Upon what basis did the Druitt family suspect Montague?

[Robert]

Hi Jeff, I hope you're feeling better now.

Henry Samuel Winslade was the son of a waterman and was born in 1859 at Brentford. In 1891 he is living at Short Road with his parents, but by 1901 he has a wife Alice and is living with her and son Victor in Holly Rd, Chiswick.
Unfortunately Victor died in infancy. By 1911 Henry is living as a boarder and his wife is absent, I know not where. He lists himself as retired. From a piece of info entered on the census but subsequently crossed out, it seems that Henry and Alice may have lost all five of the children born to them. Henry dies the following year and Alice remarries two years later. The strange thing is, when Henry died, administration of the estate was given to Henry Samuel Winslade, retired storekeeper (who I believe was Henry's uncle), and the effects were £1221 17s 9d. Not bad for a waterman, I should think.

[Robert]

George Moulson was born in 1863 in Brighton. He is stationed in west London in 1891 but by 1901 has been transferred to the police station in Hackney.He is still a constable. By 1911 he is a police pensioner, and has now acquired a wife and daughter. He dies in Oxford in 1928 leaving £35.

[Jonathan H]

Druitt to Bluitt

To Robert

A minor comic writer named Frank Richardson came up with 'Dr Bluitt', yet Montague Druitt was shielded because the Ripper is still a medical man.

I agree, though, that that is close to the bare bodkin.

I think you make a very pertinent counter-argument which others have before you.

If Macnaghten is so hell-bent on protecting the Druitt family from ruin why on earth is he volunteering their name in an official report??

This has to be answered persuasively. Most find my argument does not persuade.

Look, I asked this myself because it seemed to be a gaping hole in the 'case disguised' argument.

But before that question I had asked myself this question:

Is it by accident or by design that the Druitt family were protected from exposure by Mac's 'errors' regrading his preferred suspect causing to come into being the 'drowned doctor'?

They were protected, that is a fact, either by Mac's out-of-character poor memory or by his boyish discretion.

In the sources by Mac and on his behalf, we can see the surgeon's son, a young man with two jobs, a mother sectioned. morphing into Sims' mad, middle-aged, doctor, independently wealthy, a recluse, unemployed, with friends and not family -- and who kills himself within hours of the Kelly murder.

To me common sense says it has to be by design, and this is confirmed by information attributed to Macnaghten which we can see is false: for example telling Sims that the doctor had been in a lunatic asylum which is in neither version of the 'Home Office Report' -- and a detail the chief pointedly shies away from in his memoirs.

Therefore Macnaghten was capable of misleading people on this matter, I think because of the dilemma of knowing the Ripper's identity but also knowing that he could never be arrested.

The official version, which I think was written first in 1894, was prepared with misleading information.

We can see this in the document itself.

eg. that Druitt was no stronger than the other two (we know from all other Mac sources this was not what he believed), that Druitt was not arrested because of a lack of hard evidence (he was already long deceased) and that the Cutbushes were related (they weren't).

It's not due to a memory lapse because his memory got betterin other sources, including 'Aberconway'.

The critical factor is that the Druitt tale, albeit un-named, had leaked out of Dorset in 1891, and it could do so again, on any day.

I believe Mac feared, in 1894, that the Cutbush 'scandal' was going to trigger that spill and he appeared a document which would be read out by the Liberal Home Sec. H H Asquith in the Commons, but the names would not be.

Asquith would have inevitably turned 'said to be a doctor ...' (meaning, might not be) as a 'doctor', who drowned himself, a Polish Jew sectioned soon after Kelly (that's the Kosminski family off the hook) and a dangerous, Russian doctor whose whereabouts were unknown (Ostrog was not a real doctor, that's the point of a can man).

I think Mac toyed with a false reason for Inspector Race causing so much trouble for the Yard with the press over Thomas Cutbush. Mac was trying to link the madman as a nephew (practically the man's son, he lies!) to create a smokescreen; that this was a vicious personal grudge -- that this matter could be about to metastasize into an ugly libel suit.

