Druitt a doctor?

[GUT]

G'Day Pinkmoon

Druitt was the first suspect I ever heard of, and while Macnaghten was the really the cause of bringing him to attention there is other material that in my opinion would make you look closely at him:

The MP Farquarson? seems to point strongly towards him

The North Country Vicar can be seen as pointing to someone with slerical connections

Sims, who to be fair probably got his information from Mac

The timing of his death by suicide

I have family who were clergy in Dorset going back to early 1800's and have heard rumours for ever that clergy in Dorset knew that it was a family member

The only real issue is that without Macnaghten we might never have linked all this information to Montague John Druitt.

I am not convinced that he was the ripper but in my opinion he cannot and should not, at this stage, be dismissed as a suspect.

I genuinely wish that we knew more about him, we may then be able to remove him from the list. So far we know of not a single fact that rules him out, but before anyone tells me that applies to numerous other suspects.

One day someone might find results of a cricket match, or a Court case that shows that he could not possible have been in the area at the time of one of the murders.

The biggest stumbling block I see at the moment is motive, no one can point to anything in his life that might give him reason to commit these atrocities. And again before anyone points out the obvious that applies to most, if not all suspects.

We also need to know more about his sacking from Valentine's and his mental condition, this information could remove him from the list or elevate him, but first we need to know what it is.

[Lechmere]

If he wasn't mentioned by Macnaghten then we would know nothing about him.

[pinkmoon]

Hi gut,we only have william Druitts word that the school sacked him and if they did sack him for some serious wrong doing they paid him quite a large sum of money.Monty was also a single fellow if he wanted to pop out for a bit of disembowlement he would be able to do so also he would be able to bring human organs home with him. His suicide appears to be sudden and his manner of suicide seems very strange to me his mother moving to an asylum in July just before the murders started is quite interesting as well.I do consider Druitt a very good suspect and would love to know about this so called"private information"

[GUT]

G'Day Pinkmoon

But I ask were the cheques [checks for my US friends] from the school. I have always suspected that if both were from the school, why two not one cheque. One could have been from his legal work. I've seen it suggested that the 50l was for a terms pay and the smaller amount 16l for severance, but I don't imagine that he was only paid quarterly. If anyone has information to the contrary I'd love to know it.

I agree about William, and we know that he was less than honest about some matters in his testimony, now days he would risk being struck off if caught out, and I would imagine that the same would have applied in 1888/9. After all he was, as a Solicitor an officer of the Court, and even in conducting a hearing his principal obligation was to the Court.

I didn't raise the "private information" in my previous post, because it only comes from Macnaghten, and the question was would he be a suspect without Mac? if only some documents came to light explaining the private information

I forgot to add the supposed document by Lionel Druitt and I know people from Wagga who claim to have seen copies of it, but that of course s more rumour and given the search for it back n the 70's or 80's with articles in magazines trying to find it who knows if the memories are real or not.

[pinkmoon]

G'Day Pinkmoon

But I ask were the cheques [checks for my US friends] from the school. I have always suspected that if both were from the school, why two not one cheque. One could have been from his legal work. I've seen it suggested that the 50l was for a terms pay and the smaller amount 16l for severance, but I don't imagine that he was only paid quarterly. If anyone has information to the contrary I'd love to know it.

I agree about William, and we know that he was less than honest about some matters in his testimony, now days he would risk being struck off if caught out, and I would imagine that the same would have applied in 1888/9. After all he was, as a Solicitor an officer of the Court, and even in conducting a hearing his principal obligation was to the Court.

I didn't raise the "private information" in my previous post, because it only comes from Macnaghten, and the question was would he be a suspect without Mac? if only some documents came to light explaining the private information

I forgot to add the supposed document by Lionel Druitt and I know people from Wagga who claim to have seen copies of it, but that of course s more rumour and given the search for it back n the 70's or 80's with articles in magazines trying to find it who knows if the memories are real or not.

