Tweet
I was just checking something about Monro and saw this on Wikipedia and it reminded me that it was something else that I had meant to look into and ask opinions on.
“In 1995 Monro's grandson, Christopher Monro, disclosed that Monro had been convinced that Montague Druitt had been Jack the Ripper but was prevented from saying so. William Druitt, brother of Montague, had threatened that if his brother was named, he would reveal that there were homosexuals in high positions in Parliament, the Bar, the Army and the Church. Christopher Monro was told this by his father Douglas Monro, who had examined Monro's papers after his death.”
Wiki gives the source for this as Colin Kendall, Jack The Ripper: The Theories and the Facts, Amberley, 2010. I recall watching Colin Kendall years ago answering questions on Jack the Ripper on Mastermind so I dug out his book. This is a brief rundown of what he said.
After a rundown of Druitt’s background, the discovery of the Macnaghten Memorandum, Abberline’s opinion, Farson, Cullen etc he moves on to The Ripper Legacy by Keith Skinner and Martin Howells (1987). For anyone who hasn’t read the book their theory was that Druitt had become involved with a group of homosexual men from the upper echelons of society (including The Duke of Clarence) The police became aware that Druitt was the ripper but didn’t arrest him due to his relationship to Clarence so the group killed him to make sure that the truth didn’t come out. Naturally a theory of this kind didn’t find favour with all but we should remember that Keith Skinner is a well respected researcher. On to Monro…
When Monro died in 1920 his papers were passed to his eldest son Charles who showed them to his brother Douglas who apparently said: “Burn the stuff, Charlie - burn it and forget it.” Unfortunately for us that’s exactly what he did. In 1995 Kendall received a letter from Christopher Monro who was Douglas Monro’s son (and Sir James’s grandson of course) and in that letter he mentioned being contacted by Howells and Skinner to do with a letter that Monro had written to The Radio Times after listening to a play about the ripper murders. The letter ended:
“My grandfather had his own views on the identity of the Ripper, but came back into office too late to deal with the case as he would have wished. He bequeathed his notes on the affair to his eldest son who died in 1928, it is possible that some cousin of mine may retain them to this day.”
A granddaughter of Monro’s tried to put them in contact with Christopher and sent the two authors on to Dr. James Monro in Edinburgh who was Sir James’s eldest grandson where they found his papers tucked behind a cupboard. They examined them and among them they found notes on many notable criminal cases but there was no mention of the ripper murders (because those notes had been burned). In his letter to Kendall, Christopher Monro went on to describe a meeting between his father (Douglas) and his uncle (Charles). Christopher was in the garden outside the study window when he heard the raised voice of his uncle saying:
“No, no! Burn the stuff, Charlie - burn all of it.” Followed by:
“Think of the scandal to both Winchester and Trinity.”
Christopher Monro then related the story of being holed up in a Himalayan village with his father in 1939, describing him as being like an old man who was expecting death. His father wanted to get the story off his chest about disposing of Sir James’s papers and the story within them about Jack the Ripper. Although no name was mentioned in his grandfather’s papers he believed that it was clear that when Monro took over from Warren he believed that Druitt was the ripper and that he was prepared to make his suspicions public but was prevented by Druitt’s brother, William, who threatened to go public with a list of prominent homosexuals.
Kendall wondered why Douglas had been concerned about scandal for Winchester and Trinity as Druitt had only attended Winchester but he had told Christopher that the Trinity problem would have occurred had the group of homosexuals been revealed. James Monro was supposed to have said that the ripper was never caught but he should have been although we have no written evidence for this. All of this is word of mouth family stuff which, while not proving anything, it certainly doesn’t make it untrue.
An interesting snippet in Howells and Skinner’s book is taken from the Southern Guardian saying that on 17th December 1888 The Duke of Clarence made the unplanned decision to join Lord Wimborne’s shooting party resulting in the hasty arrangement of a ball in his honour. The Royal family were in mourning for Prince Alexander of Hesse at the time and apparently eyebrows were raised about Eddy’s decision. On the guest list a man at the time lying at the bottom of the Thames, Montague John Druitt.
The fact that some treat Druitt as if he’s unworthy of interest is a constant source of surprise and disappointment. As far as I’m concerned. Druitt is the most intriguing of suspects.