But this was a trigger never pulled, because the Report was never sent.

Why did he not destroy the document then?

I think Mac had to get Druitt's name on file,at the Yard if it all came out of Dorset because this was, after all, Jack the Ripper. The filed version of a 'Home Office Report' was a bit of political-bureaucratic insurance.

Furthermore, I believe that the North Country Vicar story of 1899 is that moment, but it was ruthlessly quashed -- it was handled and quickly forgotten.

Something that many do not absorb is that there is no evidence that anybody else read the Mac Report, or knew it was gathering dust in the Yard's files.

Druitt's name was known to nobody in officialdom outside of Macnaghten.

When this suspect appeared in Sims' writings people like Anderson and Swanson could assume it was a thankfully garbled version of Dr. Tumblety -- exactly as Jack Littlechild did.

Druitt was known to Mac's cronies (and family) via 'Aberconway' but the latter were propagating a figure who was unrecognisable from the real person, hence 'Dr Bluitt' coming close but still no cigar.

If I am a graduate of the Valentine School in 1907 and I read Sims' 1907 piece then of course I will be struck by the 'coincidences' that the Ripper lived in a suburb six miles from the East End -- hey, just like Blackheath! -- and that the killer drowned himself in the Thames towards the end of 1888 -- hey, just like the tragic and sporty Mr. Druitt whose suicide was inexplicable! -- but they are clearly, to me, not the same person.

Mr Druitt killed himself in early Dec and the Ripper in early Nov.

Mr Druitt was a young barrister and the murderer was a middle-aged surgeon who looked like Sims -- eg. complete with a naval beard!

Mr. Druitt vanished and then his brother turned up looking for him, whereas the Ripper has frantic friends trying to find him.

Mr Druitt had never been in an asylum, whereas the Ripper had been so sectioned and, moreover, had been previously diagnosed as a homicidal maniac (why on earth did they let him out?)

I ask you, Robert, is that deflective profile by accident or by design?

[Mayerling]

If you are implying that Druitt died somewhere else, decomposed for a while, in some place where he would have decomposed quickly, and then dumped in the water, implying that maybe it wasn't a simple suicide, I don't think there's any question over the fact that Druitt committed suicide.

Hi Rivkah

I'm not doubting Druitt committed suicide (the circumstances clearly point to that). I just wonder, given the issue of the extreme decomposition, if his corpse may have been found earlier, "put into temporary storage", and purposely replaced into the Thames shortly before December 31st. If so, of course, one would wonder about the reason for such activity. And I can only think it might have to do with some point about dating relating to some inheritance (but that is like grasping at straws here).

Jeff

[Mayerling]

George Moulson was born in 1863 in Brighton. He is stationed in west London in 1891 but by 1901 has been transferred to the police station in Hackney.He is still a constable. By 1911 he is a police pensioner, and has now acquired a wife and daughter. He dies in Oxford in 1928 leaving £35.

Hi Robert,

Thanks for the information about Moulson and Winslade. At least we have an idea about who they were and what happened to both. Does not say much about salaries for Police Constables and pensioners at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Centuries, as opposed to waterman.

Jeff

[Robert]

You're welcome, Jeff.

Hi Jonathan

I congratulate you on the time and effort that you've put into your theory. If I am not at present convinced it's because of the nagging feeling that there is some kind of sleight of hand involved (not accusing you of deviousness or anything like that). It's just that every contradiction is resolved by the wave of a wand and the appeal to Macnaghten's private agenda, with his twin aims of protecting the family while simultaneously asserting that the police didn't fail, that they did know who the murderer was, and he was in fact....sorry, that's a secret. I have an image of Macnaghten with a guitar, singing :

All these people that you mention
Yes I know them, they're quite lame
I had to rearrange their faces
And give them all another name

Macnaghten plays these games even to the extent of putting misleading info into an official memorandum.

Still, the theory has legs and will still be around in times to come, and we will still be discussing it.

[Jonathan H]

Thanks Robert

For your thoughtful response.

You're counter-counter argument is, I think, very strong.

