Upon what basis did the Druitt family suspect Montague?

[RivkahChaya]

Yes, but frequently by the time the truth comes out of hiding - it is far too late to be more than just an explanation of what happened. In short, unless there is a heaven and hell in existance, Jack was probably never punished - and if we got his name we still can't punish him or her.

I suppose there's a good argument in general for dropping very old cold cases, but the Ripper case is something of an exception, because so many people have been unjustly accused-- or, one might say, smeared-- as part of quack theories, mainly to turn a profit, and finding name of the real guilty person is the only way to clear the innocent people.

I suppose you could argue that all the dead people who have been falsely accused can't care, but it's still an injustice, and unlike the killer never being brought to trial, one that can be remedied.

[crberger]

So, Cricketeers...

Would it be easier to escape from Mitre Square back toward Whitechapel stopping for a scribble in Goulston Street or to make the walk from the pavilion at Lord's?

[caz]

So, would you think that if it was depression, he would have shown symptoms leading up to the suicide? Montague did visit his brother in late Oct. so I wonder if William learned of something due to this visit.

Hi Jon,

Apologies for not getting back to you sooner. Depression can take many forms and some people will try desperately to hide any signs, especially if they see it as weakness and hate themselves for it. I have no idea how long Monty may have been in turmoil before he went into the river, but it does seem likely it was all connected with the mental illness in the family which also affected his mother.

Hypothetically then, if what you suggest in your first two sentences, is coupled with your third sentence - in short, a serial killer found floating in the Thames - wouldn't it point to foul play?

Possibly, but you have two unknowns here supporting each other. If he was a serial killer, then he may have been murdered by someone who knew the truth. If he was murdered, it may have been because he was a serial killer.

...Sutcliffe was no hero, described as a wimp by one detective, nearer to effeminate that macho.
So, if Sutcliffe was found drowned, with a suicide note at home - would you question it?

On the surface (sorry!) quite possibly.

But Sutcliffe wasn't found guilty on the basis of 'private information' destroyed by a senior policeman before I got a chance to assess it. It's a completely different situation that can't be compared.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I wonder if the following could have set off the suicide (if you care about another assumed theory). Montie has since August carried out the homicides without being seen "by anyone who could identify him or knows him well". Even if he is the man the Constable caught and took to the local police station, that is meaningless (although the Constable was certain his suspect was Jack - or at least said so in the newspaper interview). But supposedly on Nov. 9, 1888 Montie is finished killing and mutilating Mary Kelly. He leaves her room and is hurrying away from Dorset Street - and somewhere close by runs into "X". Flustered by this, Montie says he is just in the neighborhooe, and this strikes "X" as odd, but after a few minutes they part. Montie broods over this in the next three weeks or so, and suddenly gets a message from "X" or relating to "X" about the accidental meeting. The message mentions that "X" has relayed to some third or more parties about this odd incident, and that nobody can figure out why Montie is in that district of London. On top of that why on the night of that horrid murder. Nobody (least of all "X" or the person relaying the message tells Montie that there is any suspicion connecting him and the victim Kelly (or any of the Victims). But he sees through such a comment that his friends or family are concerned about why he was there. And suddenly everything he has done so far to protect himself from the police is now threatened by this chance meeting. It preys on his mind, and sets him on a self-destructive course - possibly affecting his job performance at Valentine's school (leading to his dismissal), and to his considering if he is insane after all (the image of the self-congradulating Ripper is not necessarily one that would always last - the Ripper if he did survive 1888 would have always wondered if all links between him and the crime were cleared up.

Hi Jeff,

Of course, a good legal brain, like young Monty's, could simply have turned it right round and asked what the hell "X" had been up to, so close to Dorset Street and the latest murder scene. There would still need to be proof that either of them had been up to no good, and were not both enjoying a bit of innocent slumming.

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

a very valid point caz

I have always believed that there was always a very good chance that some one saw the killer just before or after or quite possibly during his attacks and never came foward.Yes some people out and about at that time might have been going to or from work however a lot of people who were out and about at that time were up to no good. The area let's face it was a bit of a cesspit my descendents lovingly referred to it as a "piss hole"

[Cogidubnus]

I have always believed that there was always a very good chance that some one saw the killer just before or after or quite possibly during his attacks and never came foward.Yes some people out and about at that time might have been going to or from work however a lot of people who were out and about at that time were up to no good. The area let's face it was a bit of a cesspit my descendents lovingly referred to it as a "piss hole"

Must've been even worse in your ancestors time though!

I don't disagree with your premise though...there was pipe man for example....

All the best

Dave

[pinkmoon]

Hi Dave ,I do think I have made a good point it would explain a lot.I can't recall many men who were in the company of these poor women before they were murdered coming forward to eliminate themselves from the inquiry

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Jason

I'm conscious of our drifting off-topic for a Druitt thread, (possibly my own fault), but nonetheless we just don't know how many contacts/clients were traced/eliminated...we do know the police were very thorough (vide for example Swanson's comments at the end of his 30th November memo to the Home Office)...

I can't imagine many clients being prepared to come forward voluntarily though, can you?

Frankly I've always seen a Druitt-type presenting in this role as being a fish totally out of water...just doesn't seem to fit at all...and at the height of the paranoia, surely the briefcase-carrying toff would've been the object of huge suspicion were he merely to appear in the area?

All the best

Dave

[pinkmoon]

druitt in whitechapel

I think if druitt was visiting Whitechapel to commit these crimes he surely would have dressed so that he fitted in.

[Wickerman]

I think if druitt was visiting Whitechapel to commit these crimes he surely would have dressed so that he fitted in.

Assuming he kept a wardrobe of 'rags' you mean?

Middle-class attire was just as common in Whitechapel, there were enough men who walked about 'respectably dressed'.

[Jonathan H]

I get hammered over this, though it's not mine originally, but Lawende's sighting broadly matches Druitt (eg. a Gentile-featured man of about 30, of medium build and height, with a fair moustache.)

This would mean, if it was a sighting of the barrister, that he was dressing down quite successfully.

[pinkmoon]

What I class as dressing down is not wearing your very best clothes

[Robert]

I imagine a good many people wore middle-class clothes or rather clothes which had at one time been middle-class, and had since passed through a number of hands. These clothes would have been in a variety of states of repair or disrepair.

[pinkmoon]

We do tend to forget the conditions when these witnesses gave their descriptions.In very poor light with very fleeting glances can we really take any of them that seriously.

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff,

Of course, a good legal brain, like young Monty's, could simply have turned it right round and asked what the hell "X" had been up to, so close to Dorset Street and the latest murder scene. There would still need to be proof that either of them had been up to no good, and were not both enjoying a bit of innocent slumming.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I like that phrase (and you are not the only one who uses it) of "innocent slumming". Think of the situation - in a normally dangerous neighborhood for middle class types not usually found there - in an especially dangerous period with a horrendous serial killer on the loose - in a geographic area known for "penny a dozen" prostitutes - after dark (presumably 10 P.M. to 4 A.M. or so). What would be innocent about being there for somebody like Montie or my imaginary straw man "X"? Are they admiring the architecture or the design of the various streets? Doing research for sociological papers ("The Sex Lives of East End Socialists and Communists in a Time of Panic - An Answer to Mr. Charles Booth")? "Innocent slumming" indeed.

Love,

Jeff