Upon what basis did the Druitt family suspect Montague?

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff

But the inquest ruled that Monty killed himself while temporarily insane, so there should have been no problem there.

Hi Robert,

I agree, but the local vicar and his church members may have had serious reservations about Montie being insane (temporarily or permanently). So they may have had to be quieted down by a substantially more expensive funeral payment.

Jeff

[pinkmoon]

I think we can agree that macnaughton has been told some "gossip" about druitts family thinking he was jtr if there was any real evidence about this he would have shared it.

[miss marple]

I have to disagree with the the idea that the' average ' funeral was eight shillings. I do not know where this figure has come from. It is absolute nonsense. and just adds to conspiracy theories around Druitt.
The average middle class funeral could cost up to fifty pounds. Even burial in a common a paupers grave could run to 1 pound ten shillings.
Cassells lists up to eight types of funeral from £3. 5 shillings to £53 pounds.
Firstly the grave space had to be bought. The charge for a family grave in Highgate in 1842 [ not brick lined] was £3.3s then interring the body was another £2. 2s.
The cost depended on the size, whether it was a single, double or brick lined family vault.
Then costs of coffin, which was lead lined for catacomb burial, coffin metalwork, pall, hearse hire, coachman, up to four black plumbed horses. Embalming of the body, funeral clothes, mutes to walk in front of coffin, pall bearers etc.
The cost of a memorial stone. Druitt's is a standard stone mason design
Druitt had an average price middle class funeral.
As he was a suicide he could not have been buried in consecrated ground. Many middle class suicides were however, at the discretion of the vicar,
If Wimbourne is not consecrated then it does not matter/
I hope this clears things up.
Miss Marple

[Robert]

Hi Miss Marple

Monty was judged to have been of unsound mind when he committed suicide, hence there would have been no bar to his being buried in consecrated ground - which he apparently was, with the Rev Huyshe reading the service.

[Wickerman]

Quite true Robert, suicide was a crime unless, it was established to have been the result of an unsound mind.
A suggestion conveniently and solely provided by the suicide note.

[Jonathan H]

To Pinkmoon

Well, for what it is worth, I most certainly do not agree that Mzacnaghten was fed some 'gossip" about the Druitt family.

That is a theory of the subject, but it is not the only one and arguably it is not the likeliest nor the strongest.

I will concede that it is the majority opinion here, and on the other site, and for a dwindling few to even question it is to proboke apoplexy.

What I have discovered is regularly ridiculed, disparaged by some and and politely dissented from by a few more thoughtful debaters, but nobody agrees with even one iota--not here anyhow.

It has also been the majority opinion since the late 80's, but a good writer, Robin Odell, put the argument you subscribe to as far back as 1966.

From the moment, in 1959, that Dan Farson found that some of the critical data about M. J. Druitt in the 'Aberconway' version was wrong, he made a fateful assumption; that Macnaghten's memory was faulty and/or he had no first-hand knowledge of the suspect and was thus relying on faulty intelligence.

This was a theory to explain the discrepancies, but it is treated as fact among the cognoscentibecause much of so-called Ripperology hangs from this theory being correct.

What Farson did not know was that the 'Aberconway' version had been disemminated to the public by Mac via reliable literary cronies. Ergo it could not contain entirely factual nformation or else there would be trouble.

The Druitt family would be exposed, but then so would the Yard.

Whereas the cronies gave the false impression that the 'English doctor' was being hunted in 1888, or even was about to be arrested.

This was a fib and purest propaganda.

Other fictitious details were added to ther\ Drowned Doctor's profile in the 1900's that were not even in the document, for excample that the doctor had been diagnosed as a periodic, homicidal luantic when he was a voluntary patient a year before the murders.

Therefore the stronger argument is that Macnaghten did not rely on "gossip", instead he met with the relevant Druitts face to face.

Mac's memoirs, which Farson should have assessed against the 'scoop' of the private notes, are comparatively free of fictional details.

In 1995, Stweart Evans and Paul Gainey wondered if the official version of the 'Report' was a sop to the Home Office, in order to deflect away from a much more embarrsssing and genuinely prime police suspect in Dr. Tumblety?

In 2006 Paul Begg wondered how such a competent police chief could make such basic errors--unless, perhaps, he was not to be taken literarly in every detail?

