Upon what basis did the Druitt family suspect Montague?

[Defective Detective]

From the Memorandum:

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

The source of Macnaghten's "private information" has been endlessly discussed to a (mostly) inconclusive end. The actual contents of that information, ironically, seem to me to be relatively less speculated upon. And as there isn't a thread in the six surviving pages of the forum posing this question, I'll take it upon myself to ask.

Most people are averse to the idea that their loved ones could possibly be a notorious criminal. More common by far than suspicion is denial, a willing ignorance to obvious fact which results in overlooking the flawed qualities of our family and friends in order to preserve a more perfect image of them. To suspect without any reasoning requires either paranoia or a fundamentally uncongenial and callous feeling towards a person. Both of these are quite unbecoming of family or close friends.

Presumably the Druitt family, or those with a very close connection to it, had some reason to think that Montague may have been the Jack the Ripper. And we may logically infer that they felt this line of reasoning strong enough to approach the police with it, at the risk of shame and humiliation, albeit after the fact of his death. For it to have been accepted virtually wholesale by Macnaghten means that it was something more concrete than something along the lines of a quirk of personality, like so many reported suspicions in the case were.

We know almost nothing about the Druitt family, or indeed any private citizen of the era. We know names and places associated with them, and the most public persona they adopted; it is almost impossible to truly 'know' anyone of the period. Even things which we today take for granted - store receipts, ATM transactions - provide more data about us to intrepid future detectives than all but the most well-kept records of the Victorian age. Indeed, even the fact that Druitt had a train ticket on his body when it was recovered from the Thames tells us nothing so much as what station he bought it at. Druitt's day-to-day life is an impenetrable mystery to us, and must forever remain so.

And we are reduced to speculation. But it needn't be wholly uninformed speculation. What we do know of the man, his dismissal from his post and the state of his mental health, can help us put together a roughshod image of the tragic barrister. So let's produce just that portrait.

I shall begin with a summary of what I feel I have reasonably inferred:


1. The Druitts, and possibly their immediate social circle, felt that one of their own may have been Jack the Ripper.

2. Despite the fact that any public acknowledgement of that possibility would have doubtless brought calamity upon their well-established name, they nevertheless felt strong enough in their suspicion to come forward in confidence to the police to reveal this suspicion to them. Presumably Macnaghten, or whichever officer these private thoughts came to first, were 'in the know' as to the cause of that belief.

3. Whatever it was could not have been conclusive, definitive proof, else Macnaghten would not have felt the need to list the names of "Kosminski" and Michael Ostrog; rather, he would have stated flat-out that Druitt was the Ripper. And so the family could not have anything so hard as having caught him in the act.

4. At the same time, it must have been striking enough to warrant Macnaghten's attention. Many individuals were coming forward at the time accusing others of being Saucy Jacky and seem not to have warranted so much as a cursory look from the constabulary.


What I'm about to write is going to be odd, but please, bear with me.

Let us assume a 'scale of suspicion' separated by degrees, wherein '1' is the absence of suspicion and '10' is evidence enough for conviction. Based upon the inferences I listed above, whatever the Druitt family believed would be, in my estimation, somewhere between a '4' and a '7', within their subjective frame of reference.



The question, thusly codified, can be posed as follows:

What cause for suspicion might the Druitt family have to implicate Montague John Druitt as Jack The Ripper which is sufficient to lead them to contact the police, and to have the police take it seriously, but not enough for the police to make a definitive statement on the matter?


These are the conditions that any answer must fulfill to my mind:

1. It must satisfy the police to the extent that Druitt would be considered a top suspect three years after the fact.

2. It must be jarring enough for the family to have deeply regarded Montague and to have been willing to stake their social reputation on the outcome of telling the police.

3. It cannot have been conclusive proof-positive.

Now, then, let's put on our thinking caps. What possible evidence could fulfill these three conditions?

[Abby Normal]

From the Memorandum:



The source of Macnaghten's "private information" has been endlessly discussed to a (mostly) inconclusive end. The actual contents of that information, ironically, seem to me to be relatively less speculated upon. And as there isn't a thread in the six surviving pages of the forum posing this question, I'll take it upon myself to ask.

