Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Strange Death Of Montague John Druitt

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Hi Eten,

    I can’t think of any article or particular part of a book that focuses on Druitt’s death. I’m certainly not suggesting that he was killed but that’s it’s something that can’t be ruled out as a possibility but then again there are many things that can’t be ruled out. Might he have confessed to William and then committed suicide because William threatened to go to the police? Who knows?

    The two books that I could recommend are the ones by Jon Hainsworth and David Anderson. On the face of it Druitt doesn’t appear a promising candidate but firstly there’s absolutely nothing that counts him out (no matter what talk of cricket matches might be raised, it’s been conclusively proven that nothing counts him out.) So it’s down to MacNaghten and his private info which we don’t know the details of of course. Lots of hints, pointers and conjecture of course. Personally I can’t accept that MacNaghten simply plucked Druitt out of thin air and added him to his list.
    Hi Herlock,

    What do you think of the Leighton book in this context (in general as a Druitt book). If I remember correctly, he raises doubts about Druitt's inquest and hence death.

    My memory is a bit vague about this. Gotta read this book again now!

    Appreciate your thoughts on the Leighton book anyway.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

      Hi Herlock,

      Strictly speaking, we can't be sure when he got sacked either. From a report of the inquest:
      Witness then went to London to make inquiries, and at Blackheath he found that deceased had got into serious trouble at the school, and had been dismissed. That was on the 30th of December.

      Whether the date refers to the date of dismissal or the date of William's arrival at Blackheath, it is likely a mistake. The note found by William at Monty's residence could have been written by Monty no later than the morning of 1 Dec. and if it is referring to Fri 30 Nov it is very curiously phrased:
      "Since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother, and the best thing for me was to die."

      If he was referring to 30 Nov it would be more usual to say "Since yesterday". If not, there could be two possibilities.
      1. He had visited his mother at the asylum on a Friday previous to the 30th and, in the six days following that visit, expressed in the note his fear of deteriorating in an asylum like his mother.
      2. That he was referring to Friday 9 Nov and feared his inherited madness was pushing him to commit acts with which his conscience could not cope.

      Otherwise it could be just the date and not the month that was a mistake and it was meant to refer to William's visit to Blackheath.

      It is possible that he suicided over his distress at seeing a major decline in his mother's mental state and the fact that mental illness ran in his family, and had nothing to do with his dismissal. It may have been as simple as that he was dismissed because his successful legal practice was demanding too much of his time and he was neglecting his school duties. It was William, that I can see, that was stating that the reason was "serious".

      Cheers, George
      Hi George,

      The 30th December is likely to be an error and that the 30th referred to was of November when Monty was sacked. It can’t have been when William arrived in London of course because it can’t have been the case that he’d taken 19 days to respond to the message about Monty’s absence.

      We also know that on December 21st Monty’s roles as Honorary Secretary and Treasure of the Blackheath Club ended. According to the minutes of the meeting this was due to him having ‘gone abroad.’ This indicates at the very least that something was seriously wrong prior to the 21st as a lie was required to explain this decision. So we have William being contacted about Monty’s absence (no more) on the 11th and yet 10 days later and before it’s known that Monty has committed suicide, a lie is told to explain Monty either resigning or being removed from his post at his cricket club. Monty had previously attended a club meeting on November 19th. It’s possible of course that the club removed him and used ‘gone abroad’ to explain the fact that he might have missed a meeting or meetings but it does seem more that a little harsh towards a previously committed club member who had previously attended a month ago. It’s reasonably to suggest that meetings would have been no more often than monthly after all. So it’s probably that Druitt hadn’t even missed a meeting. You’d have thought that concern for their missing Secretary and Treasurer would have precluded him being removed or resigning his position?

      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes



      "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        Hi George,

        The 30th December is likely to be an error and that the 30th referred to was of November when Monty was sacked. It can’t have been when William arrived in London of course because it can’t have been the case that he’d taken 19 days to respond to the message about Monty’s absence.

