Druitt.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Druitt is an unlikely candidate, and what we do know of his cricket schedule makes him all the more unlikely.

The real interest with Druitt is the fact that he was suggested at the time. What the private info was we'll never know, the Crawford letter is certainly interesting and we know that Tuke is listed as writing a suspect letter, was either of these that brought Druitt to McNaghten's attention? Both? Neither? God knows, but there definitely was something either in 1888 or shortly thereafter that pitched him as a suspect. Exactly the same as Kosminski.

Druitt, I believe, was not Jack the Ripper. But he is a part of the case by virtue of being named, which so few were. Realistically, we'll never fully know why, what his family suspected or whether it was all nonsense. But something went on, and the guy threw himself in the Thames, so he obviously had some issues going on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Would those be Michael Ostrog, Thomas Cream, and Prince Albert Victor?

I was thinking Cream, PAV and Van Gogh but I guess that makes it 4 Lewis.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wrote, 'I suppose if ...'

That does not constitute invention and you know it.

Contrary to your repeated allegations, I have never invented anything.

When you say “I suppose if….” you are indulging in speculation as opposed to stating a fact. When you speculate you are, in effect, inventing a possible scenario. There is nothing wrong with speculation btw as long as it’s acknowledged as such.

Saying that Druitt had an alibi, without evidence to prove that he couldn’t have been in Bucks Row at the required time, is an ‘invention’ because it isn’t true.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Given what we do know on one Montague Druitt and what would need to work in his favor to be London for the Nichols murder , he should in my opinion be treated as a extremely unlikely jack the ripper suspect .

He gets way to much consideration based on no evidence other than being mentioned by MM .

I like others don't see all the fuss where Druitt is concerned.

I guess all the other members of his cricket team could have been jtr if were to use train time tables and cricket information to make a case for them .

Just my opinion

What makes him weaker than other suspects? Why is Druitt especially weak as opposed to people like Chapman or Lechmere or Kelly or Mann or Hutchinson etc?

[Herlock Sholmes]

He was a physically fit 31 year old man, alluded to be Farquarsen in 1891 and then Macnaghten in 1894 followed by others like Moylan at the HO. Earlier in 1888 his mother had attempted suicide and was confined in an asylum (which might have been a trigger for the murders?) On the disputed question of whether the killer had medical/anatomical knowledge, the son of a surgeon would have had better opportunity than most for gaining such knowledge. He committed suicide just after what’s considered by many to have been the final victim which makes him one of the few suspects with a reason for the cessation of the murders after Kelly. It’s reasonable to assume that any kind of mental imbalance didn’t come on over night so this gives us a men with mental health issues at the time of the murders. He was sacked from the school at this time too, and despite assumptions, we have no clue as to the reason. If we have no clue then pretty much one explanation is as good as another. So how do we know that it hadn’t been found out that he’d been consorting with prostitutes or had been violent? Or more? Then we have the possible connection to the Crwaford Letter (as Al mentioned) We can add speculation in that his Uncle James, who was writing his memoirs, stopped abruptly in early November and didn’t continue it until 1894.

Now, yet again, I’m not claiming that any of this makes Druitt guilty, but I’ll ask again….how does the above make him somehow a weaker suspect than the vast majority. For me I just can understand why he doesn’t absolutely force himself into everyone’s top ten at the very least. I’ve never understood the attitude to Druitt in a subject with so few suspects worthy of a second thought?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m just heading out so I’ll ask the same question that’s intrigued me for 35 years.

Why did a man with all of the recourses he had to hand, and who was simply naming people that were likelier than Cutbush to have been the ripper, name someone like Druitt? A man who just happened to have been related by marriage to one of his best friends. A seemingly respectable Barrister and Schoolteacher. Why does Druitt not stick out like a sore thumb when compared with Kosminski (lunatic) and Ostrog (criminal)?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

When you say “I suppose if….” you are indulging in speculation as opposed to stating a fact. When you speculate you are, in effect, inventing a possible scenario. There is nothing wrong with speculation btw as long as it’s acknowledged as such.

Saying that Druitt had an alibi, without evidence to prove that he couldn’t have been in Bucks Row at the required time, is an ‘invention’ because it isn’t true.

I don't know whether you really believe anything you've just written or whether anyone else believes it.

It is quite obvious that when I speculated about the reaction to something I might say, I was not inventing anything.

It is also obvious that pointing out that someone had an alibi, but that we do not know how strong that alibi was, is not invention.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't know whether you really believe anything you've just written or whether anyone else believes it.

It is quite obvious that when I speculated about the reaction to something I might say, I was not inventing anything.

It is also obvious that pointing out that someone had an alibi, but that we do not know how strong that alibi was, is not invention.

This is so tiring.

When you ‘speculate’ about a possible reaction you are ‘inventing.’ You are getting to hung up on the word ‘inventing’ PI as if you’re being accused of telling a heinous lie. You aren’t. If I speculate about something I’m ‘inventing’ a possible scenario. I wouldn’t be stating something that I know to be true. Replace the word ‘inventing’ with ‘speculating.’

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I pointed out some time ago that in his spare time, Druitt played hockey.

Someone challenged me; he hadn't heard anything about the hockey.

I haven't heard anything about him visiting Whitechapel.

We're talking about someone who taught at a boarding school, practised as a barrister, played a great deal of cricket in his spare time, and also played hockey.

As a fast bowler, he was probably much taller then any of the suspects described by witnesses.