Most people are averse to the idea that their loved ones could possibly be a notorious criminal. More common by far than suspicion is denial, a willing ignorance to obvious fact which results in overlooking the flawed qualities of our family and friends in order to preserve a more perfect image of them. To suspect without any reasoning requires either paranoia or a fundamentally uncongenial and callous feeling towards a person. Both of these are quite unbecoming of family or close friends.

Presumably the Druitt family, or those with a very close connection to it, had some reason to think that Montague may have been the Jack the Ripper. And we may logically infer that they felt this line of reasoning strong enough to approach the police with it, at the risk of shame and humiliation, albeit after the fact of his death. For it to have been accepted virtually wholesale by Macnaghten means that it was something more concrete than something along the lines of a quirk of personality, like so many reported suspicions in the case were.

We know almost nothing about the Druitt family, or indeed any private citizen of the era. We know names and places associated with them, and the most public persona they adopted; it is almost impossible to truly 'know' anyone of the period. Even things which we today take for granted - store receipts, ATM transactions - provide more data about us to intrepid future detectives than all but the most well-kept records of the Victorian age. Indeed, even the fact that Druitt had a train ticket on his body when it was recovered from the Thames tells us nothing so much as what station he bought it at. Druitt's day-to-day life is an impenetrable mystery to us, and must forever remain so.

And we are reduced to speculation. But it needn't be wholly uninformed speculation. What we do know of the man, his dismissal from his post and the state of his mental health, can help us put together a roughshod image of the tragic barrister. So let's produce just that portrait.

I shall begin with a summary of what I feel I have reasonably inferred:


1. The Druitts, and possibly their immediate social circle, felt that one of their own may have been Jack the Ripper.

2. Despite the fact that any public acknowledgement of that possibility would have doubtless brought calamity upon their well-established name, they nevertheless felt strong enough in their suspicion to come forward in confidence to the police to reveal this suspicion to them. Presumably Macnaghten, or whichever officer these private thoughts came to first, were 'in the know' as to the cause of that belief.

3. Whatever it was could not have been conclusive, definitive proof, else Macnaghten would not have felt the need to list the names of "Kosminski" and Michael Ostrog; rather, he would have stated flat-out that Druitt was the Ripper. And so the family could not have anything so hard as having caught him in the act.

4. At the same time, it must have been striking enough to warrant Macnaghten's attention. Many individuals were coming forward at the time accusing others of being Saucy Jacky and seem not to have warranted so much as a cursory look from the constabulary.


What I'm about to write is going to be odd, but please, bear with me.

Let us assume a 'scale of suspicion' separated by degrees, wherein '1' is the absence of suspicion and '10' is evidence enough for conviction. Based upon the inferences I listed above, whatever the Druitt family believed would be, in my estimation, somewhere between a '4' and a '7', within their subjective frame of reference.



The question, thusly codified, can be posed as follows:

What cause for suspicion might the Druitt family have to implicate Montague John Druitt as Jack The Ripper which is sufficient to lead them to contact the police, and to have the police take it seriously, but not enough for the police to make a definitive statement on the matter?


These are the conditions that any answer must fulfill to my mind:

1. It must satisfy the police to the extent that Druitt would be considered a top suspect three years after the fact.

2. It must be jarring enough for the family to have deeply regarded Montague and to have been willing to stake their social reputation on the outcome of telling the police.

3. It cannot have been conclusive proof-positive.

Now, then, let's put on our thinking caps. What possible evidence could fulfill these three conditions?

Hi DD
The only thing I can think of:

he had mental problems, was a sexual deviant (in their minds), was affected by his mothers suicide, and had been fired from his job (perhaps related to one of the above).

But to be honest, I don't beleive they would go to the police. It is more likely i think that mac heard something second hand about the the family thinking he was the murderer. i also do not really put much importance on the MM. IMHO it reads more like someone grasping at straws and trying to have at least some kind of answer for superiors/someone as opposed to saying "I have no idea-the killer completely beat us."

[Roma]

I don't think MJ's family knew much about his life and what he was. He lived alone, was not all the time in Dorset with them or with his brother Edward and sister Georgiana in London. So the family, when they knew that he was dismissed by Valentine, might have imagined some things ("what did he do? he may be insane like his mother! He may be the Ripper!") And to me, Macnaghten listened too much to rumours...

[Rubyretro]

Yes, well I think that Abby and Roma have covered it more or less..

