Tweet
My apologies for another long post.
Because it’s often the case that suspects are defended (and in some cases dismissed) with what is, to me at least, a baffling level of passion, I thought that I’d make my position clear on the subject of Druitt. I’ve done it during discussions but it never seems to sink in for some reason. We love a good label these days and I’ve been labelled a ‘Druittist’. So from that you would assume that I’d have expressed the same level of support for Druitt as a suspect that others have for Cross (to use the most obvious example) but it’s difficult to see how anyone could have interpreted anything that I’ve ever said on the subject in that way. Actually it’s not difficult at all because I’ve never expressed any great level of confidence that he was the ripper. So what have I said that causes near hysteria every time the name of Druitt is mentioned?
The most that I’ve said is that I think that Druitt is the likeliest of the named suspects, but for accuracy I should now change that. From what we know of the suspects and when we consider a ‘type’ of person that the killer possibly was then obviously there are suspects that appear much likelier on the surface than Druitt does. Of those, I rate Bury as the best but others are certainly worth considering. So perhaps what I should be saying is - Druitt is the suspect that has always interested me most. That I think that Druitt is often dismissed too easily. And that yes, I think that it’s possible that he could have been the ripper. No more than that. Is that an unreasonable position?
When Druitt is mentioned we usually get a chorus of ‘but there’s no evidence of him being the ripper.’ Whoever says this appears to be completely (and conveniently) indifferent to the fact that there is no real evidence against any of the suspects. And yet it’s applied to Druitt as if it’s some kind of killer blow that should silence any mention of his name forever. I’m sorry but it doesn’t work like that. I’m happy to state what makes me interested in Druitt (you’ll just have to jump threads if you’re not interested)
Let’s start with the tick box list from the suspects list. The criteria are:
I think that’s entirely fair and unbiased. The only point that I could make is that even though we have no knowledge of him having medical/anatomical knowledge few suspects could have been in a better position to have gained it. His father was a surgeon of course and his uncle wrote what was considered the surgeons Bible.
So what makes him interesting for me?
In the summer of 1888 Druitt’s mother attempted suicide and was placed in The Brook House Asylum in Clapham. This is likely to have been in July but we don’t have a date. So if we include Tabram or whether we begin with Nichols the murders began around a month or so after his mother was confined to an asylum. If Tabram was the first then it could even have been a week or two. Proof of nothing of course but we often talk of crimes being triggered by events. This is just a possibility which I find at least interesting. Not all suspects have this kind of possible trigger event.
Can we place Druitt in the East End in any way. No we can’t. But then again we do know that men of Druitt’s class of society did visit the East End for various reasons and these visits would hardly have been recorded so there can be no surprise that we have no record of any connection. What we do know is that in the April of 1886 Tory politician J.G. Talbot held a meeting at King’s Bench Walk, where Druitt had his chambers, calling for Inner Temple barristers (particularly the Oxford men) to do charitable work by joining the Oxford House Mission in Bethnal Green. We have no ‘membership lists’ so clearly we can’t place Druitt at this mission but it still remains a plausible possibility for him.
Is there anything else that we know of that might have presented Druitt with the idea or the opportunity of doing charitable work among the poor? Yes, his brother-in-law the Reverend William Hough ran the Corpus Christi Cambridge Mission on the Old Kent Road in South East London.
It’s also possible that he might simply have gone ‘slumming.’ So in the absence of physical evidence there’s nothing implausible about the possibility of him having at least some connection to the East End.
Then of course we have Druitt being sacked (reason unknown) from the Blackheath School. Then on December 21st he’s is removed as Honourary Secretary and Treasure of the Blackheath Club with the claim that he’d ’gone abroad.’ Then on the 31st he’s fished out of the Thames. At the inquest his brother William lies about him having no siblings.
In early November of 1888 Monty’s Uncle James was writing a memoir of his life and a family history but he abandoned it abruptly (before Monty’s death) and didn’t resume it until 6 years later (the year of the Memorandum). He airbrushed Monty’s side of the family away, saying “Now alas, no representative of the family is to be found” at Wimborne.” This was untrue. He also wrote “and thus avoiding mention of the defects which one hopes to conceal from one’s neighbours.“ Of course this might have just been connected to Monty’s suicide but he actually stopped writing before his death. Again, it’s proof of nothing of course but it’s an interesting point in my opinion and whose to say which of us can interpret it correctly?
Then on the 13th January we get the English Patient story discovered by Roger in the Philadelphia Times. Not proof of anything but again, an interesting possibility.