[Roy Corduroy]

Mac's memoirs, which Farson should have assessed against the 'scoop' of the private notes, are comparatively free of fictional details.

Good evening Jonathan,

Macnaghten's 1913 memoir strengthens the case. It shows he still held the same view as his 1894 memoranda. He had not wavered.

For me the memoir is not a clarifying document. In it he presents a mystery suspect. Which is fine. But moot because I know who he's talking about. He pulls back on detail. Which again is perfectly OK. But I don't assess that as an addition to my knowledge.

Roy

[Jonathan H]

To Roy

Fair enough.

I meant that the virtual opening line of the memoir chpater, its implications picked up by Begg (and even Sugden, otherwise a very weak secondary source on this aspect) should have tipped off Farson, even with almost no other sources at hand, that he was being played for a sucker.

Specifically, the bit about the un-named Druitt not being really in the frame until much, much later.

That means that's all smoke and mirrorsf in 'Aberconway' about Druitt being a suspect in 1888. We can see this is how it was taken to be by the way Griffiths wrote about it in 1888 (sceptically, though) and Sims even more so (as I think he was in on it from 1891) as in his musings the mad, English doctor is supposedly about to be arrested.

Knowing that Druitt is a much later, entirely posthumous Jack means that Kelly is not the final victim and therefore 'Awful Glut Man' fits, but that she is the final victim restropectively because of when Druitt killed himself.

Hypothetically speaking, had Druitt killed himself before Kelly she would not be a Jack victim anymore than McKenzie or Coles.

'The errors of 'Aberconway--that he was a doctor and middle-aged--are not repeated in the memoir. The November 10th 1888 date of suicide is very contingent ('on or about ...') and the so-called draft version shows that he has cognition that there were several weeks between the murder and self-murder--despite the desperation of '... said to have been in the water for a month or more.'

Plus Druitt was 31 and Mac makes him 41, or as he unconvincgly phrases it '.. of about 41 years'. You would say somebody was about 40, not 41--excelt ten years the difference as he knows the true age.

Mac wrote his memoir chapter on the Ripper not from memory, as he claimed in hi book, but with 'Aberconway' at his elbow. He looked at that date of when Druitt supposedly vanished, instantly after Miller's Ct. and thought no, that won't do, and simply changed it. But not to the same morning. He allowed a little of the truth to get clear air by conceding that Druitt could exit the East End--that he could function normally--as he was 'Protean'.

Macnaghten does not even include the Thames finale in his memoir. Why not?

On the other hand, I am expecting too much of Farson, a flashy, innovative young reporter, who was cruelled by limited resources and an immovable broadcast deadline fast aproaching.

Lady Aberconway needed to employ an academic historian who had the time and resources to examine her father's 'notes', as she called them, against every source that could be found, and to do so over several years. Yet an academic who was looking at the Ripper probably could not have gained university funding? Catch 22!

Still, Farson should nevertheless have paused and considred how Macnaghten could supposedly mis-recall such basic information, as Druitt's age and occupation, and yet get the tiny detail of the season rail pass correct?

[Roy Corduroy]

I meant that the virtual opening line of the memoir chpater ...

Specifically, the bit about the un-named Druitt not being really in the frame until much, much later.

Thank you Jonathan, yes I see. You are referring to this from Macnaghten's memoir Days of My Years and I quote -

"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 1888, certain facts, pointing to this conclusion, were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer."

Yes this is a clarifying statement. As to the timing of knowledge.

certain facts, pointing to this conclusion, were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer.

For me a plain reading of that is the police department. Plural. The Met. Not I, Melville Macnaghten. The police.

Then part of what is missing from the Whitechapel murder files of Scotland Yard could be the case notes of the investigation of Montague Druitt, posthumously, as a Ripper suspect.

Roy

[Mayerling]

Thank you Jonathan, yes I see. You are referring to this from Macnaghten's memoir Days of My Years and I quote -

"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 1888, certain facts, pointing to this conclusion, were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer."

Yes this is a clarifying statement. As to the timing of knowledge.



For me a plain reading of that is the police department. Plural. The Met. Not I, Melville Macnaghten. The police.

Then part of what is missing from the Whitechapel murder files of Scotland Yard could be the case notes of the investigation of Montague Druitt, posthumously, as a Ripper suspect.