Personally, I woud imagine that when the murders suddenly stopped, then the Police considered the possibility that the culprit was 'driven mad' by the excesseses of MJK's murder..so they looked at any suicides a short time after the events in Miller's Court. They came up with Monty.

They questioned Monty's family ( I'm supposing) and put a bit of pressure on them to make them admit something (working on the assumption that the Druitts might want to to protect the defunct). The Police got the Druitts to admit that Monty had mental health issues of which the family had a history, and a problem with women (he might if he was a repressed Gay, and working in an all male environment). Also that he was increasingly perturbed leading up to his death..

Not hard to see that Mac, wanting to make out that the Police weren't so
'lost' in the JTR Case, might have twisted the Druitt's words to make out that it was an 'admission', or a fear (after the Police had put the suggestion in their heads), on the family's part, that Monty may have been the whitechapel murderer.

[Johnr]

What indicaters were there for Druitt to be JTR

I agree D.D.,
One would hope there was some substance to Melville Macnaghten's claim that Montague Druitt may have been JTR.
Of the suspects in his immediate list, MJD stands out as the most unlikely:
He did not seem to reside in the area close to where the murders occurred; his outward image was of a successful school master and lawyer.
Those who recalled him from his school and university days would have spoken of his sporting prowess, his popularity with the other scholars; and in the more recent years, his good work in securing the Blackheath Football and Cricket Grounds; his flourishing cricket pursuits and recent court cases.
Bearing in mind the Victorian and Edwardian pressure to conform, and be Respectable (think of an Edwardian version of Hyacynth Bucket), anyone with inherited or social abnormalities was frequently shunned or hushed up.
It is highly likely if MJD's family did suspect him, up until they confided in the Police, it is most likely advice would have been sought from the patriarch of the family, James Druitt senior in Christchurch. And any lawyers and rectors in the immediate family. Perhaps, thoughts turned to medical advice: seeking help for him.There were no longer doctors in the English branch of the Druitt family.But a funeral attendee at MJDs funeral was a doctor.
Personally, I think the whole idea of suspicion within the Druitt family would have so painful, it would not have been broached to the authorities until after his untimely death. And then possibly, through an influential official, or local member of parliament.
I agree, MM seems to have been heavily influenced by the timing, and fact of MJD's suicide. And that MM had a great desire to convince higher-ups that the police had not been "Asleep At The Wheel".
JOHN RUFFELS.

[Roma]

Just... great, John!

[Graham]

It's been said n-times before - the only possible reason MM had for describing Druitt as a JtR possibility was the timing and nature of his death. Fished out of The Thames about a month after Miller's Court - suicide note found in his room. To MM's programmed mind, Druitt must have been the Ripper - or at least stood a very good chance of being the Ripper. And so, via a mutual acquaintance, the Druitt family were informed that their prodigal son stood a chance of being the Whitechapel Murderer. Much nodding of sage heads - "always thought Monty was a wrong 'un" - and so forth. These days the Druitts would have sued the s-h-i-t out of MM for even daring to suggest such a thing. I see absolutely no reason to think that the family suspected Monty prior to MM's ponderings. To them, he was doubtless a worthy but perhaps slightly eccentric and perhaps luckless son whose life didn't quite work out as he or they had hoped. The Ripper? Nope.

Graham

[Mayerling]

I am a little put out tonight - an old problem is interfering with me;

THIS SITE KEEPS BREAKING DOWN WHEN A LONG MESSAGE IS PUT IN. THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY SUCH PROBLEM - IT SHOULD BE FIXED.

I was trying to make a case that there is no real proof that in 1894 there was any "crisis" concerning Cutbush, based on that memorandum. My argument (in detail) was that if Sir Melville had wanted to scotch that rumor that Cutbush was the Ripper, his memo could have been

1) made public -not to the higher ups of the Yard and the Home Office (like Home Secretary Asquith).

2) that the names should have been those of the suspected killers Bury, Deeming, and Neill (Cream) because they fit the mold in popular thought better than Osrog, Kosminsky, or Druitt. The three killers were bloody (Bury and Deeming) or usually killing women or prostitutes (Deeming's wives; Cream's victims, Bury's wife). And they were all hanged.

Instead we get two weird foreigners (Jews ones, to be sure, who could have been useful if Sir Melville wanted to use popular anti-Semitism to support his views), and a respectable upper middle class type (whose information Sir Melville screwed up).

