Druitt and Monro

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Abby Normal]

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.

fascinating herlock.

so theres more talk swirling about druitt from Munro? I didnt know that.

let me ask you this. we have MM, munro, sims etc mentioning Druitt... Is there any chance that all the talk surrounding druitt originated from a single source, MM. or is any of it independent of MM?

[mklhawley]

Abby, I think that is the significance of the "West of England" MP stories of 1891 in 2008 being linked to the Druitts.

Henry Farquharson was the Conservative politician and he lived in relative proximity to the Dorset Druitts.

Although the data from the big-mouthed MP has 'errors', or misdirections ala the Hainsworth thesis, he at least correctly identifies the unnamed Druitt as the "son of a surgeon". There is a follow-up article in which the MP is asked by a reporter if he is wrong because of the arrest of Tom Sadler for Coles' murder. He says: no, that's another murderer, Jack is definitely deceased and at his own hand.

That means Farquaharson was correct that the authorities would at some point clear Sadler of being "Jack".

It is highly unlikely Farquharson learned about Druitt from Macnaghten, as the close-mouthed police chief would have known what an unreliable gossip was his fellow Old Etonian. He must have found out from the Druitts, or a Druitt. More likely Macnaghten told the MP in one of their gents' clubs to keep his darned mouth shut.

Among Chrisitine's many discoveries was that in 1893, Sims, a socialist, had written a partisan poem damning Farquharson as a bully and a gossip, and also condemns him in a comedic way for accusing innocent people of being "Jack the Ripper". It is the only other refrence at the time to Farquharson being the "West of England" MP. The Hainsworths interpret this as misdirection and propaganda because, under the radar, Mcnaghten and Sims completely agreed with Farquharson about Druitt.

That's the interpretation by Druittists anyhow.

[The Rookie Detective]

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.

Excellent opening post Herlock, and very intriguing.

As a person who doesn't have a favoured suspect, it helps me to view things from outside the box.

The story of the burnt papers and the cover up to avoid the exposing of certain individuals being exposed for their involvement with Homosexual activity, is indeed a fascinating area of the case surrounding Druitt.

It sounds very much a scene straight from the London "swinging 60's."

If the cover up story is indeed true, then it seems almost certain that among that list of individuals would appear high ranking police officials, barristers and politicians etc...etc...

And that's what makes the idea of this particular conspiracy theor....sorry, "cover up" all the more appealing in the context of Druitts alleged involvement with the Ripper killings.

And pushing that idea a little further, it could also be suggested that Druitt was murdered for what he knew.

The Ripper being a Homosexual isn't something I would assume to be correct, but if the shoe fits etc...

But for me, it all feels as though every road leads back to MM.

And that's the crux of the argument right there.


The question is...

Does removing MM from the equation, then help to support or hinder Druitts potential candidacy as the Ripper?

If by removing MM completely from the narrative has no effect and actually helps support Druitt as the Ripper, then it enhances the interest in Druitt considerably.

However, if everything revolves around the words of MM and he is an integral cog in the Druitt machine, then that for me would reduce the likelihood that Druitt was the Ripper, and was merely silenced for what he knew about the homosexual group, and then made out to be the Ripper to cover for the fact that Druitt knew too much.

That would essentially make Druitt the scape goat, and by labelling him as the Ripper; he wouldn't have an ounce of defense or sympathy.

Does Druitt maintain his candidacy as the Ripper without MM?

If he doesn't, then perhaps MM is the problem and not Druitt.

If he does, then Druitt certainly deserves a close look.

As does his brother...

...and perhaps even the 30 plus other "barristers" who I have identified that were Involved with "Templeton and Cox" at the time of the murders (the firm who ran from Kings Bench Walk)

Mitchell Templeton and Edward Cox ran the firm.

And there's some very interesting individuals that must have either met, been acquainted with, or known of Druitt.

If the "barrister" route is the correct one, then there's a rabbit hole of data to be found there.

Or was it a surgeon and not a barrister?

A barrister surgeon?


Confused much.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Excellent opening post Herlock, and very intriguing.

As a person who doesn't have a favoured suspect, it helps me to view things from outside the box.

I have to stress Chris that I’m not someone that says that Druitt was the ripper. I think that it’s possible that he was. He’s the one that I favour of the currently named suspects and he’s the one that interests me most.

The story of the burnt papers and the cover up to avoid the exposing of certain individuals being exposed for their involvement with Homosexual activity, is indeed a fascinating area of the case surrounding Druitt.

It sounds very much a scene straight from the London "swinging 60's."

If the cover up story is indeed true, then it seems almost certain that among that list of individuals would appear high ranking police officials, barristers and politicians etc...etc...

And that's what makes the idea of this particular conspiracy theor....sorry, "cover up" all the more appealing in the context of Druitts alleged involvement with the Ripper killings.

