Druitt.

[GBinOz]

On the subject of Druitt’s father’s will. Monty was advanced £500 for his legal training, apparently on the understanding that it was his share of the will. David Anderson said that he got nothing more from his fathers will which totalled around £16.5k (just under £2 million in todays money) and went to his wife, his eldest son William and Monty’s three sisters. I thought that I’d read somewhere that his sisters received over £1k each but maybe I’m remembering that wrong and I only have access to two ebooks at the moment. Wiki cites Leighton as saying that he received ‘little or nothing.’

Maybe I’m wrong but it looks on the surface as if Monty got a fairly rough deal here? Especially at a time when women usually drew the short straw financially. Might this suggest some kind of rift between Monty and his father? Might his father have been disappointed in his choice of Law over Medicine? I’m not suggesting this is an important point or that we can make any deductions from it (sinister or otherwise) but it just seems a little odd to me.

Hi Herlock,

By today's standards it would seem like Monty got a rough deal, but then by today's standards, so did the daughters. The custom in the day was for the eldest son to take the lion's share. Perhaps it could be looked at that the father was somewhat indulgent towards his daughters. And perhaps the £500 for his training was only the tip of the iceberg, and that Monty needed further financial support. His taking of a teaching job seem to indicate that income from his legal practice wasn't necessarily sufficient. If he did need financial support all his life, that may have tempered the view his father (and his brother) had of him?.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

The opinion of Abberline is worth noting but nothing more. If you take one persons opinion over another then do you accept Anderson and Swanson and favour Kosminski as the killer? One persons opinion is not evidence and it’s an inescapable fact that by the time that Macnaghten had written his memorandum Abberline was no longer in the job.

From Dorset we know that Druitt was there the day before the murder and there later in the day of the murder. That’s all that we know. Anything more is speculation.

Where is the evidence that Sickert was in London at the time of a murder at the time of his trip to France? Or do these questions only apply to Druitt? If you think that Sickert could have returned from France why do you think it so unlikely that Druitt returned from Dorset? The double-standard is glaring.

You already have been shown all about sickert herlock, that been discussed at lenght , were talking about druitt and the difference between the two are obvious, if you cant dismiss that , but then again will wonders never cease

[FISHY1118]

Difficult stuff obviously Fiver.

Not really , Id just be repeating myself again .

[FISHY1118]

'''The opinion of Abberline is worth noting but nothing more''


So its worth noting, why cant posters agree with it he was right after all .

Heres the problem, its my ''opinion'' that i agree with Abberline [ as well as other sourse that have been covered at lengh already by P.I ] that i base by comments about druitt as a very weak suspect along side lechmere and maybrick . No invention no manipulation

Its a shame some posters cant grasp this simple basic logic .

[Fiver]

Not really , Id just be repeating myself again .

You're already repeating yourself.

You aren't repeating answers to Herlock's questions.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

By today's standards it would seem like Monty got a rough deal, but then by today's standards, so did the daughters. The custom in the day was for the eldest son to take the lion's share. Perhaps it could be looked at that the father was somewhat indulgent towards his daughters. And perhaps the £500 for his training was only the tip of the iceberg, and that Monty needed further financial support. His taking of a teaching job seem to indicate that income from his legal practice wasn't necessarily sufficient. If he did need financial support all his life, that may have tempered the view his father (and his brother) had of him?.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

That could be the explanation George. I don’t know if anyone like Jon Hainsworth has seen the will? I was just speculating that their might have been some kind of rift but we’ve no way of knowing of course and your suggestion seems the likeliest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You already have been shown all about sickert herlock, that been discussed at lenght , were talking about druitt and the difference between the two are obvious, if you cant dismiss that , but then again will wonders never cease

The comparison is entirely fair and relevant and you are obvious keen to sidestep it. Surely you don’t think that we should apply more or less stringent criteria to different suspects Fishy? I believe that you used a phrase like ‘close to impossible’ for Druitt to have got to London from Dorset. Sickert would have had to have travelled from where he was staying in France to the ship (which he would have had to have booked in advance [unlike Druitt’s train and would have cost considerably more]) then travelled to England, disembarked and then caught a train London. A far more difficult and time consuming journey (and with luggage)

Saying that Druitt’s possible journey was ‘close to impossible’ whilst claiming that Sickert’s would have been entirely reasonable is like someone saying “I can lift 200kg but I struggle to lift 100!”

[Herlock Sholmes]

'''The opinion of Abberline is worth noting but nothing more''


So its worth noting, why cant posters agree with it he was right after all .

Heres the problem, its my ''opinion'' that i agree with Abberline [ as well as other sourse that have been covered at lengh already by P.I ] that i base by comments about druitt as a very weak suspect along side lechmere and maybrick . No invention no manipulation

Its a shame some posters cant grasp this simple basic logic .

Its not even logic, whether basic or otherwise.

“why cant posters agree with it he was right after all?”

So because one person gave an opinion you feel that everyone should agree with it. What about Macnaghten’s opinion? What about Anderson’s opinion? What about Swanson’s opinion?

You’re simply supporting the opinion that suits your own Fishy. Abberline was clearly aware of the suggestion about Druitt but that doesn’t mean that he knew the details that Macnaghten did; especially as he’d retired in 1892 and Mac didn’t write his memorandum until 2 years later.

I don’t assume to know so why do you?

[Herlock Sholmes]

'''The opinion of Abberline is worth noting but nothing more''


So its worth noting, why cant posters agree with it he was right after all .

Heres the problem, its my ''opinion'' that i agree with Abberline [ as well as other sourse that have been covered at lengh already by P.I ] that i base by comments about druitt as a very weak suspect along side lechmere and maybrick . No invention no manipulation

Its a shame some posters cant grasp this simple basic logic .