“In 1995 Monro's grandson, Christopher Monro, disclosed that Monro had been convinced that Montague Druitt had been Jack the Ripper but was prevented from saying so. William Druitt, brother of Montague, had threatened that if his brother was named, he would reveal that there were homosexuals in high positions in Parliament, the Bar, the Army and the Church. Christopher Monro was told this by his father Douglas Monro, who had examined Monro's papers after his death.”
Wiki gives the source for this as Colin Kendall, Jack The Ripper: The Theories and the Facts, Amberley, 2010. I recall watching Colin Kendall years ago answering questions on Jack the Ripper on Mastermind so I dug out his book. This is a brief rundown of what he said.
After a rundown of Druitt’s background, the discovery of the Macnaghten Memorandum, Abberline’s opinion, Farson, Cullen etc he moves on to The Ripper Legacy by Keith Skinner and Martin Howells (1987). For anyone who hasn’t read the book their theory was that Druitt had become involved with a group of homosexual men from the upper echelons of society (including The Duke of Clarence) The police became aware that Druitt was the ripper but didn’t arrest him due to his relationship to Clarence so the group killed him to make sure that the truth didn’t come out. Naturally a theory of this kind didn’t find favour with all but we should remember that Keith Skinner is a well respected researcher. On to Monro…
When Monro died in 1920 his papers were passed to his eldest son Charles who showed them to his brother Douglas who apparently said: “Burn the stuff, Charlie - burn it and forget it.” Unfortunately for us that’s exactly what he did. In 1995 Kendall received a letter from Christopher Monro who was Douglas Monro’s son (and Sir James’s grandson of course) and in that letter he mentioned being contacted by Howells and Skinner to do with a letter that Monro had written to The Radio Times after listening to a play about the ripper murders. The letter ended:
“My grandfather had his own views on the identity of the Ripper, but came back into office too late to deal with the case as he would have wished. He bequeathed his notes on the affair to his eldest son who died in 1928, it is possible that some cousin of mine may retain them to this day.”
A granddaughter of Monro’s tried to put them in contact with Christopher and sent the two authors on to Dr. James Monro in Edinburgh who was Sir James’s eldest grandson where they found his papers tucked behind a cupboard. They examined them and among them they found notes on many notable criminal cases but there was no mention of the ripper murders (because those notes had been burned). In his letter to Kendall, Christopher Monro went on to describe a meeting between his father (Douglas) and his uncle (Charles). Christopher was in the garden outside the study window when he heard the raised voice of his uncle saying:
“No, no! Burn the stuff, Charlie - burn all of it.” Followed by:
“Think of the scandal to both Winchester and Trinity.”
Christopher Monro then related the story of being holed up in a Himalayan village with his father in 1939, describing him as being like an old man who was expecting death. His father wanted to get the story off his chest about disposing of Sir James’s papers and the story within them about Jack the Ripper. Although no name was mentioned in his grandfather’s papers he believed that it was clear that when Monro took over from Warren he believed that Druitt was the ripper and that he was prepared to make his suspicions public but was prevented by Druitt’s brother, William, who threatened to go public with a list of prominent homosexuals.
Kendall wondered why Douglas had been concerned about scandal for Winchester and Trinity as Druitt had only attended Winchester but he had told Christopher that the Trinity problem would have occurred had the group of homosexuals been revealed. James Monro was supposed to have said that the ripper was never caught but he should have been although we have no written evidence for this. All of this is word of mouth family stuff which, while not proving anything, it certainly doesn’t make it untrue.
An interesting snippet in Howells and Skinner’s book is taken from the Southern Guardian saying that on 17th December 1888 The Duke of Clarence made the unplanned decision to join Lord Wimborne’s shooting party resulting in the hasty arrangement of a ball in his honour. The Royal family were in mourning for Prince Alexander of Hesse at the time and apparently eyebrows were raised about Eddy’s decision. On the guest list a man at the time lying at the bottom of the Thames, Montague John Druitt.
The fact that some treat Druitt as if he’s unworthy of interest is a constant source of surprise and disappointment. As far as I’m concerned. Druitt is the most intriguing of suspects.
Comment