Then we have the undated Crawford Letter was written by the Earl of Crawford (of 2, Cavendish Square) to Robert Anderson informing him of a woman who believed that she knew who the killer was and that he was closely related to her. In November 1888 Druitt’s aunt Isabella writes a letter to her daughter Edith saying that she has visited Cavendish Square complaining that she may never rid herself of an ‘encumbrance.’ A coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. But the ‘encumbrance’ could hardly have been Monty’s suicide. So what was it?
Then in 1891 West Country politician Henry Farquaharsen was telling people that the ripper was the son of a surgeon who committed suicide by drowning himself in the Thames. When asked about the murder of Coles he was adamant that this wasn’t a ripper murder because the ripper was dead. In Isabella Druitt’s address book was the name Farquaharsen was found.
In January 1899 the Daily Mail received a letter claiming to be from a clergyman who said that the killer had confessed to a “brother clergyman”. The ripper was a man from a good background who suffered from ‘epileptic mania,’and that he lost control during fits and often didn’t remember what he’d done. Strangely the letter was titled THE WHITECHURCH MURDERS - SOLUTION OF A LONDON MYSTERY? Whitechurch is an odd choice in place of Whitechapel. However there was a parish called Whitchurch or Whitechurch Canonicorum (used interchangeably) The parish vicar was the Reverend Charles Druitt. Coincidence? Possibly.
In 1908 Frank Richardson writes The Worst Man In The World where the ripper is a doctor called Bluitt who drowns himself in the Thames.
We know of course that rumours cannot and should not be relied upon as being true. But we also know that they can occasionally be true or at least have a kernel of truth. Paul Begg found this.
"When we lived there [Blackheath] formerly [e.g. before 1895] it was considered dangerous, for the terrible series of crimes committed by "Jack the Ripper"were then being perpetrated, and many people believed that he lived in Blackheath. ...he was never caught, although it was sometimes stated that he had been and was confined in Broadmoor."
Retired Admiral H. L. Fleet, "My Life and a Few Yarns", 1922, Allen and Unwin.
Had some rumour leaked out from the school? Maybe, maybe not
I’m not going to press on with more but I could if we include Jonathan Hainsworth’s work on the subject and of the input if George Sims.
Then of course there’s the memorandum where the Chief Constable of the Met considered Druitt a likely suspect. An outright assumption that Mac was simply making this up is hardly investigation at its finest. Why add the seemingly unlikely Druitt to his list when he could have chosen any number of criminals or lunatics whether dead or alive? If Mac was such a liar what would have stopped him lying about a more likely seeming suspect? Some dead violent criminal whose ‘friend’ had told Mac that he’d seen him covered in blood on the morning of one of the murders perhaps? But no, this pillar of the establishment needlessly throws one of his own under the bus. And at a time when many believed Mackenzie a victim (including his friend Munro) why include a suspect who was dead when she was killed? Who needs to consider sense when you can just label someone conveniently as a liar.
Is it so difficult, so painful even for some, even to consider the possibility that Mac actually did have information? Even then it wouldn’t prove Druitt’s guilt of course because the information might have been misleading. Maybe Druitt was just behaving suspiciously, maybe staying out late…a bit of blood on the sleeve? Who knows? So why the seemingly random Druitt? We have another ‘coincidence’ of course. One of Mac’s best friends - Sir Vivian Majendie - was related by marriage to the Druitt family. A possible conduit for information. Again, we don’t know. But it’s an interesting possibility. And there’s that word ‘interesting’ again.
So we have a man that we can’t eliminate whose mother dies just before the murders begin. He mysteriously loses his job at the Blackheath School and mysteriously ‘relinquishes’ his position at the Blackheath Club and a lie is told on his behalf. Then his brother lies at the inquest. The Chief Constable of the Met names him as a likely suspect and despite the claim that he was simply plucking his name out of thin air we had an MP (from the area where the Druitt family lived) pointing the finger at him a full 3 years before Mac named him.
Again I’ll repeat it. I’m not claiming that Druitt was the ripper. The odds are that he wasn’t. But how anyone with a genuine, unbiased interest in the case can say that there’s nothing of interest about him as a suspect and that he should be dismissed out of hand? I’m afraid it says more about them than it does about Druitt as a suspect. I’m more than happy to say that Druitt intrigues me more than all of the other suspects and yes….he might have been the ripper.
If that triggers you…tough.