It’s also a ‘shame’ that you refuse to undertake the simply task of pointing out the post were you supposedly answered my six very simple questions?

My posts show that I’ve answered every single one of yours.

[etenguy]

Where is the evidence that Sickert was in London at the time of a murder at the time of his trip to France? Or do these questions only apply to Druitt? If you think that Sickert could have returned from France why do you think it so unlikely that Druitt returned from Dorset? The double-standard is glaring.

Hi Herlock et al

When these murders are discussed on these boards, JtR is often described as an opportunistic murderer, not someone who knew his victims or who planned the murders. It makes me wonder if any suspect who was often in London but who was some way out of London before/after a murder, would travel in especially to commit a murder when it would include significant travel time and arrangements. Not impossible of course, but I think highly unlikely and would make such suspects less strong (IMHO) - including, but not limited to, Druitt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock et al

When these murders are discussed on these boards, JtR is often described as an opportunistic murderer, not someone who knew his victims or who planned the murders. It makes me wonder if any suspect who was often in London but who was some way out of London before/after a murder, would travel in especially to commit a murder when it would include significant travel time and arrangements. Not impossible of course, but I think highly unlikely and would make such suspects less strong (IMHO) - including, but not limited to, Druitt.

Hi Eten,

Its a fair point of course. Could it be the case though that the killer (whoever he was) just had overwhelming urges that hit him either at random times or (or as wee as) after certain events triggered him? I don’t know the answer. I might get accused of trying to shape things to fit Druitt here but I’m only speculating on the next point - if he’d returned to London on some kind of business might it not be said that being back in London presented him with an opportunity?

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Herlock et al

When these murders are discussed on these boards, JtR is often described as an opportunistic murderer, not someone who knew his victims or who planned the murders. It makes me wonder if any suspect who was often in London but who was some way out of London before/after a murder, would travel in especially to commit a murder when it would include significant travel time and arrangements. Not impossible of course, but I think highly unlikely and would make such suspects less strong (IMHO) - including, but not limited to, Druitt.

Hi Eten,

I'm with you on this.

The evidence that Druitt was in Dorset around the time of Nichol's murder does make his candidacy more unlikely, although it's not a knock-out blow and to me, doesn't constitute a definite alibi.

I think it's odds on that Jack was indeed an opportunist, so unless (as Herlock suggested) Druitt was back in London on business (or for some other reason) the cricketing info does move the pendulum of guilt a few degrees further away from him.

[erobitha]

Hi Eten,

I'm with you on this.

The evidence that Druitt was in Dorset around the time of Nichol's murder does make his candidacy more unlikely, although it's not a knock-out blow and to me, doesn't constitute a definite alibi.

I think it's odds on that Jack was indeed an opportunist, so unless (as Herlock suggested) Druitt was back in London on business (or for some other reason) the cricketing info does move the pendulum of guilt a few degrees further away from him.

Fair and reasonable response.

I have no horse in the Druitt debate but posters claiming he can be 100% eliminated are simply wrong.

Unless there is an absolute alibi (e.g. beyond mathematical possibility) then all discussed candidates remain on the list until such evidence is proved otherwise.

Based on evidence we can say that Druitt ranks “highly unlikely” due to a reasonable alibi. It’s not absolute, but it is reasonable.

You can apply the same logic to Sickert who was most likely in France for most of the murders and Tumblety who most likely was in police custody on the night of Kelly’s murder. Doesn’t make them impossible suspects as we don’t have absolute mathematical proof any of them could not have made the journey into Whitechapel for the murders.

People like to scoff at my candidate but guess who has zero alibi.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fair and reasonable response.

I have no horse in the Druitt debate but posters claiming he can be 100% eliminated are simply wrong.

Unless there is an absolute alibi (e.g. beyond mathematical possibility) then all discussed candidates remain on the list until such evidence is proved otherwise.

Based on evidence we can say that Druitt ranks “highly unlikely” due to a reasonable alibi. It’s not absolute, but it is reasonable.

You can apply the same logic to Sickert who was most likely in France for most of the murders and Tumblety who most likely was in police custody on the night of Kelly’s murder. Doesn’t make them impossible suspects as we don’t have absolute mathematical proof any of them could not have made the journey into Whitechapel for the murders.

People like to scoff at my candidate but guess who has zero alibi.

Without getting into any Maybrick debate of course, PI would probably have said “well he probably had an alibi.” He used this one against Druitt.

We disagree on Druitt but that’s fine. I don’t think being in Dorset makes him any less likely than he was (or wasn’t) before we knew of the cricket game. I don’t even consider it an alibi at all but others might disagree of course. I’d certainly say that Sickert would be the more troublesome given the distance of the journey including boat and train though.

[erobitha]

Without getting into any Maybrick debate of course, PI would probably have said “well he probably had an alibi.” He used this one against Druitt.

We disagree on Druitt but that’s fine. I don’t think being in Dorset makes him any less likely than he was (or wasn’t) before we knew of the cricket game. I don’t even consider it an alibi at all but others might disagree of course. I’d certainly say that Sickert would be the more troublesome given the distance of the journey including boat and train though.

According to RJ apparently I am giving people misinformation by claiming “most likely” that Tumblety was in police custody for Kelly’s murder.

I believe he was. Orsam may feel he made a brilliant point and observation, but he did not conclusively prove Tumblety wasn’t in custody, just made a case that might not have been. Doesn’t change my view.

Likewise Tumblety being in France “most likely” and Druitt being in Dorset “most likely”.

That’s how this forum works.