I again wonder if there was a real crisis in confidence over Cutbush. I don't think there was.

Jeff (sorry for my outburst).

[Mayerling]

Part two

The other problem I have is the image of the Druitt family suspecting Monty of possibly being the Ripper, rushing legal proceedings of his suicide in 1889, and then blabbing about their suspicions to the authorities. Why woulld they do that?

I have tried to think of people connected to famous criminals. The French wife murderer, Henri Desiree Landru, was actually a good family man to his legal wife and kids. They changed their name after he was arrested. Edwin Booth spent a year in seclusion from 1865-1866 before returning to the stage
(I am glad to say the audiences supported him with raptuous applause) due to the act of his brother Johnny in killing President Lincoln. Even with public support, Edwin Booth rarely talked about Johnny with anyone ever again - although he travelled to Atlanta, Georgia once to see a clergyman who looked like his brother.

I am aware some people come to grips with their ancestors. The New York Times once had an article about the daughter of Lee Harvey Oswald in which she discussed how she came to grips with her father's reputation. I am also aware that sometimes descendants may dismiss what happened. I knew a young lady once (who attended my college, Drew University) who was a descendant of one of the unfortunate Salem witches...but they are now considered innocent.

But aside from the case of Montague Druitt, I never heard of a single family that suspected a relative of awful crimes - and talkied about it!

Of course, there is a possibility that flitted into my head. Suppose the police investigations led to William Druitt (Monty's older brother), or to Lionel Druitt. They start asking questions, and friends or neighbors of the Druitts start raising eyebrows. And the pressures on the Druitts force them to reveal what they believe about Monty (or to tell what they know, and the police managed to twist it - note all the errors in the memo about Monty). This might be the so called information from the family that Sir Melville was talking about

Jeff

[Sally]

Hi Mayerling

Instead we get two weird foreigners (Jews ones, to be sure, who could have been useful if Sir Melville wanted to use popular anti-Semitism to support his views), and a respectable upper middle class type (whose information Sir Melville screwed up).

I think they match the sort of criteria that you would expect. All of them would have been considered mentally deficient. Two of them are ‘insane’ foreigners, ticking those ‘alien, crazy - therefore very suspicious’ boxes straight off. They also happen to be Jews, which is good additional evidence of degeneracy by the moral standards of the day - this is a society which has worked very hard to prove itself as a ‘Christian’ nation, and an orthodox one at that.

As for Monty - well, he committed suicide, which was a crime. Posthumously, he was a felon (suicide was not decriminalised until 1961 in England). Monty belonged to the upper middle eschelons of society. As a suicide, he would have been considered to be morally defective as well. It was considered to be an Act against God for which an extreme explanation could reasonably be sought. His criminal, morally defective behaviour would have required an explanation. Possibly, all MM did was take the timing of his death, his eccetnric personality, and join the dots.

It might today seem rather preposterous to suspect people of being serial killers on the basis of race and mental health alone, but I don’t know that it would have been considered so at the time.

I tend to see it as an indication that he hadn’t got a clue who the real murderer was - but that’s not to say he didn’t think his suspicions were reasonable, based on criteria that were quite valid - at the time.

[jason_c]

It's been said n-times before - the only possible reason MM had for describing Druitt as a JtR possibility was the timing and nature of his death. Fished out of The Thames about a month after Miller's Court - suicide note found in his room. To MM's programmed mind, Druitt must have been the Ripper - or at least stood a very good chance of being the Ripper. And so, via a mutual acquaintance, the Druitt family were informed that their prodigal son stood a chance of being the Whitechapel Murderer. Much nodding of sage heads - "always thought Monty was a wrong 'un" - and so forth. These days the Druitts would have sued the s-h-i-t out of MM for even daring to suggest such a thing. I see absolutely no reason to think that the family suspected Monty prior to MM's ponderings. To them, he was doubtless a worthy but perhaps slightly eccentric and perhaps luckless son whose life didn't quite work out as he or they had hoped. The Ripper? Nope.

Graham

He may also have had some previous indiscretions which his family knew of.

[jason_c]

Hi Mayerling



I think they match the sort of criteria that you would expect. All of them would have been considered mentally deficient. Two of them are ‘insane’ foreigners, ticking those ‘alien, crazy - therefore very suspicious’ boxes straight off. They also happen to be Jews, which is good additional evidence of degeneracy by the moral standards of the day - this is a society which has worked very hard to prove itself as a ‘Christian’ nation, and an orthodox one at that.