Because it’s often the case that suspects are defended (and in some cases dismissed) with what is, to me at least, a baffling level of passion, I thought that I’d make my position clear on the subject of Druitt. I’ve done it during discussions but it never seems to sink in for some reason. We love a good label these days and I’ve been labelled a ‘Druittist’. So from that you would assume that I’d have expressed the same level of support for Druitt as a suspect that others have for Cross (to use the most obvious example) but it’s difficult to see how anyone could have interpreted anything that I’ve ever said on the subject in that way. Actually it’s not difficult at all because I’ve never expressed any great level of confidence that he was the ripper. So what have I said that causes near hysteria every time the name of Druitt is mentioned?
The most that I’ve said is that I think that Druitt is the likeliest of the named suspects, but for accuracy I should now change that. From what we know of the suspects and when we consider a ‘type’ of person that the killer possibly was then obviously there are suspects that appear much likelier on the surface than Druitt does. Of those, I rate Bury as the best but others are certainly worth considering. So perhaps what I should be saying is - Druitt is the suspect that has always interested me most. That I think that Druitt is often dismissed too easily. And that yes, I think that it’s possible that he could have been the ripper. No more than that. Is that an unreasonable position?
When Druitt is mentioned we usually get a chorus of ‘but there’s no evidence of him being the ripper.’ Whoever says this appears to be completely (and conveniently) indifferent to the fact that there is no real evidence against any of the suspects. And yet it’s applied to Druitt as if it’s some kind of killer blow that should silence any mention of his name forever. I’m sorry but it doesn’t work like that. I’m happy to state what makes me interested in Druitt (you’ll just have to jump threads if you’re not interested)
Let’s start with the tick box list from the suspects list. The criteria are:
- Age/Physicality.
- Location.
- Violent.
- Mental Health Issues.
- Police Interest.
- Hatred/dislike of prostitutes/women.
- Medical anatomical knowledge.
I think that’s entirely fair and unbiased. The only point that I could make is that even though we have no knowledge of him having medical/anatomical knowledge few suspects could have been in a better position to have gained it. His father was a surgeon of course and his uncle wrote what was considered the surgeons Bible.
So what makes him interesting for me?
In the summer of 1888 Druitt’s mother attempted suicide and was placed in The Brook House Asylum in Clapham. This is likely to have been in July but we don’t have a date. So if we include Tabram or whether we begin with Nichols the murders began around a month or so after his mother was confined to an asylum. If Tabram was the first then it could even have been a week or two. Proof of nothing of course but we often talk of crimes being triggered by events. This is just a possibility which I find at least interesting. Not all suspects have this kind of possible trigger event.
Can we place Druitt in the East End in any way. No we can’t. But then again we do know that men of Druitt’s class of society did visit the East End for various reasons and these visits would hardly have been recorded so there can be no surprise that we have no record of any connection. What we do know is that in the April of 1886 Tory politician J.G. Talbot held a meeting at King’s Bench Walk, where Druitt had his chambers, calling for Inner Temple barristers (particularly the Oxford men) to do charitable work by joining the Oxford House Mission in Bethnal Green. We have no ‘membership lists’ so clearly we can’t place Druitt at this mission but it still remains a plausible possibility for him.
Is there anything else that we know of that might have presented Druitt with the idea or the opportunity of doing charitable work among the poor? Yes, his brother-in-law the Reverend William Hough ran the Corpus Christi Cambridge Mission on the Old Kent Road in South East London.
It’s also possible that he might simply have gone ‘slumming.’ So in the absence of physical evidence there’s nothing implausible about the possibility of him having at least some connection to the East End.
Then of course we have Druitt being sacked (reason unknown) from the Blackheath School. Then on December 21st he’s is removed as Honourary Secretary and Treasure of the Blackheath Club with the claim that he’d ’gone abroad.’ Then on the 31st he’s fished out of the Thames. At the inquest his brother William lies about him having no siblings.
In early November of 1888 Monty’s Uncle James was writing a memoir of his life and a family history but he abandoned it abruptly (before Monty’s death) and didn’t resume it until 6 years later (the year of the Memorandum). He airbrushed Monty’s side of the family away, saying “Now alas, no representative of the family is to be found” at Wimborne.” This was untrue. He also wrote “and thus avoiding mention of the defects which one hopes to conceal from one’s neighbours.“ Of course this might have just been connected to Monty’s suicide but he actually stopped writing before his death. Again, it’s proof of nothing of course but it’s an interesting point in my opinion and whose to say which of us can interpret it correctly?
