Time To Peruse The Druitt Letter?

[Limehouse]

In some ways, Druitt seems a good candidate for JTR. Firstly, according to the famous McNaughten notes, his own family believed him to be the murderer. The trouble is, these notes contained a number of major errors concerning Druitt and if McNaughten did not even know the Druitt 'suspect' sufficiently to get basic facts like his age and profession right, what reliance can we put on his assertion that his family believed him to be the Ripper? McNaughten claimed to have 'private information' but surely that source would have been able to correctly inform McNaughten about these personal details?

Additionally, if Druitt was behaving strangely, perhaps having delusions that he was the Ripper, it is not difficult to understand why his family might have thought him guilty. Also, many families up and down the country were prepared to believe that a strangely behaving family member was the Ripper - as newspaper reports of the time testify.

The second reason why Druitt seems to be a good candidate is that we know he 'got into trouble' at his school. As Natalie points out, we don't know what this trouble was. It could have been serious assault, it could have been behaviour linked to a psychotic state but it could equally have been persistent drunkeness. We just don't know. Getting into trouble at work does not, logically, lead one to suppose that he could have been the Ripper

Druitt's suicide seems to satisfy the reason for the end of the murders, if you accept the C5 reading. However, Druitt could not have been the only young man who committed suicide during the period covering the murders. It's just that his behaviour, sacking and suicide, coupled with this supposed 'private information' deliver Druitt as a neat and plausible Ripper candidate.

However, there is little or nothing to link him to the victims or the distirct (except perhaps his cousin's chambers in the City of London - within reasonable walking distance of most of the crimes).

There are things about the Druitt case that don't add up, for me. Firstly, although he seems to have 'got into the trouble at school' and seems to have been experiencing mental health problems (leaving the note fearing he was going to 'become like mother') the records concerning his cricketing activities do not point to a man in mental turmoil. Reports seem to indicate he was playing cricket quite lucidly and competently until quite close to his death. So, this strange behaviour does not seem to have been evident at all times.

Lastly, why would a man intent on doing away with himself at a chosen spot by the Thames, having already left a suicide note, buy a return ticket for the journey?

Whatever pain Druitt was suffereing, I do not believe it was guilt from having murdered these women. And if McNaughten did have 'private information' that Druitt's family believed him to be the murderer, be it first or second-hand information, what reliance can we put on it? His behaviour may well have made them think he COULD have been the murderer but that's a long way from proving his guilt.

[Mitch Rowe]

Hi Natalie,
Right..So what we have is a guy who has a few reasons to end it all. Those reasons have nothing to do with the Ripper Murders. Just because Druitt might have felt himself mentally ill or delusional doesnt make him a killer. Most People with mental illness never hurt anyone but themselves. Druitt wasnt even a Doctor and even Doctors mis-diagnose themselves.

C'mon now...Does anyone even think after all that hulluballoo and theRipper never leaving a clue that we can be sure of that he is going to sit down and write a note attempting to explain why he killed himself?

If the Old Bailey records show that Druitt may have been violent then I will take another look. But at this time I cant suppose Druitt was something he probably wasnt.


EDIT>>> Oh..I take that back. The Ripper did leave one clue we can be sure of.. The Apron! And that points away from Druitt as the Ripper and towards an unknown who lives in Whtechapel.

[Robert]

There are too many unknowns at present. For example, for all we know, Valentine may have been a hot-tempered man, dismissing masters and then reinstating them a couple of days later when he'd cooled down. Or perhaps Monty disagreed with Valentine's educational methods. Or maybe Monty disagreed with the choice of captain of the cricket team.....

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Limehouse, Mitch and Robert,
As Robert says we simply dont know what gave rise to Macnaghten"s theory of his prime suspect.
I doubt Druitt was alcoholic since he was a very keen sportsman-----when well.
Will return to this thread though......
Cheers
Natalie

[aspallek]

His body was discovered in the Thames and Police having the theory that the Rippers mind must have gave way altogether after the horror of MJK thought that they should consider this Man.
I dont think Police ever had a clue about him until he was fished out of the water. And I dont think most Detectives considered MJD as much of a suspect. They still refer to him as a Doctor or a Medical Student many years later!

And to the People who say: "Well...Others commited suicide during that time and they were never suspected!"
I say they probably never looked anything like they were Doctors or had as much money on them as Druitt. Police must have got the Doctor idea from somewhere.