        We also know that on December 21st Monty’s roles as Honorary Secretary and Treasure of the Blackheath Club ended. According to the minutes of the meeting this was due to him having ‘gone abroad.’ This indicates at the very least that something was seriously wrong prior to the 21st as a lie was required to explain this decision. So we have William being contacted about Monty’s absence (no more) on the 11th and yet 10 days later and before it’s known that Monty has committed suicide, a lie is told to explain Monty either resigning or being removed from his post at his cricket club. Monty had previously attended a club meeting on November 19th. It’s possible of course that the club removed him and used ‘gone abroad’ to explain the fact that he might have missed a meeting or meetings but it does seem more that a little harsh towards a previously committed club member who had previously attended a month ago. It’s reasonably to suggest that meetings would have been no more often than monthly after all. So it’s probably that Druitt hadn’t even missed a meeting. You’d have thought that concern for their missing Secretary and Treasurer would have precluded him being removed or resigning his position?
        Hi Herlock,

        I appreciate that 30th Dec was a mistake but I am saying that it may have been a mistake in the number i.e. perhaps the 13th was recorded as the 30th and the reference was for William arriving in London.

        The end of Monty's tenure of office in the cricket club may have not needed a lie and a coverup. Perhaps at the meeting of 19 Nov he had indicated that he would not be standing for that office again as he was going abroad. Even that may not have been untrue. He may have intended on going abroad to escape a blackmailer or, perhaps the Englishman in the French asylum was in fact true, or perhaps he just felt mentally exhausted from working two jobs that he wanted a holiday abroad. He may have resigned from the school job also giving reasons of mental exhaustion, which, given the family history, William regarded as "serious". While this is speculation, it does present possibilities that don't depend on lies.

        Cheers, George

        Comment


        • "had got into serious trouble at the school, and had been dismissed" Sounds like Monty did something bad rather than he resigned citing mental health issues or stress.
          I also puzzle over why Monty left his things at Eliot Place. Perhaps Valentine gave him time to clear his stuff out?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            How is Druitt so far away from the ‘profile?’ At the end of the day he was a young, physically fit, intelligent guy with mental health issues. How do we know what he might have gotten up to during his life up until then? How do we know that he wasn’t seriously abused by someone? How do we know that he couldn’t function in a normal sexual way with women? (He was unmarried at 31 after all) I see nothing about Druitt that raises doubts. Unknowns….certainly. Guilty…..who knows. But he might have been. MacNaghten certainly thought so as did others.
            Certainly, I see what you mean but all these points are unknown/speculation, which is why I fall back on the simplest explanation. All of those things could be true, but as we don't know, i prefer what we do know reasonably well. I know you think I'm totally stupid on this but that's just the way I see it. I know what I'm going to say next will have you foaming at the mouth but, for me, the absolute simplest explanation is: JtR strangled his victims, mutilated their abdomens, mutilated their genitals. Bury did those things, was a drinker in Whitechapel - known to spend time away from home, violent towards women, carries a knife, flees the east end for no apparent reason, fits the profile near as damn it exactly. I know I'm in the extreme minority but there you go. If someone comes up with a truly solid reason to rule him out i will happily come on here and hold my hand up and say i was an idiot and i was wrong.

            As for the police, I'm not just thinking of Bury but also Lechmere. People make a big thing of the fact he must surely have been checked out and cleared but I wouldn't be prepared to bet on it. There are lots of other reasons to doubt Lechmere but I don't have the police angle too high on my list.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

              Certainly, I see what you mean but all these points are unknown/speculation, which is why I fall back on the simplest explanation. All of those things could be true, but as we don't know, i prefer what we do know reasonably well. I know you think I'm totally stupid on this but that's just the way I see it. I know what I'm going to say next will have you foaming at the mouth but, for me, the absolute simplest explanation is: JtR strangled his victims, mutilated their abdomens, mutilated their genitals. Bury did those things, was a drinker in Whitechapel - known to spend time away from home, violent towards women, carries a knife, flees the east end for no apparent reason, fits the profile near as damn it exactly. I know I'm in the extreme minority but there you go. If someone comes up with a truly solid reason to rule him out i will happily come on here and hold my hand up and say i was an idiot and i was wrong.