And pushing that idea a little further, it could also be suggested that Druitt was murdered for what he knew.

The Ripper being a Homosexual isn't something I would assume to be correct, but if the shoe fits etc...

It might just have been a case of Druitt associating with people who were and who didn’t want the fact revealed. It’s speculation of course but that Druitt mixed in that type of circle isn’t.

But for me, it all feels as though every road leads back to MM.

And that's the crux of the argument right there.


The question is...

Does removing MM from the equation, then help to support or hinder Druitts potential candidacy as the Ripper?

If by removing MM completely from the narrative has no effect and actually helps support Druitt as the Ripper, then it enhances the interest in Druitt considerably.

However, if everything revolves around the words of MM and he is an integral cog in the Druitt machine, then that for me would reduce the likelihood that Druitt was the Ripper, and was merely silenced for what he knew about the homosexual group, and then made out to be the Ripper to cover for the fact that Druitt knew too much.

I don’t have the same aversion to Macnaghten tbh.

That would essentially make Druitt the scape goat, and by labelling him as the Ripper; he wouldn't have an ounce of defense or sympathy.

Does Druitt maintain his candidacy as the Ripper without MM?

If he doesn't, then perhaps MM is the problem and not Druitt.

If he does, then Druitt certainly deserves a close look.

As does his brother...

...and perhaps even the 30 plus other "barristers" who I have identified that were Involved with "Templeton and Cox" at the time of the murders (the firm who ran from Kings Bench Walk)

Mitchell Templeton and Edward Cox ran the firm.

And there's some very interesting individuals that must have either met, been acquainted with, or known of Druitt.

If the "barrister" route is the correct one, then there's a rabbit hole of data to be found there.

Or was it a surgeon and not a barrister?

A barrister surgeon?

Or a barrister who was the son of a surgeon?


Confused much.

When we look at it there are a lot of “what if’s” and possible links and potential pointers going on in regard to Druitt which seems rather a lot for someone that many claim was selected at random just because he died after the Kelly murder.

[Fiver]

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.

There probably weren't any Ripper murders after Druitt's suicide. Some period people appeared to think that he was the Ripper, but they were laughably wrong on some points about Druitt, like him having recently escaped an asylum. The period accusers claimed that Druitt's family suspected him, but we have no direct evidence that they did so.

Druitt is an interesting suspect, but we've also seen outright falsehoods posted, like the claim that Druitt was identified and arrested in an 1877 attack on Minnie Cameron. I am dubious of any later claim that someone's ancestor knew who a serial killer was or was a serial killer.

If the period accusers had been accurate in their descriptions of Druitt, I'd put him as one of the best suspects. Instead, I place him as one of the huge mass of possibles, like the majority of those accused.

[Herlock Sholmes]

At the risk of someone accusing me of initiating a Druitt publicity campaign I just wanted to make a point via a hypothetical scenario…

A London woman announces that she has found the private papers of her father who was a Scotland Yard detective in the 1960’s. In it he states “…at the time I had a strong feeling that Jack the Stripper was a car mechanic from Walthamstow’s called Frank Thompson.”

Everyone scratches their chins and says “never heard of him.”

Then, a few months later, a man finds an old diary belonging to his late mother who lived in Walthamstow. In it he finds that she had written “Off to Scotland Yard tomorrow to see if I can sort out this terrible problem once and for all.”

Then someone recalls that, in an autobiography of one of the Scotland Yard detectives, he had made a throwaway diary entry comment “I get so many people claiming to know who the killer is. Tomorrow a woman from Walthamstow is coming to see me. It’s probably going to be nonsense.”

So people start researching Frank Thompson but they find that he appeared to have had a normal life until he was committed to an asylum on the 17th March 1965 (around a month after the final JtS murder) where he remained until his death in 1970.


Would we, a) consider this an intriguing possible suspect worthy of further research and thought, or b) dismiss him because there was no evidence of his guilt and at the same time assuming that the retired Scotland Yard officer must have been a liar?

The parallel with Druitt and ‘Frank’ is obvious of course but why is there often such a desire to dismiss him? What if just one of the possibles in regard to Druitt were proven true? For example,

Druitt’s aunt wrote about going to Cavendish Square to sort out a big problem (she called it an ‘encumbrance.’) The Earl of Crawford lived in Cavendish Square and wrote his letter to Anderson asking him to see a woman who claimed a family link to the ripper. Can we prove that this was Isabella Druitt? No. But can anyone imagine any other relation of a named suspect (agreed of course that it didn’t have to have been a named suspect) getting an audience with the Earl of Crawford? There has to be at least a possibility that this visit was linked to Druitt…so what if it could be proven that this was the case. Is saying that it wasn’t her is any more unbelievable than saying that it was? So what if it was?

[Fiver]

Abby, I think that is the significance of the "West of England" MP stories of 1891 in 2008 being linked to the Druitts.