Then on the 13th January we get the English Patient story discovered by Roger in the Philadelphia Times. Not proof of anything but again, an interesting possibility.
Then we have the undated Crawford Letter was written by the Earl of Crawford (of 2, Cavendish Square) to Robert Anderson informing him of a woman who believed that she knew who the killer was and that he was closely related to her. In November 1888 Druitt’s aunt Isabella writes a letter to her daughter Edith saying that she has visited Cavendish Square complaining that she may never rid herself of an ‘encumbrance.’ A coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. But the ‘encumbrance’ could hardly have been Monty’s suicide. So what was it?
Then in 1891 West Country politician Henry Farquaharsen was telling people that the ripper was the son of a surgeon who committed suicide by drowning himself in the Thames. When asked about the murder of Coles he was adamant that this wasn’t a ripper murder because the ripper was dead. In Isabella Druitt’s address book was the name Farquaharsen was found.
In January 1899 the Daily Mail received a letter claiming to be from a clergyman who said that the killer had confessed to a “brother clergyman”. The ripper was a man from a good background who suffered from ‘epileptic mania,’and that he lost control during fits and often didn’t remember what he’d done. Strangely the letter was titled THE WHITECHURCH MURDERS - SOLUTION OF A LONDON MYSTERY? Whitechurch is an odd choice in place of Whitechapel. However there was a parish called Whitchurch or Whitechurch Canonicorum (used interchangeably) The parish vicar was the Reverend Charles Druitt. Coincidence? Possibly.
In 1908 Frank Richardson writes The Worst Man In The World where the ripper is a doctor called Bluitt who drowns himself in the Thames.
We know of course that rumours cannot and should not be relied upon as being true. But we also know that they can occasionally be true or at least have a kernel of truth. Paul Begg found this.
"When we lived there [Blackheath] formerly [e.g. before 1895] it was considered dangerous, for the terrible series of crimes committed by "Jack the Ripper"were then being perpetrated, and many people believed that he lived in Blackheath. ...he was never caught, although it was sometimes stated that he had been and was confined in Broadmoor."
Retired Admiral H. L. Fleet, "My Life and a Few Yarns", 1922, Allen and Unwin.
Had some rumour leaked out from the school? Maybe, maybe not
I’m not going to press on with more but I could if we include Jonathan Hainsworth’s work on the subject and of the input if George Sims.
Then of course there’s the memorandum where the Chief Constable of the Met considered Druitt a likely suspect. An outright assumption that Mac was simply making this up is hardly investigation at its finest. Why add the seemingly unlikely Druitt to his list when he could have chosen any number of criminals or lunatics whether dead or alive? If Mac was such a liar what would have stopped him lying about a more likely seeming suspect? Some dead violent criminal whose ‘friend’ had told Mac that he’d seen him covered in blood on the morning of one of the murders perhaps? But no, this pillar of the establishment needlessly throws one of his own under the bus. And at a time when many believed Mackenzie a victim (including his friend Munro) why include a suspect who was dead when she was killed? Who needs to consider sense when you can just label someone conveniently as a liar.
Is it so difficult, so painful even for some, even to consider the possibility that Mac actually did have information? Even then it wouldn’t prove Druitt’s guilt of course because the information might have been misleading. Maybe Druitt was just behaving suspiciously, maybe staying out late…a bit of blood on the sleeve? Who knows? So why the seemingly random Druitt? We have another ‘coincidence’ of course. One of Mac’s best friends - Sir Vivian Majendie - was related by marriage to the Druitt family. A possible conduit for information. Again, we don’t know. But it’s an interesting possibility. And there’s that word ‘interesting’ again.
So we have a man that we can’t eliminate whose mother dies just before the murders begin. He mysteriously loses his job at the Blackheath School and mysteriously ‘relinquishes’ his position at the Blackheath Club and a lie is told on his behalf. Then his brother lies at the inquest. The Chief Constable of the Met names him as a likely suspect and despite the claim that he was simply plucking his name out of thin air we had an MP (from the area where the Druitt family lived) pointing the finger at him a full 3 years before Mac named him.
Again I’ll repeat it. I’m not claiming that Druitt was the ripper. The odds are that he wasn’t. But how anyone with a genuine, unbiased interest in the case can say that there’s nothing of interest about him as a suspect and that he should be dismissed out of hand? I’m afraid it says more about them than it does about Druitt as a suspect. I’m more than happy to say that Druitt intrigues me more than all of the other suspects and yes….he might have been the ripper.
If that triggers you…tough.
Comment