Roy

Hi Roy,

Then comes a subsidiary question: Why are there any missing files at all? Is it from the vagaries of time, from people not returning files but keeping them, were they lost in the Blitz, or did certain parties (like Sir Melville) destroy parts of the file to protect the innocent (in that case the rest of the Druitt family)?

Jeff

[pinkmoon]

To Pinkmoon

Well, for what it is worth, I most certainly do not agree that Mzacnaghten was fed some 'gossip" about the Druitt family.

That is a theory of the subject, but it is not the only one and arguably it is not the likeliest nor the strongest.

I will concede that it is the majority opinion here, and on the other site, and for a dwindling few to even question it is to proboke apoplexy.

What I have discovered is regularly ridiculed, disparaged by some and and politely dissented from by a few more thoughtful debaters, but nobody agrees with even one iota--not here anyhow.

It has also been the majority opinion since the late 80's, but a good writer, Robin Odell, put the argument you subscribe to as far back as 1966.

From the moment, in 1959, that Dan Farson found that some of the critical data about M. J. Druitt in the 'Aberconway' version was wrong, he made a fateful assumption; that Macnaghten's memory was faulty and/or he had no first-hand knowledge of the suspect and was thus relying on faulty intelligence.

This was a theory to explain the discrepancies, but it is treated as fact among the cognoscentibecause much of so-called Ripperology hangs from this theory being correct.

What Farson did not know was that the 'Aberconway' version had been disemminated to the public by Mac via reliable literary cronies. Ergo it could not contain entirely factual nformation or else there would be trouble.

The Druitt family would be exposed, but then so would the Yard.

Whereas the cronies gave the false impression that the 'English doctor' was being hunted in 1888, or even was about to be arrested.

This was a fib and purest propaganda.

Other fictitious details were added to ther\ Drowned Doctor's profile in the 1900's that were not even in the document, for excample that the doctor had been diagnosed as a periodic, homicidal luantic when he was a voluntary patient a year before the murders.

Therefore the stronger argument is that Macnaghten did not rely on "gossip", instead he met with the relevant Druitts face to face.

Mac's memoirs, which Farson should have assessed against the 'scoop' of the private notes, are comparatively free of fictional details.

In 1995, Stweart Evans and Paul Gainey wondered if the official version of the 'Report' was a sop to the Home Office, in order to deflect away from a much more embarrsssing and genuinely prime police suspect in Dr. Tumblety?

In 2006 Paul Begg wondered how such a competent police chief could make such basic errors--unless, perhaps, he was not to be taken literarly in every detail?

Hi Jonathan,There is a possibility that Mr Macs notes were doctored to protect druitts family from any scandal if he had met with them and promised to protect the indentity of montague then fair enough.I do think though if a police man had in his possesion any hard facts or evidence pointing very strongly to the killer then in a case this huge it would be divulged.Let's face it could a police officer resist the temptation to be know as the man who solved the world's biggest murder mystery.

[Paddy]

Druitts family

Hi All
I find it very strange that at the inquest there was no mention of his three sisters Edith , Ethel and Georgiana with husband William W Hough, who was a vicar. They all lived together at 32 New Cross Road about a 10 minute bus ride from Blackheath. Its odd that they didnt appear to be mentioned at the funeral either ?
Maybe there was a bit of bad feeling there?

I have not checked it out yet but there was a James Druitt b 1817, Solicitor born Wimborn, living in Christchurch, possibly Monty's uncle, with sons Melville and Mayo amongst others.
I wonder if there was any connection with Melville Macnagton there?

Pat...............................

[Robert]

Hi Paddy

Tons of info here :

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/7809.html

[Paddy]

Re info

Thanks so much Robert, very very interesting, I should have guessed Chris had covered it ! Lots of connections there.

Maybe one of the family was a bit imaginative.....I actually though my own great grandfather was Jack once...its easy to find circumstantial evidence, especially when they have commited suicide at the right time.....

That was a good thread link, I enjoyed reading that !

Pat..............................

[Robert]

You're welcome, Pat. Yes I think it's easy to seize on one person against whom there might be a certain amount of circumstantial evidence, but it is probably the same amount of circumstantial evidence that exists against most other men too.