              As for the police, I'm not just thinking of Bury but also Lechmere. People make a big thing of the fact he must surely have been checked out and cleared but I wouldn't be prepared to bet on it. There are lots of other reasons to doubt Lechmere but I don't have the police angle too high on my list.
              I can promise you I won’t be foaming at the mouth and I certainly don’t think that your stupid Wulf. As I’ve said before William Bury is a genuine, worthwhile suspect and one that is certainly worthy of further research and consideration. My only dispute is about your level of confidence (which pretty much appears to be a certainty) but even on that score it’s entirely up to you how heavily you do or don’t favour any particular suspect. I also don’t think that you’re in the extreme minority as the posts of others like John, Harry, Ms D and Abby show. All experienced in the case and all accept Bury as a very valid suspect. John has him as his number 1 suspect and others have him their top tier of suspects so as far as it goes Wulf I’d say that Bury is generally a very highly rated suspect. No one is dismissing him as far as I’m aware.

              I wouldn’t argue that the ripper strangled his victims then mutilated their abdomens and genitals of course but the point that I have to make again is that you’ve missed out the throat-cutting which is apparent in all of the murders. This appears to be a bit selective IMO. As if the inconvenient bit is being left out of the equation. All suspects have points in their favour and points against but it’s how we assess and interpret those points. Bury might have been the ripper Wulf. I certainly wouldn’t dismiss him. I just can’t see why the level of certainty but obviously there are some that just don’t see Druitt as a possible ripper which is fine I personally don’t see how he can be dismissed out of hand. There will never be a consensus on this subject unless some categorical proof surfaces.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes



              "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                Hi Eten,

                I can’t think of any article or particular part of a book that focuses on Druitt’s death. I’m certainly not suggesting that he was killed but that’s it’s something that can’t be ruled out as a possibility but then again there are many things that can’t be ruled out. Might he have confessed to William and then committed suicide because William threatened to go to the police? Who knows?

                The two books that I could recommend are the ones by Jon Hainsworth and David Anderson. On the face of it Druitt doesn’t appear a promising candidate but firstly there’s absolutely nothing that counts him out (no matter what talk of cricket matches might be raised, it’s been conclusively proven that nothing counts him out.) So it’s down to MacNaghten and his private info which we don’t know the details of of course. Lots of hints, pointers and conjecture of course. Personally I can’t accept that MacNaghten simply plucked Druitt out of thin air and added him to his list.
                Hi Herlock

                Thanks for the recommendations. I'll look them up.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                  My approach on every aspect of this case is to look at the simplest explanation. This is very simplistic but I think when you're dealing with 133 year old mystery, with missing data and documents and a lot of unknowns, it is the best option. For Druitt, the question is: did anything significant happen in his private life that could have had an adverse impact on his mental health, and lead to suicide? Yes, he committed a serious offence in his school job and was sacked. That is the simplest explanation.
                  Hi Aethelwulf

                  It must have been an offence with significant repercussions to lead to suicide, I'm not sure being sacked would be enough. I have seen the speculation about him interfering with a boy - I guess that might be serious enough, especially if police were threatened. But I have not read anywhere the police were informed or notified. Of course, if he was homosexual then he is less likely to be JtR - homosexual serial killers tend to kill other men.