As for Monty - well, he committed suicide, which was a crime. Posthumously, he was a felon (suicide was not decriminalised until 1961 in England). Monty belonged to the upper middle eschelons of society. As a suicide, he would have been considered to be morally defective as well. It was considered to be an Act against God for which an extreme explanation could reasonably be sought. His criminal, morally defective behaviour would have required an explanation. Possibly, all MM did was take the timing of his death, his eccetnric personality, and join the dots.

It might today seem rather preposterous to suspect people of being serial killers on the basis of race and mental health alone, but I don’t know that it would have been considered so at the time.

I tend to see it as an indication that he hadn’t got a clue who the real murderer was - but that’s not to say he didn’t think his suspicions were reasonable, based on criteria that were quite valid - at the time.

Mental health seems a decent starting point for suspiscion.

Not many policemen used race as a starting point. Anderson did, but it was for social reasons rather than religion.

And if we are to use this type of reasoning then most top policemen must have viewed working class locals as the salt of the earth.

[Limehouse]

Hi everyone

A very interesting debate.

Personally - I think we have to look more closely at what MM actually wrote :

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

Firstly the information given to him was from a private source (in confidence?) but does it say it came from thje family? MM seems to be implying that someone gave him information suggesting the family suspected MJD of being the ripper. I don't think he is implying that the information came from the family. Furthermore - he has little doubt but that the family believed MJD to be the murderer. Now that is not at all saying that the family definitely did so. So what we actually might have is second-hand information about something the family may have feared.

I don't find it very convincing. For example - at what point did the family suspect he may have been the murderer? Before or after his suicide? If before - what steps did they take? If after - well if the suicide came out of the blue there may well have been whispers within the family 'oh! Perhaps Monty was JtR!'

We don't know what type of mental illness his mother was suffering from but it seems to have been depression (melancholia) and if MJD was begining to feel the early stages of this (perhaps he suffered from SAD - seasonal affective disorder -which strikes in the autumn and gets worse as the winter progresses) he may well have wanted to save himself from the complete break down his mother suffered in later life.

[KatBradshaw]

I find the issue of MJD's candidacy as a suspect an interesting one when it is seen up against other issues of dispute such as Stride's status as a victim. If we look at the 3 suspects, Kosminski, Druitt and Ostrog we know one of them almost certainly wasn't the Ripper. Druitt's status as a suspect seems to be flimsy at best and the assertion that his family thought he may have been the Ripper seems based on very little of any substance because as it has been stated here if they had any real evidence that would surely have been mentioned.
When people debate Stride's or Tabbram's place in the list of victims people often state that they were or were not counted at the time but looking at this list of suspects suggests to me that they had no more idea about the victims than they did about the suspects. I know there are a lot more indicators to say whether or not someone was a victim but I feel that the one stating that the police at the time and 'in the know' thought a certain way is devalued by the 3 suspects list.

[Mayerling]

Hi everyone

A very interesting debate.

Personally - I think we have to look more closely at what MM actually wrote :

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

Firstly the information given to him was from a private source (in confidence?) but does it say it came from thje family? MM seems to be implying that someone gave him information suggesting the family suspected MJD of being the ripper. I don't think he is implying that the information came from the family. Furthermore - he has little doubt but that the family believed MJD to be the murderer. Now that is not at all saying that the family definitely did so. So what we actually might have is second-hand information about something the family may have feared.

I don't find it very convincing. For example - at what point did the family suspect he may have been the murderer? Before or after his suicide? If before - what steps did they take? If after - well if the suicide came out of the blue there may well have been whispers within the family 'oh! Perhaps Monty was JtR!'

We don't know what type of mental illness his mother was suffering from but it seems to have been depression (melancholia) and if MJD was begining to feel the early stages of this (perhaps he suffered from SAD - seasonal affective disorder -which strikes in the autumn and gets worse as the winter progresses) he may well have wanted to save himself from the complete break down his mother suffered in later life.

An interesting point - but I'm suddenly wondering about this third party and his/her interest in informing MM about the Druitt family's antics. It's even possible this third party may have had an actual connection to the real Ripper, and decided to spread a "little white lie" that would push police attention away from the real Ripper.