A source which can be shown to be deceitful and manipulative -- as I think I have shown Mac to be, quite different from his anemic portrayal in most secondary sources -- is a source which is inherently unreliable.

At least not without explicit and detailed verification (eg. about Druitt's alleged culpability) from other sources -- which we do not have and probably never will.

[RivkahChaya]

I'm not doubting Druitt committed suicide (the circumstances clearly point to that). I just wonder, given the issue of the extreme decomposition, if his corpse may have been found earlier, "put into temporary storage", and purposely replaced into the Thames shortly before December 31st. If so, of course, one would wonder about the reason for such activity. And I can only think it might have to do with some point about dating relating to some inheritance (but that is like grasping at straws here).

No, I think were just misunderstanding what he meant by "extreme decomposition." He was probably just remarking on the fact that bodies in the water as long as Druitt's had been didn't often make it back out in one piece, rather than suggesting that there was anything suspicious, or suggesting of a third hand in the works.

If you want to explore time of death and inheritance, look at the Lizzie Borden case. It's also a wonderful example of what "circumstantial evidence" can really mean, albeit, she didn't get convicted, because the jury probably didn't want to hang a woman, and there weren't prison facilities at the time equipped to deal with a woman given a life sentence for such a serious crime, that life would probably literally mean life, or at least a good portion of it.

Anyway, the real "tell," is the fact that Abby Borden, who was Lizzie's stepmother, died quite a long time before Lizzie's father, and that when her father died, the alarm was sounded immediately-- by Lizzie-- so that when he body was examined by a doctor and police, it was warm, and the blood hadn't clotted, but when Abby was found, just a few minutes later, she was cold, and the large pool of blood under her had mostly congealed.

It makes no sense for anyone motivated by robbery, or revenge against Andrew for a bad business deal to kill them far apart like that, killing Abby first, and hanging around, especially since Andrew wasn't home when Abby was killed, and he himself appeared to have lain down as though for a nap when attacked.

If you know about the inheritance laws of Massachusetts at the time, though, you know that since Abby was Lizzie's stepmother, if she predeceased her husband, Lizzie and her sister inherited his whole estate. The only things inherited by Abby's family were her jewelry, and property in her name only. However, if Andrew died first, Abby inherited almost everything, and then it went to her nearest blood relative, even if she died just an hour after her husband. The law provided for the daughters, but only with very small trusts from their father's assets; they wouldn't even be able to stay in the house where they'd been living, unless Abby's inheritor allowed it (or they brought a successful lawsuit based on squatters' rights).

So, I think there's very little doubt what happened in Fall River. I wish the JTR case were that transparent.

[Mayerling]

No, I think were just misunderstanding what he meant by "extreme decomposition." He was probably just remarking on the fact that bodies in the water as long as Druitt's had been didn't often make it back out in one piece, rather than suggesting that there was anything suspicious, or suggesting of a third hand in the works.

If you want to explore time of death and inheritance, look at the Lizzie Borden case. It's also a wonderful example of what "circumstantial evidence" can really mean,

Anyway, the real "tell," is the fact that Abby Borden, who was Lizzie's stepmother, died quite a long time before Lizzie's father, and that when her father died, the alarm was sounded immediately-- by Lizzie-- so that when he body was examined by a doctor and police, it was warm, and the blood hadn't clotted, but when Abby was found, just a few minutes later, she was cold, and the large pool of blood under her had mostly congealed.

It makes no sense for anyone motivated by robbery, or revenge against Andrew for a bad business deal to kill them far apart like that, killing Abby first, and hanging around, especially since Andrew wasn't home when Abby was killed, and he himself appeared to have lain down as though for a nap when attacked.

If you know about the inheritance laws of Massachusetts at the time, though, you know that since Abby was Lizzie's stepmother, if she predeceased her husband, Lizzie and her sister inherited his whole estate. The only things inherited by Abby's family were her jewelry, and property in her name only. However, if Andrew died first, Abby inherited almost everything, and then it went to her nearest blood relative, even if she died just an hour after her husband. The law provided for the daughters, but only with very small trusts from their father's assets; they wouldn't even be able to stay in the house where they'd been living, unless Abby's inheritor allowed it (or they brought a successful lawsuit based on squatters' rights).