                  Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post
                  There is the police interest, but for any suspect I put police interest/lack of interest bottom of my factors to consider. For the simple reason history is full of examples of people that have been wrongly convicted and guilty people that were investigated and released. If you deviate from the simplest explanation things become complicated and uncertain. For example, for Lechmere, if you deviate from the simplest explanation that he was a man on his way to work who found a body, you have to start dismissing some very solid evidence that places the Chapman ToD at around 5.30, probably discount Tabram, and start conjuring with timings and conversations. For Druitt, you have people suggesting some sort of bizarre conspiracy theory. Druitt is also a very, very long way removed from the FBI profile. I know people have a bit of a hissy fit when the profile is mentioned but the profile was written by those who, I would suggest, know more about this subject than we do. It is a serious consideration. It is not the be all and end all, but it is, I think, a useful tool to evaluate suspects.
                  I consider the police interest more difficult to disregard, especially given it was a senior officer who claimed private information and was in a position to have secured it from Druitt's family. Of course, we don't know what that information was nor how definitive it was, so not a smoking gun by any means.

                  Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post
                  There is also a line in the MM that I find concerning: 'I have always held strong opinions regarding him, and the more I think the matter over, the stronger do these opinions become'. 'The more I think things over' sounds very like what we all do on here - pure speculation based on very little. It sounds like Mac had no real evidence to me.
                  That is a little odd. It seems to suggest the private information was not definitive, but certainly compelling enough to convince him.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                    There is also a line in the MM that I find concerning: 'I have always held strong opinions regarding him, and the more I think the matter over, the stronger do these opinions become'. 'The more I think things over' sounds very like what we all do on here - pure speculation based on very little. It sounds like Mac had no real evidence to me.

                    Spot on Aethelwulf!

                    This line is hardly discussed here, it is clear that Macnaghten had nothing against the man other than his phantasies and imaginations, he didn't even do the slightest of investigations about him, and except the name he got everything else wrong!

                    Macnaghten was a tea merchant till 1888 by the way, he had zero experience in police work, you will notice from the line above, this is the writing of a man enjoying his afternoon cup of tea while trying to solve the case by meditating!

                    You can safely dismiss Druitt as a suspect.



                    The Baron

                    Comment


                    • As I predicted a few weeks ago. Baron skulks away and then re-appears on a thread just to make some comment on Druitt. Just can’t help yourself can you.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes



                      "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                      Comment


                      • A few general comments not aimed at anyone in particular of course…

                        Anyone who claims to know that MacNaghten was inventing his information is an delusional.

                        The fact that he used to be a Tea Merchant is completely irrelevant and anyone who says that it’s relevant is delusional.

                        And very obviously anyone who claims that Druitt can be dismissed is both laughable and delusional.

                        Plus I’d ask a question…….if it’s such an issue that MacNaghten wasn’t a career police officer why is the same criteria not applied to Anderson? He wasn’t a career police officer either. Especially relevant when the person making the stupid point favours Anderson’s suspect?

                        You couldn’t make it up could you.

                        Phone the circuses and find out which one has a clown missing.​​​​​​​
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



                        "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post
                          Druitt is also a very, very long way removed from the FBI profile. I know people have a bit of a hissy fit when the profile is mentioned but the profile was written by those who, I would suggest, know more about this subject than we do. It is a serious consideration.
                          Hi Wulf,

                          You put great stock in the FBI profile. Are you aware of the FBI profile on Frederick Deeming? It is at least as close a match as Bury and more so than Druitt. Deeming employed JtR's signature strangulation (Bertha) and throat cutting (two wives and three children), carried an arsenal of knives and a hatchet, and was a seafarer. There is quite a good video (except for the shawl nonsense) here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTgOkUkFzHQ.

                          Cheers, George

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                            Phone the circuses and find out which one has a clown missing.​​​​​​​
                            ROTFL.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                              Spot on Aethelwulf!

                              This line is hardly discussed here, it is clear that Macnaghten had nothing against the man other than his phantasies and imaginations, he didn't even do the slightest of investigations about him, and except the name he got everything else wrong!

                              Macnaghten was a tea merchant till 1888 by the way, he had zero experience in police work, you will notice from the line above, this is the writing of a man enjoying his afternoon cup of tea while trying to solve the case by meditating!

