Upon what basis did the Druitt family suspect Montague?

[RivkahChaya]

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.

"Six Degrees of Montague Druitt" would be a good name for something. Maybe not a band-- maybe the next play I never get around to writing.

[Wickerman]

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.

Macnaghten does say, regarding the suicide of the Ripper, "that certain facts, pointing to this conclusion, were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer".
I.e. after mid 1889.

So we might reasonably assume, like Kosminski, that Druitt was never a contemporary suspect. It was first the suicide, then rumors and stories emanating from close friends or relatives years later which convinced Macnaghten, rightly or wrongly, that Druitt was likely the long sought killer.

So they never did have any evidence, but what reasonably would they expect to see as evidence?

It is interesting that over 40 years of research by numerous parties into Druitt's life have not yet turned up one fact which counts Druitt out. With all that work load, teaching schedule, cricket schedule, legal work & court cases, nothing has been found to impact his availability on those nights when murders occurred.

Not like Ostrog, when we finally discovered he was in prison in Paris. Or any other suggested suspect who has fallen by the wayside because modern researchers have turned up that little nugget of information that rules him out.

Which does not make Druitt the Ripper, but it does indicate that he is still not a poor choice of suspect.

Regards, Jon S.

[Roy Corduroy]

Macnaghten does say, regarding the suicide of the Ripper, "that certain facts, pointing to this conclusion, were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer". I.e. after mid 1889.

Thanks Jon. So it wasn't anything William Druitt said to police at the time of his brother's suicide.

Roy

[Wickerman]

Thanks Jon. So it wasn't anything William Druitt said to police at the time of his brother's suicide.

Roy

When Mac. refers to "the police", we might assume he is not talking about himself receiving a personal communication in 1889. That this is not a reference to those private sources which was months after, not years after. Therefore, did the police actually obtain something tangible? Some physical evidence, but years later?

Who knows...

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

the proof of the pudding

Hello Jon. But if the police had received some tangible evidence, and they had found it convincing, would Sir Robert have still championed his "low class Polish Jew"? And would Abberline have so readily discounted it?

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hi Jon,

Much of today's speculation about Druitt would have been avoided if only those damned Victorians had not been so coy and incurious about the nature of the "serious trouble" he got into at the school, which resulted in Valentine having to let him go.

These days, any master getting into "serious trouble" at a boys' prep school before chucking himself into a freezing December Thames would have his identity, life story, inside leg measurement and what got him sacked splashed across the tabloids before you could say "How's about that then?"

A pub landlord of the Royal Oak in Wiltshire recently got himself into serious trouble by making off with thousands of pounds of his regulars' Christmas club savings. He was last seen boarding a channel ferry to France but there is no evidence that he arrived, and speculation is growing that he may have tossed himself overboard. We can read all about it here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-

http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/news/10112839.Police_fear_missing_Wiltshire_pub_landlord_jumped_off_ferry/

Love,

Caz
X

[ChrisGeorge]

When Mac. refers to "the police", we might assume he is not talking about himself receiving a personal communication in 1889. That this is not a reference to those private sources which was months after, not years after. Therefore, did the police actually obtain something tangible? Some physical evidence, but years later?

Who knows...

Regards, Jon S.

Hello Jon

Wasn't it more tangible suspicion rather than evidence? This explains why in the 1894 memorandum he gives two entirely contrasting scenarios for why the killings ended:

"A much more rational theory is that the murderer's brain gave way altogether after his awful glut in Miller's Court, and that he immediately committed suicide, or, as a possible alternative, was found to be so hopelessly mad by his relations, that he was by them confined in some asylum."

Just that fact that he was talking about theories rather than facts shows that he didn't have the goods on the Whitechapel murderer.

Best regards

Chris

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. But if the police had received some tangible evidence, and they had found it convincing, would Sir Robert have still championed his "low class Polish Jew"? And would Abberline have so readily discounted it?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn.
Yes, thats a recurring problem isn't it, we tend to play contrasting police opinions against each other. It would help of course if we had a level playing field.
Mac. was still on the job in 1894 but both Anderson & Swanson had been long retired when they wrote their recollections. Memories often fail even the most pedantic of us.

Tangible evidence still needs to be presented to the accused, as it may not actually be what it first appears. As the accused was dead, all that Mac. can claim is that whatever it was convinced him, or at least impressed him beyond his brother officers.

Hi Jon,

Much of today's speculation about Druitt would have been avoided if only those damned Victorians had not been so coy and incurious about the nature of the "serious trouble" he got into at the school, which resulted in Valentine having to let him go.

Hiya Caz, ain't that the truth , even those inquest papers would go along way to calming the waters.

Hello Jon

Wasn't it more tangible suspicion rather than evidence?

Hi Chris.
Evidence can create suspicion. As I was saying to Lynn, any evidence brought before him may not be able to prove anything unless the accused is given the opportunity to explain it. Given that the accused is not able to counter the evidence then Mac. has only suspicions to consider.

This explains why in the 1894 memorandum he gives two entirely contrasting scenarios for why the killings ended: ....

Just that fact that he was talking about theories rather than facts shows that he didn't have the goods on the Whitechapel murderer.

Yes Chris, this is the impression Mac. gives, interestingly nine years later he dropped one of these considerations:

"I do not think that there was anything of religious mania about the real Simon Pure, nor do I believe that he had ever been detained in an asylum, nor lived in lodgings. I incline to the belief that the individual who held up London in terror resided with his own people ; that he absented himself from home at certain times, and that he committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888,.."


The caveat for me is, this was from his memoirs, I tend to shy away from memories written too long after the fact. But, at least he is consistent in this one respect, preference for his suspect. In 1894 he may have had two prime suspects, nine years later he had only one.