You make some good points, Mitch, many of which I agree with. Police obviously got the idea that he was a doctor primarily from Farquharson's assertion that the suspect was "the son of a surgeon" and the fact Druitt's father was indeed a surgeon. As to other suicides, no young doctors. However, there were seemingly plausible suspects including a man who worked in the London docks near the East End. There is no indication these suicide victims were ever suspected or investigated. I do agree that police probably never suspected Druitt until long after his death.

Hi Mitch,
We have no proof or evidence whatso ever that he had ever "interfered" with any boys-no record or mention of such a thing- anywhere- as far as I know ,but possibly Andy S can correct me on this.

Correct, Nats. No indication whatsoever of any wrongdoing other than the cryptic remark in the news coverage of his inquest.

Druitt's suicide seems to satisfy the reason for the end of the murders, if you accept the C5 reading. However, Druitt could not have been the only young man who committed suicide during the period covering the murders. It's just that his behaviour, sacking and suicide, coupled with this supposed 'private information' deliver Druitt as a neat and plausible Ripper candidate.

Precisely.

However, there is little or nothing to link him to the victims or the distirct (except perhaps his cousin's chambers in the City of London - within reasonable walking distance of most of the crimes).

How about his relative Jabez Druitt in the Mile End Road? His daughter Emily may well have written the Crawford letter.

Reports seem to indicate he was playing cricket quite lucidly and competently until quite close to his death. So, this strange behaviour does not seem to have been evident at all times.

Not so. His cricket performance fell off markedly from 1887 to 1888. He fared quite poorly the morning of Chapman's murder.

Lastly, why would a man intent on doing away with himself at a chosen spot by the Thames, having already left a suicide note, buy a return ticket for the journey?

Perhaps because he was seeking help at Hammersmith/Chiswick. He could have left his options open. If he had gotten the help he sought he could have used the ticket to return and destroy the note. Since he did not get the help, he simply chose the other option. But this really has no bearing on whether he was JtR.

[Johnr]

Good discussion all round I think,
Thanks Mitch,Limehouse, Natalie and Andy for taking the analysis of Montague Druitt further.
I liked Robert's perceptive and humorous observation that MJD must have been a dry old stuff-shirt if he signed his letter to his uncle and family (despite asserting he was "very affectionate" "M.J.Druitt". Perhaps that was just an ambitious young Oxford man practising his hoping-to-be-famous-one-day autograph!(And I liked how Robert signed off as "R.C.Linford" at the end).
By the way, Chris S, wonderful work you do with this laborious transcribing or
scanning of vital documents relevant to the Druitt case. They must be transcribed because I spotted one tiny error amongst a sea of sharp accuracies, on the Druitt envelope " Strathmore Gardens " I believe is in
"Kensington Mall" and not "Kensington Heath".(?).
This West Sussex letter reminds me of the Montague Druitt it is possible to glimpse in the famous Oxford (graduation?) photograph where Monty is reading a book for the camera. His clothing and hair -his grooming- are immaculate.Does this marry with the tone of his letter?
Would a fastidious personality who was say, walking with others through the
cusp of the East End be outraged at the less than immaculate image of the street "drabs" who would be pestering the passing "toff' ?
Finally, and after the sensitive analysis above, by others, I hesitate to suggest, would competant graphologists be able to tease any clues from MJD's handwriting? Or would that be too subjective and a further indignity on a benighted dead man? JOHN RUFFELS.

[aspallek]

Just a word of warning to anyone perusing the catalogue of West Sussex Records Office holdings. I briefly got very excited when I saw several letters by "M.J. Druitt" in the collection. But this M.J. Druitt lived in Christchurch, according to the description. Then it hit me. These letters are not from Montague John Druitt but rather from Matilda Jane Druitt, James Druitt's wife and Montague aunt by marriage, who indeed lived at Christchurch. Too bad.

Edit -- Clarification: the letter mentioned at the beginning of this thread is indeed from Montague.

[Johnr]

So.. What Do YOU think of Montague's letter ?

So, does anyone else have any further observations which they make after reading the Montague letter?
Are there any Sherlock Holmes out there who can discern any tiny spores of information?
As to other points made about MJD above, I agree entirely. There is still insufficient evidence upon which to make a valid judgement either way.
JOHN RUFFELS.

[aspallek]

I think there are some signs in the letter that Montague was developing an interest in teaching already in 1876. This may explain why he went on teaching at Valentine's school even while pursuing a successful career in law, i.e., he enjoyed teaching. It may have had nothing to do with a desire to be around young boys at all.