                              You can safely dismiss Druitt as a suspect.



                              The Baron
                              I forgot to ask…..why isn’t it a problem that Anderson (who was actually on the job at the time of the murders) gets facts incorrect about Kosminski? The suspect who you appear to believe was the ripper? So basically MacNaghten (who wasn’t in position at the time of the murders) makes a couple of minor errors and you claim that Druitt should be dismissed and yet Anderson (who was in position at the time of the murders) mentions an ID that there’s no record of, named the wrong Home Secretary and we know that Koz was incarcerated at the wrong time.

                              So to sum up according to The Baron…

                              MacNaghten not being a career police officer is a big problem.

                              Anderson not being a career police officer is no problem at all.

                              MacNaghten errors prove that Druitt couldn’t have been guilty.

                              Andersons errors are no problem at all.

                              MacNaghten not naming the source or content of his ‘private info’ means that Druitt should be dismissed.

                              Anderson (and the police as a whole) leave zero evidence of any identification of Koz as the ripper but that ok.

                              And this is the standard of Baron’s reasoning. Will he respond reasonably and factually? I doubt it. My money is on another disappearance then a reappearance at some later date to make some nonsensical, obviously biased, Druitt-based comments.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



                              "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                              Comment


                              • I’ve just had a quick look at John Douglas’ profile of Jack The Ripper (I certainly want to stress that I’m no expert on the subject btw) so….

                                Age 28-36 - Druitt 31

                                Didn’t look out of the ordinary and the clothes that he wore wouldn’t have been his every day clothes - There’s no reason why Druitt couldn’t have ‘dressed down’ to fit in with others in the area.

                                Comes from a family with a domineering mother and a weak\passive or absent father - Certainly doesn’t sound like the Druitt family.

                                In his early years he’d have set fires, tortured animals etc - We have no way of knowing if Druitt did any of these but there’s certainly nothing on record. In fairness though a Victorian family would hardly have left a record of such behaviour had it occurred.

                                As he got older he would have expected to have found evidence of cruelty in the suspects writing or drawing - No evidence of this with Druitt but again the family would hardly have made this public. Speculation alert….maybe such things were discovered at the school which led to his sacking?

                                For employment he’d have sought positions where he could work alone, butcher, mortician’s assistant etc - The problem is that these types of job wouldn’t have been available to someone of Druitt’s class without being disowned by his family.

                                Some physical abnormality or speech defect - Doesn’t apply to Druitt as far as we know.

                                Wouldn’t have been married - Druitt wasn’t married of course.

                                Not adept at meeting people socially - Doesn’t sound like Druitt.

                                May have had an STD - Not as far as we know with Druitt but we can’t eliminate it for certain.

                                Perceived as shy or a loner - Doesn’t sound like Druitt but people who are, by nature, extremely shy can have normal lives where there shyness isn’t immediately obvious to all.

                                Lives or works in the Whitechapel area - Druitt wasn’t far away but we can’t say that he lived and worked in Whitechapel (although he ‘might’ have done charitable work there.)

                                ……

                                Again I’m not claiming any expertise on this subject at all but I can’t help pointing out that these are by no means set-in-stone.

                                Im not aware of any physical abnormality or speech defect in Ted Bundy for example and it certainly couldn’t be said that Bundy wasn’t adept at meeting people socially. Was Bundy a loner? Did Bundy have an STD?

                                The killer wouldn’t have been married but Ridgway was married 3 times, Dennis Rader was married. Peter Sutcliffe was married.

                                Another issue with applying a profile to Druitt is that as well as any definite ‘no’s’ there are also unknowns. For example, how do we know that Druitt didn’t have some problem or deformity with his penis? (as has been suggested for Sickert) How can we know that he wasn’t abused by someone as a child? How can we know that he didn’t set fires or torture small animals?

                                Im not dismissing or rubbishing profiling. I’m just saying that there are issues when applying it here.









                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                                "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X