We are being asked to believe that he committed the first murder during a trip to Dorset, by commuting between London and Dorset during the trip.

When I pointed out that this meant that he was being alleged to have used the trip as a cover to commit the murder - in other words, to create an alibi - someone retorted that that wasn't so.

Why would someone go on a trip to Dorset and during that trip commit a murder in London, unless to provide himself with an alibi?

The case against him is so farfetched and yet whenever I point this out, the reaction is that I'm somehow being unreasonable.

I pointed out before that another completely innocent man, Mungo Ireland, was indirectly accused by a leading policeman of committing a series of similar brutal murders.

The idea that if a leading policeman makes an accusation against someone, there must be something in it, is obviously a flawed one.

It should be abundantly clear to anyone looking at Druitt's activities that he spent his spare time playing sports - not stalking prostitutes.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

This is so tiring.

When you ‘speculate’ about a possible reaction you are ‘inventing.’ You are getting to hung up on the word ‘inventing’ PI as if you’re being accused of telling a heinous lie. You aren’t. If I speculate about something I’m ‘inventing’ a possible scenario. I wouldn’t be stating something that I know to be true. Replace the word ‘inventing’ with ‘speculating.’

The only reason this is tiring is that you have repeatedly accused me of inventing things - of 'making things up' - when I have done nothing of the kind.

On being confronted with the fact that your allegation is untrue, you are now resorting to a semantical argument to justify what you've written.

If you stop falsely accusing me of inventing things, this will be a lot less tiring for both of us.

[FISHY1118]

What makes him weaker than other suspects? Why is Druitt especially weak as opposed to people like Chapman or Lechmere or Kelly or Mann or Hutchinson etc?

For the obvious complexity that surrounds his Cricket timetable and Dorset movements at the time of the murders.

That for me puts him at the lower end of the Probability scale . For example Druitt on that scale is 1.5 out of 100 Probability of being JTR, where as the above mention suspects,even tho none for me were JTR id have them at higher than that ,but not much .

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

For the obvious complexity that surrounds his Cricket timetable and Dorset movements at the time of the murders.

That for me puts him at the lower end of the Probability scale . For example Druitt on that scale is 1.5 out of 100 Probability of being JTR, where as the above mention suspects,even tho none for me were JTR id have them at higher than that ,but not much .

Druitt was playing cricket in Bournemouth on 3, 4, 10, and 11 August 1888.

He may have been in Bournemouth continuously from 3 to 11 August.

Does anyone think that he was commuting between Bournemouth and London during that time, looking for opportunities to murder prostitutes?

If not, then why do they think that he may have commuted between Dorset and London at the end of that month, unless he had a pre-arranged meeting with Nichols in Buck's Row?

For all we know, he may have had a cricketing engagement on the day of the murder, but the record has not turned up.

Druitt went to Bournemouth and Dorset to play cricket there, not to murder prostitutes in London.

It is obvious that the real murderer was stalking prostitutes, looking for opportunities and biding his time.

That is why there were intervals in between the murders.

He did not simply get on a train from Dorset to London, commit a murder, and then rush back.

[GUT]

Druitt was playing cricket in Bournemouth on 3, 4, 10, and 11 August 1888.

He may have been in Bournemouth continuously from 3 to 11 August.

Does anyone think that he was commuting between Bournemouth and London during that time, looking for opportunities to murder prostitutes?

If not, then why do they think that he may have commuted between Dorset and London at the end of that month, unless he had a pre-arranged meeting with Nichols in Buck's Row?

For all we know, he may have had a cricketing engagement on the day of the murder, but the record has not turned up.

Druitt went to Bournemouth and Dorset to play cricket there, not to murder prostitutes in London.

It is obvious that the real murderer was stalking prostitutes, looking for opportunities and biding his time.

That is why there were intervals in between the murders.

He did not simply get on a train from Dorset to London, commit a murder, and then rush back.

You clearly know nothing about the life of a Barrister. Sometimes something needs doing “Yesterday” and you have no option but to get it done, or lose work.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You clearly know nothing about the life of a Barrister. Sometimes something needs doing “Yesterday” and you have no option but to get it done, or lose work.

And while Druitt was 'getting things done', he took the opportunity to commit a murder before going back to his legal work?

You clearly know nothing about the life of a serial murderer.

[FISHY1118]

Druitt was playing cricket in Bournemouth on 3, 4, 10, and 11 August 1888.

He may have been in Bournemouth continuously from 3 to 11 August.

Does anyone think that he was commuting between Bournemouth and London during that time, looking for opportunities to murder prostitutes?

If not, then why do they think that he may have commuted between Dorset and London at the end of that month, unless he had a pre-arranged meeting with Nichols in Buck's Row?

For all we know, he may have had a cricketing engagement on the day of the murder, but the record has not turned up.

Druitt went to Bournemouth and Dorset to play cricket there, not to murder prostitutes in London.

It is obvious that the real murderer was stalking prostitutes, looking for opportunities and biding his time.

That is why there were intervals in between the murders.

He did not simply get on a train from Dorset to London, commit a murder, and then rush back.

This for me is the biggest hurdle for Druittist , but I've discussed this already at length previously on another Druitt thread .

There was a excellent podcast recently on this site that all but put the nail in the Druitt coffin , I did suggest to one poster to take his stance about Druitt up with one of the participants on that podcast who has a reputation for her brutal responses if you disagree with her point of view.

Needless to say there was never any discussion on the topic .