Hi gut,this story about Druitt planning to go abroad makes sense he might well have resgined from the school hence the pay off surely if he had been up to no good at the school they wouldn't have paid him a penny the best he could have hoped for is Mr Valentine not to have called the police in.Druitt was able to do some court work a few weeks before his suicide so his mind must have been functioning well but don't you think the manner of his suicide is rather strange.

[GUT]

G'Day Pinkmoon

Two points arise.

1. He conducted his Court cases up to almost his death his last one seems to be late November. But that does not mean that he was not unstable, take it from me plenty of functioning barristers are seriously unstable. But more to the point Bundy an absolute psychopath was congratulated by the judge in his trial on just how well he ran the trial, commenting along the lines that the legal profession had lost out when Bundy decided to follow a life a murder rather than a life as an advocate.

2. His suicide is very strange indeed, I find it difficult to fathom that someone who had, on the surface, been functioning so well suddenly decides to drown himself. In my mind there must be more behind it than suddenly deciding he might be like mother.

I also find it unusual that at the inquest Valentine wasn't called as to what the "trouble" was, unless he was out of town being school vacation. Today one would expect that the learned Coroner would want more information as to why an apparently sane man, with no known history of mental illness would suddenly kill himself in such a manner, but I run the risk of applying today's standards to 1888.

As to the payments, why would the school pay him 62 quid if he had got into "serious trouble" at the school?

[pinkmoon]

G'Day Pinkmoon

Two points arise.

1. He conducted his Court cases up to almost his death his last one seems to be late November. But that does not mean that he was not unstable, take it from me plenty of functioning barristers are seriously unstable. But more to the point Bundy an absolute psychopath was congratulated by the judge in his trial on just how well he ran the trial, commenting along the lines that the legal profession had lost out when Bundy decided to follow a life a murder rather than a life as an advocate.

2. His suicide is very strange indeed, I find it difficult to fathom that someone who had, on the surface, been functioning so well suddenly decides to drown himself. In my mind there must be more behind it than suddenly deciding he might be like mother.

I also find it unusual that at the inquest Valentine wasn't called as to what the "trouble" was, unless he was out of town being school vacation. Today one would expect that the learned Coroner would want more information as to why an apparently sane man, with no known history of mental illness would suddenly kill himself in such a manner, but I run the risk of applying today's standards to 1888.

As to the payments, why would the school pay him 62 quid if he had got into "serious trouble" at the school?

Hi gut,drowning in the Thames in the cold in November no thanks unless I wanted to make sure my body stayed hidden so people would think I had gone abroad.Now if I had some medical knowledge I would know what drugs I could take to end it all or maybe just hang myself much better then drowning in the Thames in November.

[GUT]

G'Day Pinkmoon

Now if I had some medical knowledge I would know what drugs I could take to end it all or maybe just hang myself much better then drowning in the Thames in November.

Not if your medical knowledge was in surgery. Also he may not have been able to get drugs that would lead to a peaceful death, and I think those with medical knowledge are less likely to hang themselves as they are aware of how long and agonizing a death it can be if it is strangulation, as it is without a drop.

And I keep forgetting that in London November is winter for me it's prime swimming season. So yes it adds further to the puzzle.

[GUT]

Oh I forgot to add in relation to your question would he be a suspect without Machaghten

We also have the head of the Vigilanty Committee saying that he was told that Jack had drowned himself.

We also have, if you believe any witnesses saw the killer, Montie is one who fits the descriptions, as well if not better than most.

But again I'm not sue that we would have linked it all to Druitt without Mac.

[Jonathan H]

The story of the drowned barrister and "son of a surgoen", Montague Druitt, being 'Jack the Ripper', albeit un-named, first emerged out of his home county of Dorset--picked up by the lcoal Tory MP who began telling his cronies in London, and it leaked to the press.

The story essentially vansihed and then reappared in 1898 significantly altered: Dorset was gone, the MP (by then deceased) was gone and the son of middle-aged surgeon had become a middle-aged surgeon.

The 1891 article had fearfully alluded to the potential of a libel suit, now in 1898, and into the 1900's there was no chance of that--the story had been libel-proofed.

