutely. I just wanted to establish for anyone else reading along, that you were not suggesting that sufferers of certain mental conditions couldn't also be, or become homicidal, quite independently of the condition itself. If the ripper was a homicidal psychopath or sociopath, he could of course have coincidentally suffered from any other form of mental illness that was more pronounced, while not actually responsible for what made him a danger to others. That's why I don't think we can quite rule Druitt out on the basis that serial killers tend only to kill themselves when cornered and forced to give up their habit. He could have had the family suicidal tendencies in addition to homicidal ones.

From a purely statistical point of view, I would expect the same percentage of serial killers to suffer at some point from any given physical or mental condition as the rest of the population, while acknowledging your point about higher than average incidences of any disease related directly to the offending behaviour.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

They're a crazy maze, I can tell you that.

No, really?

All I'm saying is that Macnaghten had no trouble believing that Druitt would have had no trouble with this crazy maze - and he would have known just how crazy a maze it was in 1888.

Love,

Caz
X

[Roy Corduroy]

Thread topic

Melville Macnaghten: "from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer."

From private information. Not official, not police. There was no contact between the Druitt family and any policeman. Macnaghten heard this from someone, MP Farquharson maybe. If the third party spoke the truth, then what form did the family suspicion take? You have to use your own imagination for that.

Roy

edit - no contact betwen the Druitt family and police after the suicide. William Druitt may well have spoken to police then.

[Wickerman]

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.

Hi Phil.

I know I'm reaching back for this one but I meant to ask you why you think this is a bonafide question.

What killer are you thinking of who's killing ground was limited by his knowledge or familiarity with a particular area?

Sutcliffe lived in Bradford didn't he and he killed in Bradford, why did he kill in Leeds, in Halifax, in Manchester?
By your reasoning he was not able to.

Can you think of any serial killer who was unable to kill outside his immediate area?

Sugden also raised this erroneous conclusion, but he doesn't explain why either. Given that any precedence for this line of thinking appears hard to find, why would you think it has meaning?

Regards, Jon S.