fairly good family

[pinkmoon]

Sir Melville described Druitt as from"a fairly good family" I find it strange he didnt say "a good family" could it be his private information led him to believe that they thought he was the ripper before Monty was dead and did nothing?

[Jonathan H]

Bait and Switch?

But there are two versions of this document, and they are markedly different in pitch and emphasis. Arguably this is because they were composed for different purposes and different audiences.

In the 1894 official version for the Scotland Yard file, Melville Macnaghten writes "good family", and that while it is, allegedly--and implausibly--only hearsay that their member was a doctor (eg. maybe he was not doctor?) he definitely gained sexual flfillment from ultra-violence.

Hence the family "believed" their Montie was 'Jack the Ripper'. Why did they think he was, to use the Victorian term, sexually insane? Because he killed and mutilated East End prostitutes. It is a cheeky, circular argument.

Why does Macnaghten downgrade the family to only "fairly good" in the version he probably created in 1898 and promptly disseminated to the public via cronies; that they only "suspected" their member was the Ripper, and it was only an allegation that he was sexually-driven to kill?

In my opinion Macnaghten wanted to make it clear to the public that this was 'Jack the Ripper', albeit a solution that could never be tested in a court of law (and with Macnaghten's critical sleuthing role for the time being concealed). He wanted Major Griffiths to to be persuaded as to why the police had not arrested this prime suspect. His explanation in this copy of his "Home Office Report" (another deception) is that though Dr. Druitt seems to have co-habited with his family at Blackheath they were not that reliable--not that "good"--and thus they only had a suspicion (poor fools--who are veiled from the public as concerned "friends").

Whereas Macnaghten is much more certain (in the official version it is the other way round), though the hard evidence--eg. presumably the killer's knife--remained at the bottom of the river.

What both versions are at pains to conceal is that M. J. Druitt was not a suspect in 1888 at all, or 1889, or in 1890--not until "some years after" he took his own life.

It was not a lack of evidence due to a dim-witted family who did not even realise they lived with the Whitechapel fiend that prevented Druitt from being arrested in 1888, but rather the lack of a pulse by 1891.

[pinkmoon]

But there are two versions of this document, and they are markedly different in pitch and emphasis. Arguably this is because they were composed for different purposes and different audiences.

In the 1894 official version for the Scotland Yard file, Melville Macnaghten writes "good family", and that while it is, allegedly--and implausibly--only hearsay that their member was a doctor (eg. maybe he was not doctor?) he definitely gained sexual flfillment from ultra-violence.

Hence the family "believed" their Montie was 'Jack the Ripper'. Why did they think he was, to use the Victorian term, sexually insane? Because he killed and mutilated East End prostitutes. It is a cheeky, circular argument.

Why does Macnaghten downgrade the family to only "fairly good" in the version he probably created in 1898 and promptly disseminated to the public via cronies; that they only "suspected" their member was the Ripper, and it was only an allegation that he was sexually-driven to kill?

In my opinion Macnaghten wanted to make it clear to the public that this was 'Jack the Ripper', albeit a solution that could never be tested in a court of law (and with Macnaghten's critical sleuthing role for the time being concealed). He wanted Major Griffiths to to be persuaded as to why the police had not arrested this prime suspect. His explanation in this copy of his "Home Office Report" (another deception) is that though Dr. Druitt seems to have co-habited with his family at Blackheath they were not that reliable--not that "good"--and thus they only had a suspicion (poor fools--who are veiled from the public as concerned "friends").

Whereas Macnaghten is much more certain (in the official version it is the other way round), though the hard evidence--eg. presumably the killer's knife--remained at the bottom of the river.

What both versions are at pains to conceal is that M. J. Druitt was not a suspect in 1888 at all, or 1889, or in 1890--not until "some years after" he took his own life.

It was not a lack of evidence due to a dim-witted family who did not even realise they lived with the Whitechapel fiend that prevented Druitt from being arrested in 1888, but rather the lack of a pulse by 1891.

