druitt getting the sack

[Jonathan H]

'Front door approach'?

What does that mean ...?

You don't mean naming a person do you? (perhaps you don;'t)

Naming a person who could not enjoy the protection of due process, as they are deceased (Anderson thought his suspect was dead too?

A dead Ripper who had living, respectable relatives, in the case of Druitt (and 'Kosminski') who would be socially ruined, if not worse in the case of the Jewish family.

It had to the side door approach. eg. We will tell you some things but not enough to find them.

That so-called 'Ripperology' does not grasp this essential aspect is the reason for much grief.

[lynn cates]

front door

Hello Jonathan. Thanks.

Of course, I meant a front door approach.

Cheers.
LC

[Jonathan H]

To Lynn

That's exactly what Scotland Yard did do. They did take credit for solving the mystery, and long before the retirement of its top cops.

Anderson did this to Griffiths in 1895.

Macnaghten, anonymously, to Griffiths in 1898, and then to Sims from 1899 to 1917.

In his own words under his own name in 1913, as he retried, and in 1914 from retirement.

As an aside: Anderson believed that his Ripper was deceased and that he was believed by his own people to be the fiend, and so did Mac--but only the latter's actually was dead and actually had a family who believed in his culpability (according to the meager extant record).

[lynn cates]

clothing

Hello (again) Jon.

"What else might be found in his room that could be regarded as compelling?"

I think Jason may be thinking along the lines of bloodied clothes, weapons, etc.

Cheers.
LC

[Jonathan H]

To me its either/or.

In-between those positions does not really work, if you think it through.

Macnaghten claims that Druitt killed himself because he was, or thought he was Jack the Ripper.

The man's own family was, allegedly, the police chief's source (Macnaghten, 1914).

If you believe, however, that Macnaghten was incompetent and used only scraps of gossip, and not directly from the family at all, then this appalling sloppiness explains his getting Druitt's age, vocation and the timing of his self-murder wrong.

That's fair enough and that's a clear position.

As in you, or we, do know more about the real Druitt than did this poorly informed wannabe Sherlock who shanghaied into the mystery a completely innocent figure (his other 'bungled' suspect, Michael Ostrog we also know was completely innocent, at least of the Whitechapel murders)

Here is the excellent Philip Sudgen, p. 387:

'In the end, though, it is Macnaghten's readiness to accuse Druitt without verifying even basic facts about him that most discredits his case. For it is quickly apparent from Sir Melville's writings that he knew almost nothing about his suspect.'

On Macnaghten putting the iron-clad alibied Ostrog on his list, same author, p. xxi:

' ... we would still have to conclude that Macnaghten comes out of the Ostrog evidence very badly. His characterization of Ostrog was grossly unfair.'


Or, if you believe (I'm alone here) that Macnaghten was engaged in disinformation via Sims to protect the Druitt family and the Yard's rep, and thus probably had met the family (from whom the story leaked in 1891) and did know, for example, that the older brother was trying to find Montie, knew he did not kill himself instantly, then he would know--at the very least-- that this suspect did not kill himself because of being dismissed from the lesser of his two vocations.

[lynn cates]

credit where due

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"you can't charge a corpse with murder, so what, from the legal perspective, could Scotland Yard do?"

Take credit for solving the case.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

not a peer

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

IF the Met knew his identity, I am confident they would have announced it and closed the case. Druitt was not a peer.

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

Hi Jonathan

I have no idea. Certainly on the face of it, Macnaghten didn't know much. I know you believe that he played all kinds of cat-and-mouse tricks, but I'll reserve judgement on that one.

[Robert]

As to money, it's no real comparison, because Skinner had a family to support on the one hand, while on the other he had a longer career than Druitt and inflation must be taken into account - but when Skinner died, he left £1300, half of what Monty left 54 years earlier.

[Jonathan H]

Here's an either or question for anybody:

Do you think you know more accurate information about Montague Druitt than did Sir Melville Macnaghten, posthumously speaking?

[Robert]

Given that Monty was a schoolmaster, and supervised the boys in inter-school matches, and played cricket and hockey himself, and was a reasonably successful barrister, he must have struggled hard to fit the murders in.