Henry Farquharson was the Conservative politician and he lived in relative proximity to the Dorset Druitts.

Farquharson was a malicious gossip who was later convicted of libel. If he is the source of Macnaughton and Sims' claims then it makes them much less credible. Rather than a smoking gun, Farquharson is probably smoke and mirrors.

[Fiver]

Would we, a) consider this an intriguing possible suspect worthy of further research and thought, or b) dismiss him because there was no evidence of his guilt and at the same time assuming that the retired Scotland Yard officer must have been a liar?

The parallel with Druitt and ‘Frank’ is obvious of course but why is there often such a desire to dismiss him? What if just one of the possibles in regard to Druitt were proven true?

Your example is an intriguing possible suspect. The problem with the period accusations against Druitt is that most contain wildly inaccurate claims like him being a doctor or a recent escapee from an asylum. One even said he was Russian.

Those period accusations are the equivalent of - A London woman announces that she has found the private papers of her father who was a Scotland Yard detective in the 1960’s. In it he states “…at the time I had a strong feeling that Jack the Stripper was a car mechanic from Walthamstow’s called Frank Thompson.”, but further research shows that her father was a police constable and Frank Thompson was a plumber. It could still mean that Thompson was guilty, but the errors undermine the claim.

I don't dismiss Druitt. Druitt belongs on the suspect list thanks to the murders probably ending after his death, but I don't put him near the top of the list.

[Fiver]

Druitt’s aunt wrote about going to Cavendish Square to sort out a big problem (she called it an ‘encumbrance.’) The Earl of Crawford lived in Cavendish Square and wrote his letter to Anderson asking him to see a woman who claimed a family link to the ripper. Can we prove that this was Isabella Druitt? No. But can anyone imagine any other relation of a named suspect (agreed of course that it didn’t have to have been a named suspect) getting an audience with the Earl of Crawford? There has to be at least a possibility that this visit was linked to Druitt…so what if it could be proven that this was the case. Is saying that it wasn’t her is any more unbelievable than saying that it was? So what if it was?

Do we have a transcript of the letter of Isabella Druitt to her daughter Emily? Context would help a lot in trying to determine what she considered an 'encumbrance'. Are there other letters by Isabella Druitt that would give context to what was preying on her mind in November 1888?

I've been able to find the Crawford Letter. If Anderson ever saw the woman, he clearly dismissed her relative as a suspect.

I find it interesting that the Earl of Crawford said the woman's "name is unknown to me". Is there any evidence on whether he knew Isabella Druitt personally?

[Doctored Whatsit]

On the side issue of Druitt being possibly murdered, I have always found the details of his alleged suicide to be very odd, and perhaps suspicious.

His mind didn't "give way" immediately after the Kelly murder as claimed, because we know he continued to carry out his legal work successfully, and was active as the hon sec of Blackheath cricket club, but we don't know why he was sacked from the school, and whether that caused him serious problems.

He was said to have written a suicide note, which suggested that he chose to take his own life, but he then bought a return train ticket, and died with two cheques and quite a bit of cash on his person. That was a very untidy and disorganised suicide for someone as disciplined as a teacher/barrister who had written a suicide note and therefore planned his death! It was also a very unpleasant method of suicide, the cold waters of the Thames in December! An overdose would have been so much easier.

Obviously, if he didn't plan his suicide, he had to have a reason for going to Chiswick, and if it wasn't business, it could have been to take a look at Manor House Asylum. His mother was at an asylum in Brighton, which wasn't very convenient, and actually she was transferred to Manor House in May 1890.

So, someone killing Druitt does seem possible, but that implicates his brother, who allegedly found the suicide note. Do we have anything tangible to suggest that William was a rogue? We have perhaps only the allegations on this thread, and the report from the inquest that William claimed to be his brother's only relative, which was untrue.

[Fiver]

It is highly unlikely Farquharson learned about Druitt from Macnaghten, as the close-mouthed police chief would have known what an unreliable gossip was his fellow Old Etonian. He must have found out from the Druitts, or a Druitt. More likely Macnaghten told the MP in one of their gents' clubs to keep his darned mouth shut.

Farquharson may have found out from the Druitts. Or Farquharson may have made up the whole thing, like his claiming Charles Gatty had been expelled from Charterhouse School for immorality.

Among Chrisitine's many discoveries was that in 1893, Sims, a socialist, had written a partisan poem damning Farquharson as a bully and a gossip, and also condemns him in a comedic way for accusing innocent people of being "Jack the Ripper". It is the only other refrence at the time to Farquharson being the "West of England" MP. The Hainsworths interpret this as misdirection and propaganda because, under the radar, Mcnaghten and Sims completely agreed with Farquharson about Druitt.

That's the interpretation by Druittists anyhow.