Hi Jonathan,did druitts family contact the police over his disapearence if they didn't we have to ask why?

[Jonathan H]

In my opinion, no they did not.

Druitt had left word that he had gone abroad, a lie of course, and so I think they were initially perplexed.

I argue that at this point, late Dec. a priest stepped forward and informed William that Montie had told him he was the fiend.

That's when William arrivaed at the school, the day before as it turned out that the body surfaced in the Thames.

Then it was a question of the distressed and worried family putting the toothpaste back in the tube, eg. no contact with the police whatsoever. After all, whom were they going to arrest?

[pinkmoon]

I always thought it strange that William made no attempt to conceal the fact that mother was in an aslylum or that Monty had got into serious trouble at the school could he be trying to lead the coroner into thinking this is why Monty killed himself.

[GUT]

I always thought it strange that William made no attempt to conceal the fact that mother was in an aslylum or that Monty had got into serious trouble at the school could he be trying to lead the coroner into thinking this is why Monty killed himself.

I think that is exactly why.

[pinkmoon]

I think that is exactly why.

Not even today would people like it to be known that a member of their family was in a mental institution let alone 125 years,ago.Also if Monty had done something really serious at school their is no way he would have been paid .

[GUT]

Not even today would people like it to be known that a member of their family was in a mental institution let alone 125 years,ago.Also if Monty had done something really serious at school their is no way he would have been paid .

I'm not totally persuaded that the cheques were both from the school.

[Jonathan H]

I agree.

The first sources from 1889 on Druitt's death say that no papers were found, yet they had enough to contact William in Bournemouth. Those first accounts of the recovery of the body do not mention Blackheath.

It is likely the cheques were from the brother's firm.

The serious trouble that triggrered his dismissal is likely to have been being AWOL, the same reason as with the sorting club that dumped him.

[pinkmoon]

Do we know the dates on theses cheques? I find it a bit funny that Monty had these cheques on him and hadn't botherd to bank them.

[GUT]

No Idea of the dates.

Possible that he picked at least one up from Chambers, before heading off to Hammersmith and I suspect that if he was even remotely thinking suicide the bank may have been the last thing on his mind.

Of course it is also possible that the bank was by that time closed.

[pinkmoon]

No Idea of the dates.

Possible that he picked at least one up from Chambers, before heading off to Hammersmith and I suspect that if he was even remotely thinking suicide the bank may have been the last thing on his mind.

Of course it is also possible that the bank was by that time closed.

Might have been given them days before just not brotherd to pop to bank if he was doing what he has been accused of he would probley have other things on his mind.I do think what William told the inquest was very strange.

[GUT]

Might have been given them days before just not brotherd to pop to bank if he was doing what he has been accused of he would probley have other things on his mind.I do think what William told the inquest was very strange.

He was also not short a quid or two, he dd leave a rather substantial estate so was perhaps in no hurry to get to the bank.

Barristers have also long been considered somewhat unreliable in looking to their finances. I have lifted down books in some chambers only to find very substantial cheques being used as bookmarks and on handing them to the owner be told "I wondered where that went".

[Lechmere]

The letter that Montague Druitt had left in his room at the school as produced at the inquest.
It said:
"Since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother, and the best thing for me was to die."
The mother's madness was not hidden.

The 'fairly' good family quip is just a bit of snobbery. The Druitt's were upper middle class. Not Upper Class.

[pinkmoon]

[QUOTE=GUT;302866]He was also not short a quid or two, he dd leave a rather substantial estate so was perhaps in no hurry to get to the bank.

Barristers have also long been considered somewhat unreliable in looking to their finances. I have lifted down books in some chambers only to find very substantial cheques being used as bookmarks and on handing them to the owner be told "I wondered where that went".[/QUOTE
If he wasn't sacked from the school and just simple left or went awol then could we expect his mothers mental decline enough to force his suicide?