Monty's father left him very little, but he died leaving £2600. Whence came this money? Chris, I think you once found a newspaper item where Valentine was advertising for Monty's replacement. Did the advert mention the salary on offer? Here is a link which suggests that a schoolmaster's salary at that time certainly wasn't fabulous :

https://sites.google.com/site/thebri...kinson-skinner

My point is simply that when Monty started at Valentine's school, he was still making his way as a barrister and trying to build a reputation. As time went by, he would probably have had more cases, and it would have been harder and harder to find time for his teaching duties. That alone might explain Monty's dismissal. After all, £2600 doesn't come from nowhere.

[Jonathan H]

Excellent post, Chris Scott

I would only add that according to Macnaghten, and his proxy, Sims, the older brother believed by the time of the inquest that his deceased younger brother by one year, Montie, was Jack the Ripper.

The first poster has raised an issue I mulled over too: why sacked? Why not allowed to resign?

In my opinion the source that solves this conundrum is that his cricket club (on whose board sat the headmaster's brother) also sacked him on Dec 21st for 'having gone abroad', eg. for being AWOL.

If the brother had arrived at the school on Dec 13th (a better fit, in theory, than 'Dec 30th') and found one, or two, suicide notes, or documentation alluding to suicide, then the club would not be dismissing a man who was missing assumed to have killed himself--or at least in a distressed state.

Or William Druitt arrived on Dec 30th, found the suicide note(s) and the body surfaced the next day (his brother having already been dismissed from both the school and the club for being 'abroad', when he needed to be home.)

Since the 'West of England' MP sources, Macnaghten in 1894, 1898, 1913, and 1914, and his proxy Sims from 1899 to 1917, and the 1889 sources about the 'Sad Death of a Local Barrister' do not connect the self-murder of Druitt with anything that happened at his places of work (they are unanimous it was because he was a tormented multiple murderer) then the AWOL explanation is arguably more likely.

Druitt's last case was a successful appeal to overturn the removal of a Dorset renter's franchise rights (a fellow Tory) and this was on Nov 22nd (coincidentally the Friday of 'Since Friday ...' assuming he wrote this and did not mean the day before) and both he and his brother were there in court to hear the Chief Justice make his ruling. If Montage and William in court together on that day then the latter lied again in telling Diplock's inquest that he had not seen his brother since the previous October 9th, when the former briefly stayed with him.

There is also a textual similarity between the story MP Farquharson is telling people in early 1891, and Willliam's inquest testimony, assuming it has been accurately recorded and it may not have been: that is the element of Montie having living relatives who were priests has been eliminated.

[Paddy]

It was also strange how his brother made it sound that he had only lately been working at the school in Blackheath, where in fact he was there in the 1881 census, 7 years before ?

Pat

[Chris Scott]

In my opinion great caution must be exercised in this field in that the references to Druitt's leaving the school are fragmented and come from press reports of the inquest. The two assertiosn are these
1) Druitt's brother William Harvey is reported as follows:
"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." But let us not forget that this is the same brother who we know was reported to have told an untruth at the inquest in that he asserted that Montague had no other family apart from himself, William.
2) The issue of a suicide note or notes is contradictory. Some accounts mention only a letter found which was addressed to William Druitt - this was the one which was quoted as alluding to "being like mother." But other reports on the inquest make mention of a letter written to Valentine at the school and that this mentioned suicide. Some reports make the distinct point that these were two distinct and different documents - "The deceased had left a letter, addressed to Mr. Valentine, of the school, in which he alluded to suicide. A paper had also been found upon which the deceased had written, "Since Friday, I have felt as if I was going to be like mother."
IF William Druitt's account is correct in asserting that his brother had been dismissed for serous trouble at the school there is no evidence whatever as to what this may have been and to suggest, as is often the case, that this resulted from sexual impropriety with his pupils, says more about modern sensibilities and priorities than any sustainable indication.If Druitt got into serous trouble there are any number of possibilities - financial irregularity, poor job performance, sexual misconduct with a female servant, irrational behaviour consequent upon incipient mental illness, drunkenness and so on. We know NOTHING about any of those and none is more or less likely than any of the others.

[Wickerman]

You can't libel a corpse either so, if the evidence was sufficiently compelling, you could at least mark the crimes off as detected;

Thankyou Colin.
Ok, lets rule out blatantly obvious evidence like the missing kidney or heart, they would then have known for sure.

What else might be found in his room that could be regarded as compelling?