So, I think there's very little doubt what happened in Fall River. I wish the JTR case were that transparent.

Re: Borden, yes you have a strong case there. Certainly Lizzie and her sister had little love for Abby, and the threat to their inheritances was a powerful motive. Then kill off Andrew, before he puts two and two together and disinherits his daughters. Makes sense.

[Robert]

Thanks Jonathan. You've certainly raised some interesting issues about Macnaghten.

[Jonathan H]

Family into 'friends' -- in 1889

Here is one more source on the recovery of Druitt's corpse:

County of Middlesex Independent

Wed Jan 2nd 1889

'FOUND IN THE RIVER: The body of a well dressed man was discovered on Monday in the river off Thorneycroft's torpedo works, by a waterman named Winslow [sic]. The police were communicated with and the deceased was conveyed to the mortuary. The body, which is that of a man about 40 years of age, has been in the water about a month. From certain papers found on the body friends at Bournemouth have been telegraphed to. an inquest will be held today.'

We see here in the reporter's mistake (and in the 'Acton ...' source where William refers to being tipped off by an un-named pal) the potential origin of Mancaghten later converting the Druitt brother -- and other relations? -- into the untraceable,anomic friends of Griffiths and Sims.

In his own memoirs he will refer ambiguously to the un-named Druitt living with 'his own people', who noticed that he is 'absented'.

And of course the upping Druitt's age by a decade is here too. Actually, in 'Aberconway', Mac does this by an exact decade -- from 31 to 41.

[Robert]

Jonathan do you think that Macnaghten is saying that Monty's sexual insanity was precisely homicidal mania? His three names follow immediately upon "many homicidal maniacs were suspected, " and he says that Kosminski had "strong homicidal tendencies" while Ostrog was "detained in a lunatic asylum as a homicidal maniac." If the word "homicidal" is implied as referring to Monty too, then that might explain "sexually insane" without the need to bring in homosexuality. The question would then be, whence did Macnaghten derive Monty's homicidal mania? From the family? If so then the sexual insanity should be included in the private information. I don't know how precise a writer Macnaghten was. For instance, he says that he has little doubt that Monty's family believed Monty to have been the murderer. The words "to have been" suggest that after Monty was dead, the family believed that he had been the murderer. If Macnaghten had said "believed him to be the murderer" it would suggest a family believing one of their relatives to be a murderer, and saying nothing to alert the police - a very serious charge to level at Monty's family. It's difficult to tell what Macnaghten might have meant.

[Jonathan H]

To Robert

Macnaghten is a very enigmatic source, and that was partly deliberate because he was trying to achieve a balance between many different competing interests and pressures.

Nevetheless, he committed to file that Druitt might, or might not have been a dcotor, but he was definitely sexually insane.

Further along in his memoirs he defines sexual insanity as a person receiving erotic pleasure or fulfilmment from murder and/or from causing or at least watching violence.

He claims that due to information received, I think directly from the Druitts or a Druitt, that their member was so insane.

His wording is ambiguous, but from other sources -- just scraps and glimpses -- it appears that the family, or some members, only formed this extraordinary and terrible belief between the the time of the Kelly murder and Montague's disappearance.

If the 'North Country Vicar' of 1899 is referring to Druitt, and he may not be, then it all makes sense.

Montie confessed to a priest after Miller's Ct. who was either in contact with the family or a family member himself.

By the time the family, or the older brother was trying to find his sexually insane sibling, Montie was already at the bottom of the river on his way to slowly floating to the top.

In Sims' fictionalized version, the 'friends' strongly suspect the unemployed doctor because he had previously said to other doctors that he wanted to savage harlots; he had thus been diagnosed as suffering from a 'peculiar kind' of homicidal mania.

I direct your attention to Mac's much neglected (though not by Begg) memoir chapter 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' as his definitive -- albeit far from anything like complete account -- of his posthumous discovery that [here un-named] Montie Druitt was the likely killer.