Montague certainly took his teaching duties seriously when it came to tutoring his two cousins in Latin, so seriously that he about bored them to death.

Two things sort of strike me:

"I am afraid Emily and Kitty had a very dull time of it at Wimborne; an attempt of ours to make it less so was met by the assurance of their hostess that she should take care of her own guests herself!"

Who was the "hostess" Montie is speaking of? Probably one of his sisters, Emily and Kitty's cousin. "An attempt of ours" is placed over against "their hostess." Who is Montie speaking of? Himself and his brother(s), perhaps? What is he speaking of? Some boyish, mischievous pranks designed to startle the girls perhaps? Boy vs. girl playfulness which probably annoyed the young ladies?

"I hope very soon to earn something independently." How? My guess is that Uncle Robert paid Montie for his tutoring of the girls. Montie is assuring Uncle Robert that he will be able to earn an "independent" (i.e., not from family) income through his teaching.

Just my take on it.

[Chris Scott]

With regard to the comment:
"This may explain why he went on teaching at Valentine's school even while pursuing a successful career in law, i.e., he enjoyed teaching. It may have had nothing to do with a desire to be around young boys at all."
We must remember that Druitt was a young teacher and his pupils may be older than some imagine. In 1881 in the listing for Valentine's school Druitt is 23 years of age and his pupils ages are as follows:
5 aged 14
5 aged 15
4 aged 16
1 aged 17
i.e. he was only 6 years older than one of his pupils and only 9 years older than his youngest pupil. This does not suggest or lessen the culpability of any inappropriate behaviour - which I do not believe happened - but does dispel the image of a mature man in charge of very young children.

[Robert]

My guess is that Monty had a fun evening of semi-deponent verbs and dactyllic hexameters planned for the girls.

[aspallek]

My guess is that Monty had a fun evening of semi-deponent verbs and dactyllic hexameters planned for the girls.

Actually, I see the trace of a sharply witted crack in Montie's comment to his Uncle Robert. I strongly suspect there were some pranks going on at Westfield House directed toward the girls, in which Montie engaged.

[Robert]

Hi Andy, well we do know he had a sense of humour, evidenced in the breach of promise case he conducted.

Robert

[Robert]

Actually, considering the role played by Valentine's school in preparing its pupils for the professions (presumably including the law), and Monty's own past experience as a debater and his career as a lawyer, I would be very much surprised if there wasn't some sort of debating society at the school, or at least regular debates on a number of topics. For all we know, the "serious trouble" might have been a passionate debate about Home Rule for Ireland, or the merits of universal suffrage.

Robert

[Mayerling]

Thanks Stewart, Chris S., Andy and everyone,
For achieving my object of putting the letter up for study.
When I first learned of this letter I thought it possible MJD might have indulged in mischievous, anonymous, letter writing to the police, and therefore searched high and low for examples of Montague's handwriting..(all I found was his signature on records at the Inner Temple), but did not find the West Sussex records.
I think it was Keith Skinner who brought them to light.
Like Andy, I believe the importance of this letter is in showing that, at least when MJD was twenty, he was in touch with the London Druitts.
I think the "Kitty" mentioned would have been Montague's neice Katherine Fitzroy Druitt, and "Emily" her older sister, (who Stephen P Ryder thought was the link to a Ripper suspect letter).
At the time of the letter (1876) Montague would have been the same age as Emily,(twenty) and two years older than Kitty.The reference to the girl's Wimborne hostess wanting to look after them by herself, obviously refers to Montague's mother, Anne (nee Harvey).
The other impoprtant thing to emerge from this letter ( I think) is that Montague comes across as a pedantic young so-and-so. A bit too bookish and boring.This pedantry probably prompted his drifting into teaching.
And, perhaps,his reference to possibly earning money soon, might mean he might have been considering a tutoring stint. In Latin(?). JOHN RUFFELS.

I wonder if Katherine Fitzroy Druitt was related to the noted meteorologist Admiral Sir Robert Fitzroy? He's best remembered as the Captain of H.M.S.
Beagle in the voyage around the globe inthe 1830s that Charles Darwin was on that was so important in the formulation of the theory of evolution (which the religious Fitzroy opposed and denounced). Fitzroy eventually committed suicide in 1865 (by cutting his throat, not by drowning himself). He was a nephew of Lord Castlereagh, the Foreign Minister of the teens and early
1820s who committed suicide in 1822.

Jeff