Sims was not the only person condemning Farquharson as a liar. So did Charles Gatty. I'm starting to wonder if Montague Druitt was sacked because of rumors started by Henry Farquharson.

[rjpalmer]

Or Farquharson may have made up the whole thing, like his claiming Charles Gatty had been expelled from Charterhouse School for immorality.

The truth of this libel suit is not as cut-and-dried as you make it, and more nuance is in order. It was argued, at the time, that Farquharson's allegations against Gatty were more or less accurate, but he had behaved in such an ungentlemanly manner in bringing up events from the distant past that the court had no sympathy for him and he lost the suit anyway. If I recall correctly, Jon Hainsworth discussed this at some length in his first book.

I would again caution that this desire to come up with quick-and-easy cynical answers is not necessarily a useful habit of mind when attempting to unravel the truth behind a difficult historical mystery. It is a good habit, however, if one has no fear of jumping to wrong conclusions.

For instance, why attempt to associate the 'Russian Doctor' snafu with George Sims? Did Sims ever suggest Druitt was a Russian?

This was a mistake of memory made by Sir John Moylan many years later and tells us nothing about Sims who pointed out more than once that the Russian doctor and Druitt were not the same person.

In reality, a careful reading of Sims shows that he knew accurate information about Druitt that cannot be traced to the Macnaghten memorandum.

Nearly no one seems to be bothered by that but instead resorts to the safe and simple answer that it is all a pack of lies and misinformation.

Regards.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do we have a transcript of the letter of Isabella Druitt to her daughter Emily? Context would help a lot in trying to determine what she considered an 'encumbrance'. Are there other letters by Isabella Druitt that would give context to what was preying on her mind in November 1888?

I've been able to find the Crawford Letter. If Anderson ever saw the woman, he clearly dismissed her relative as a suspect.

I find it interesting that the Earl of Crawford said the woman's "name is unknown to me". Is there any evidence on whether he knew Isabella Druitt personally?

I don’t have a transcript or whether Jon Hainsworth does Fiver but in his book he says:

In an angst-filled November letter, however, Mrs Isabella Druitt informs Emily that she has visited ‘Cavendish Square’, which matches the Earl’s address. Uncharacteristically, no details are provided, yet her daughter must understand the implications of that location without further elaboration. Mrs Druitt then laments that she feels she may never be rid of this ‘encumbrance’ – again, no clarifying details.

- Stephen Ryder found that Emily Druitt had a connection to Crawford, however loose, through a publishers called Quaritch.

In the next sentence JH writes:

Mrs Isabella Druitt’s small book containing names of people within her social circle or of her acquaintance has survived. As to be expected it lists relatives, friends and colleagues of her late and esteemed husband. The authors also discovered in this small, long-forgotten book a name that connects Mrs Druitt once more to the ‘Ripper’ case: Farquharson.

The source given is - Druitt Mss 252,The Druitt Papers, West Sussex Record Office.

[Fiver]

The truth of this libel suit is not as cut-and-dried as you make it, and more nuance is in order. It was argued, at the time, that Farquharson's allegations against Gatty were more or less accurate, but he had behaved in such an ungentlemanly manner in bringing up events from the distant past that the court had no sympathy for him and he lost the suit anyway. If I recall correctly, Jon Hainsworth discussed this at some length in his first book.

If the accusations against Gatty were true, then Gatty was taking a horrible risk considering what would happen to Oscar Wilde.

Hainsworth has said "A nephew of the late, famous Dr Robert Druitt was arrested in 1887 for allegedly trying to stab an East End "fallen woman". " This is provably false - Minnie Cameron never named her attacker and no one was arrested for the attack. After that, I don't accept anything Hainsworth says without independent confirmation.

For instance, why attempt to associate the 'Russian Doctor' snafu with George Sims? Did Sims ever suggest Druitt was a Russian?

I'm baffled as to why you put this in a response to me.

I said:

* in 1924, Basil Thomson said the Ripper was a "an insane Russian medical student whose body was found floating in the Thames immediately after the last of the outrages." Druitt was not a medical student and definitely not a Russian, so this sounds more like a garbled account of Macnaghten than an independent confirmation.

and

* George R. Sims said "He was undoubtedly a doctor who had been in a lunatic asylum and had developed homicidal mania of a special kind. Each of his murders was more maniacal than its predecessors, and the last was the worst of all. After committing that he drowned himself. His body was found in the Thames after it had been in the river for nearly a month." Druitt was not a doctor and had not been in asylum, so this sounds more like a garbled account of Macnaghten than an independent confirmation.

I never claimed that Sims said the Ripper was Russian.

This was a mistake of memory made by Sir John Moylan many years later and tells us nothing about Sims who pointed out more than once that the Russian doctor and Druitt were not the same person.

Who is Sir John Moylan and what has he got to do with Basil Thonpson thinking the Ripper was Russian?