Without Macnaghten meeting with the Druitts we would not have the solution to the 1888 mystery, a solution broadly shared with the public from 1898 through to 1917, thoughly safely and sicreetly semi-fictionalized.

I would ask this question.

Why is there is a need to dismiss Druitt as a suspect? That's how it's always framed--we muist dismiss or debunk him as he is an impediment like a stone in your shoe.

[GUT]

G'Day Jonathan

The 1891 article had fearfully alluded to the potential of a libel suit, now in 1898, and into the 1900's there was no chance of that--the story had been libel-proofed.

Are you sure about no chance of a libel suit in 1898, I am trying to check on the case in the UK but in Australia a libel case could be bought by the family into the 70's, I believe that release of Farson's book was delayed in Australia for that very reason combined with the fact that family lived in Australia. I just at the moment am not sure when the law changed in the UK.

[pinkmoon]

The story of the drowned barrister and "son of a surgoen", Montague Druitt, being 'Jack the Ripper', albeit un-named, first emerged out of his home county of Dorset--picked up by the lcoal Tory MP who began telling his cronies in London, and it leaked to the press.

The story essentially vansihed and then reappared in 1898 significantly altered: Dorset was gone, the MP (by then deceased) was gone and the son of middle-aged surgeon had become a middle-aged surgeon.

The 1891 article had fearfully alluded to the potential of a libel suit, now in 1898, and into the 1900's there was no chance of that--the story had been libel-proofed.

Without Macnaghten meeting with the Druitts we would not have the solution to the 1888 mystery, a solution broadly shared with the public from 1898 through to 1917, thoughly safely and sicreetly semi-fictionalized.

I would ask this question.

Why is there is a need to dismiss Druitt as a suspect? That's how it's always framed--we muist dismiss or debunk him as he is an impediment like a stone in your shoe.

Hi Jonathan,yes over the years with more suspects appearing Druitt has been dismissed by a lot of people the points me and gut have just mentioned do cast doubt over his suicide and ask the question why did his brother lie at the inquest it certainly wasn't to disguise the fact that the mother was in an aslyum he was quite prepared for that to be public knowledge so what was it.

[Jonathan H]

We do not know that the brother lied at the inquest. He sure seems to have, but it is based on only a single, flawed source.

That source plus what Macnaghten, Sims and the 1891 articles about Farquharson's 'doctrine', however, reveal it is a high probability that William Druitt deceived the inquest by omission; by not revealing that he had come to the 'belief' that his deceased sibling was the fiend.


You cannot libel the dead.

Farson had no such problems by the time he was publishing.

The problem in Mac's time was that the family could sue on the basis that they had been libelled if it were implied by the press that they knew Montie was the killer and had done nothing to alert the police.

The closest they came to exposure about their terruble secret among the respectable circles in which they moved, or to the grown-up graduates of the Valentine school, was when a minor comic writer, Frank Richardson, published an Edwardian novel, 'The Worst Man in the World', and disguised Druitt with barely a figleaf by calling him Bluitt (Richardson likely learned the name from fellow writer Sims).

That must have caused some agitation, if any family members even knew of it, as you had the Ripper, Bluitt and the Thames finale uncomfortably juxtaposed.

On the other hand, in the story the passing mention of Dr. Bluitt being a medical man, and killing himself in a frenzied state, was just enough to maintain the libel-proof shield.

[GUT]

G'Day Jonathan

Sorry but when Farson's book was first released, in 1972 if my memory isn't failing me, release in Australia was delayed because at that time in Australia the relations of a dead person could sue if you libel their deceased relative.

[GUT]

From Times London 5 October 1972

The peculiar libel laws of the state of New South Wales have dissuaded the Sydney Sun Herald from giving Druitt's name in their preview of the book, and have restricted the Australian Broadcasting Commissions to references to a "Mr. D." The difficulty is that in New South Wales it is, in effect, possible to libel the dead, and family descendants offended by Farson's allegations would be in a position to sue.

Michael Joseph, the book's publishers, who have a consignment bound for Australia at the moment, are seeking advice from their agents there before deciding whether to risk a writ.

I will see if I have a Torts Text from that far back.