This is de-facto third version of his 'Report' which he wrote with the 'Aberconway' version at his elbow, though he deceitfully claimed he was writing it from memory alone (he had to as the previous year he publicly reassured the Druitts that he had destroyed all of his documentation naming Montie), which is why he makes the genuine error about the street name with the graffiti -- this element was in neither version.

The chapter is here under his profile in Police Officials.

It is arguably the most important document in the whole saga.

Here are some of the salient sections in terms of your question:


CHAPTER IV.
LAYING THE GHOST OF JACK THE RIPPER.

' ... Although, as I shall endeavour to show in this chapter, the Whitechapel murderer, in all probability, put an end to himself soon after the Dorset Street affair in November i888, certain facts, pointing to this conclusion, were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer. ...

' ... It will have been noticed that the fury of the murderer, as evinced in his methods of mutilation, increased on every occasion, and his appetite appears to have become sharpened by- indulgence. There can be no doubt that in the room at Miller's Court the madman found ample scope for the opportunities he had all along been seeking, and the probability is that, after his awful glut on this occasion, his brain gave way altogether and he committed suicide ; otherwise the murders would not have ceased. The man, of course, was a sexual maniac, but such madness takes Protean forms, as will be shown later on in other cases. Sexual murders are the most difficult of all for police to bring home to the perpetrators, for motives there are none ; only a lust for blood, and in many cases a hatred of woman as woman. Not infrequently the maniac possesses a diseased body, and this was probably so in the case of the Whitechapel murderer. ...

' ... 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, after he had knocked out a Commissioner of Police and very nearly settled the hash of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State.


'Protean' in this context means malleable, eg. a person capable of deploying many faces. This was certainly true of Druitt the barrister, teacher and cricketer. Macnaghten shows, to me, great modern insight into how a person can be both insane and yet high functioning in their daily lives -- to appear to be normal and above suspicion.

Yet the family did come to suspect, even to 'believe'. And so did the police chief.

[RivkahChaya]

If the word "homicidal" is implied as referring to Monty too, then that might explain "sexually insane" without the need to bring in homosexuality.

The problem is, that people back then believed homosexuality was a kind of depravity, and that people who engaged in homosexual acts could become more an more "crazed," for lack of a better word, the same way people who were confined at Broadmoor were sometimes described as having gone insane due to overindulgence in masturbation. But, Victorians generally (whatever some specific people might have felt) didn't really conceive of people who were really constitutionally homosexual, or had that as their "orientation," as we say now. People can describe themselves as gay now, who have never even had sex, and that would be impossible to a Victorian. It'd be like calling yourself a chef, even if you'd never cooked anything.

If Mac. believed that Druitt was, in modern terms, "gay," and that was somehow responsible for him being driven to acts of violence, I think he would say something like "he'd been driven to violence (or 'homicidal mania') by sexual depravity (or 'vices')," unless we have other evidence that Mac. understood homosexuality as a way of being, rather than just a way of describing a type of sex act.

[RivkahChaya]

Macnaghten shows, to me, great modern insight into how a person can be both insane and yet high functioning in their daily lives -- to appear to be normal and above suspicion.

I think that this character has existed in literature for a long time. Claudius in Hamlet is like this, because it takes a supernatural revelation to out his murder of the old king-- to reveal it even as murder in the first place. And Macbeth is like this to an extent. Shakespeare certainly gives us a picture of two sides of a person wrestling within him.

Actually, I think this went on in literature for a long time, before people admitted it went on in the real world. People were accepting of the hyperbolic struggle of real good and real evil in a literary character, because it was an exaggeration of their own normal, but were still unwilling to admit that real evil in the real world didn't foam at the mouth, and you couldn't spot it a mile away, because thinking anything else was so horrific.

If you ask me, it was the beginning of forensics-- fingerprints, bloodtyping, and other ways of revealing what had happened at a crime scene when there were no witnesses-- that finally changed the way people conceptualized real-world evil.