Another snippet caught my eye, if Mac. was truly 'in the know' concerning his prime suspect, and 'friends' had whispered certain details to him, would he know the reason behind the motive?
I ask because he does write this:

"...Not infrequently the maniac possesses a diseased body, and this was probably so in the case of the Whitechapel murderer."
Days of My Years.

Because Mac. clearly suspected Druitt, as opposed to Kosminski, why does he feel his suspect "probably" had a diseased body?
Had Mac. been party to a rumor that Druitt contracted syphilis, or something of the like?
Mac. is hardly likely to be talking about some other suspect here.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

opinion

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Yes, that's a recurring problem isn't it, we tend to play contrasting police opinions against each other. It would help of course if we had a level playing field."

Perhaps we do that. Not sure how much opinion is worth. I'd like to see solid evidence.

"Mac. was still on the job in 1894 but both Anderson & Swanson had been long retired when they wrote their recollections. Memories often fail even the most pedantic of us."

True. But in each case, it looks as though they are trying to convince themselves-- no other.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hi Lynn.

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Yes, that's a recurring problem isn't it, we tend to play contrasting police opinions against each other. It would help of course if we had a level playing field."

Perhaps we do that. Not sure how much opinion is worth. I'd like to see solid evidence.

No-one else ever has, so why should you!

"Mac. was still on the job in 1894 but both Anderson & Swanson had been long retired when they wrote their recollections. Memories often fail even the most pedantic of us."

True. But in each case, it looks as though they are trying to convince themselves-- no other.

Cheers.
LC

John Churton Collins (Prof. of Eng. Lit. at Birmingham Univ.) made a Ripper Tour in 1905 with Dr. Gordon Brown, and a handful of others.

Collins tells us that Dr. Brown told him:
"..the murderer was or had been a medical student, as he undoubtedly had a knowledge of human anatomy (but that there was) absolutely no foundation, in his opinion, for the theory that he was a homicidal maniac doctor, whose body was found in the Thames, tho' that is the theory at Scotland Yard. (my emphasis)

This was written in 1905, the paragraph goes on to explain that Brown's reasoning is based on the murders of the last two (McKenzie & Coles?) being also by the same hand, so obviously after the body was pulled from the Thames. That this is why S.Y. are wrong, in his opinion.
So we can see the weakness in Brown's objections.

Interestingly, he gives us that Scotland Yard in 1905 was of the opinion that the Ripper's body was found in the Thames. The article does give a footnote explaining Anderson's well known quotes about the Ripper being a Jew.


Regards, Jon S.

[Monty]

Somebody read the papers.

Monty

[Bridewell]

Macnaghten does say, regarding the suicide of the Ripper, "that certain facts, pointing to this conclusion, were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer".
I.e. after mid 1889.

So we might reasonably assume, like Kosminski, that Druitt was never a contemporary suspect. It was first the suicide, then rumors and stories emanating from close friends or relatives years later which convinced Macnaghten, rightly or wrongly, that Druitt was likely the long sought killer.

So they never did have any evidence, but what reasonably would they expect to see as evidence?

It is interesting that over 40 years of research by numerous parties into Druitt's life have not yet turned up one fact which counts Druitt out. With all that work load, teaching schedule, cricket schedule, legal work & court cases, nothing has been found to impact his availability on those nights when murders occurred.

Not like Ostrog, when we finally discovered he was in prison in Paris. Or any other suggested suspect who has fallen by the wayside because modern researchers have turned up that little nugget of information that rules him out.

Which does not make Druitt the Ripper, but it does indicate that he is still not a poor choice of suspect.

Regards, Jon S.

Good post, Jon. The last sentence is right on the money in terms of MJD as a suspect IMHO.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Wickerman]

Good post, Jon. The last sentence is right on the money in terms of MJD as a suspect IMHO.

Regards, Bridewell.

Thanks Colin.
In all fairness, I thought one paragraph might have come across a little one sided, when I wrote..

It is interesting that over 40 years of research by numerous parties into Druitt's life have not yet turned up one fact which counts Druitt out. .....

Forty years of research have also not been able to find one good reason to suspect him either, I'm well aware of that.
I think that finding anything at this late date to try prove anyone's guilt is a lost cause, it simply is not going to happen.

All we can reasonably hope to do after a century is find details that might rule a suspect out. That challenge has still not been met with Druitt.

Best wishes, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

A Ramble

The one thing which has always struck me about Stephen White's alleged sighting is what a good fit it seems to be, in terms of physical appearance, for Montague John Druitt. Did White come up with that description because the incident actually took place? Alternatively, did he know of the suspicion attached (at some point) to MJD and write a retrospective, invented account based upon that description?

It seems to me that one of the following must be true:

(1) White's tale is factual and he saw either Druitt or a man of similar appearance.
(2) White's tale is fiction and he based his invented description on that of a man known, to him, to have been suspected.
(3) White's tale is fiction and his invented description was the product of his own imagination, but coincidentally similar to a description of MJD.

Whichever is the case, White either saw a man answering Druitt's description, or he believed it entirely plausible that a man fitting Druitt's description might be the killer. Did MacNaghten know of the White encounter? If it actually took place then surely it was a matter of record and, given his self-proclaimed interest in the case, he must have done. Might it be (pure speculation on my part) that a combination of White's description, its similarity to the appearance of MJD, and the timing of the latter's suicide formed the basis of what Sir MM called 'private information', but which was really no more that private conjecture on his own part? I stress that I don't propose this as fact, simply as speculation which is pertinent to the topic of the thread.

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

dogma

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"No-one else ever has, so why should you!"

Indeed. That is why I am drawn to a known strangler, and who carried knives.

Thanks for the quotes. Looks like they had a good dogma laid down at the Yard.

Cheers.
LC