Abberline and Druitt

[Trevor Marriott]

I came across this in a past thread on here, I think its worthy of a re post

Abberline wrote to refute Sims' story in the PALL MALL GAZETTE in 1903:
(About the 'medical student who drowned in the
Thames)."I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact he was found at that time to incriminate him. A report was made to the Home Office about the matter, but that it was " considered final and conclusive" is going altogether beyond the truth...the fact that several months after December 1888, when the student's body was found, the detectives were told to hold themselves in readiness for further investigations seems to point to the conclusion that Scotland Yard did not in any way consider the evidence as final."

[pinkmoon]

Police seemed convinced druitt was a medical man could it be simply because of his initials M.D

[pinkmoon]

Again if he was such a serious suspect the basics like his occupation would be checked by police

[Limehouse]

Police seemed convinced druitt was a medical man could it be simply because of his initials M.D

With respect, this report may not have been referring to Druitt at all. It mentions 'a medical student' and goes on to state that he drowned man was 'a young doctor'. There is no suggestion in the report that this is Druitt. Indeed, I personally believe that a lot of confusion has been caused over many years by this young medical student being confused with Druitt.

[Phil Carter]

Still oit is odd that in 1903 the detectives still call the fellow a doctor... and in 1894 he is one too (re the MM).. I believe he was in 1898 referred to that title too.

You would have thought that in 15 years the "drowned doctor" would have, if referring to Druitt, which is what the 1894 version was (original?) ...have been found not to be a doctor at all.....

.....seems that someone knowshow to copy a story....





Phil

[Limehouse]

Good point Phil.

[Phil Carter]

Good point Phil.

Hello Julie ( Limehouse),

Yes, and it is point some don't want to look at.

Like I said... seems that someone knows how to copy a story....

Which sort of brings me forward to.... The Aberconway version of the "MM", and the "Original version of the MM", et al.....

Makes you wonder.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Trevor,

I have a question or 10 for you. Perhaps you may be able to help me with an answer or 10? Thanks.

If a "young medical student" or "doctor" was "found drowned" at the end of 1888, and the only known drowning that can relate to anything slightly medical is Montague John Druitt (who was not a young medical student nor a doctor, but the title did run in the family), and on the poorly situated assumption that Druitt was the man all WERE talking of....

1) How long is it reasonable for a person to be wrongly described by police sources as either a medical student or a doctor when the correct details of the drowned man (a barrister and school master) were already known through an inquest early in January 1889?

2) Is it not reasonable to say that the policeman knowing about the drowned man most commonly linked with the case, Sir Melville MacNaghten, would have known the true title of the drowned man?

3) If, when having the notes of every known suspect at his fingertips in 1894, he then writes both a "rough copy" and an "official copy", would it be reasonable to say that Sir MM would get the details of the drowned man correct then, even 6 years on?

4) If when the next known "presentation" of the case containing the "Druitt-like" person also supplies the wrong title to the drowned man, in 1898, when, we have been led to believe, the author has supposedly "seen" the 1894 MM memoranda, he would have been put right on the subject of the details of the drowned man, would he not?

5) When, in 1903, and your mention of Abberline knowing about this "medical student" or "doctor" that drowned, also repeats the same mistake again, 15 years after the murder..is it not resonable to say that in 15 years all the top detectives would have known the real title of the drowned man?

6) Is it resonable or unreasonable to assume that ALL the detectives, from day one, so to speak, were instructed to not tell the world the working title the drowned man had..i.e. a cover up?

7) When Sir MM himself wrote his memoirs, in 1913, again the problem STILL exists, no?

8) When Dan Farson and Lady Aberconway "discover" the so-called "draft version" in 1959, the same errors still exist..... Now we are told that Lady Aberconway copied from the original after her father died, sometime shortly after 1929....and STILL the mistakes were there then too, no?

9) WHEN, exactly, was it actually discovered, and by WHOM, that Montague John Druitt was actually a barrister and school teacher, in reference to the "drowned man" of "the end of 1888" fame linked with the Whitechapel murders?

10) What would be the scenario if the titled identity of the drowned man wasn't KNOWN before AFTER 1959......?



Thanks Trevor, appreciate any time and effort used.



Phil

[Lechmere]

The accounts of all the so-called police suspects are riddled with basic errors which doesn't point to conspiracy - it points to them not actually being serious investigated suspects - that were not investigated by proper policemen on the ground - as opposed to the amateur arm chair wallahs at Scotland Yard, who based their cases on bits of paper that wafted across their desks.

Druitt is always referred to as a medico.
Was a doctor found in the Thames?
Clearly Abberline was referring to Druitt as he was replying to Sims.
This shows that there was knowledge in the Met about Druitt beyond Macnaghten - but clearly Macnaghten was in an army of 1 in believing his guilt.

[pinkmoon]

Macnaughton did seem a decent fellow to mention druitt and get so many facts wrong about druitt is quite puzzling.The story about the murderer drowning himself after Kelly's murder started very soon after that murder.It wouldn't have been to hard for the police to make some basic enquires about druitt and I find it unbelievably that they didnt given the enormity of this case

[Monty]

Why did Mac menion Druitt?

Monty

[pinkmoon]

Yes why mention him in first place there must have been something.

[Monty]

Macnaghten mentioned Druitt at random, along with others, to counter The Suns accusations against Cutbush.

Here was merely stating others were also in the frame, not stating these 3 were guilty.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Not quite at random I would suppose.
I think he was pointed his direction by Farquharson directly or indirectly.

[Jonathan H]

Dear Phil C

Your number 7) is wrong; Macnaghten does not call the un-named Druitt a doctor in his memoirs of 1914.

It was one of the first things that struck me about them.

Abberline arguably knows nothing about the real Druitt, except that he drowned.

He knows no more than Littlechild about Druitt, yet he has been told by somebody that maybe Tumblety took his own life.

See the pattern?

The drowned Ripper does not exist in the extant record before 1898, and therefore was not doing the rounds before that date in the press (the MP articles do not refer to the method of suicide).

It isn't just that Montague Druitt has become a doctor, his family members have become 'friends'.