Druitt and Monro

[FISHY1118]

The problem with Macnaghten's account is that he wrote so many things about Druitt that were incorrect that I can't help feeling that no investigation of him could have been made. Druitt was said to be a doctor, (wrong) 41 years af age (wrong), disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder (wrong). He wrote that he believed that his suspect, "resided with his own people; that he absented himself from home at certain times .." (not true of Druitt). A very nominal investigation would have resolved these errors.

He wrote, "From private information I have little doubt but that his own family suspected this man of being the Whitechapel murderer." What exactly does this mean? "Little doubt" means that he doesn't know, but believes. Therefore a member of Druitt's family didn't supply the information, or he would have known. His informant was presumably therefore at best, someone close to the family, a family friend or a member of the household staff perhaps.

Also , One has to understand that Mac in his memorandum was only referring to Druitt and two others as they would make a "Better Suspect" than Cutbush.

Some would say that he later actually names him as a "suspect" in later private papers ,but those writing are not conclusive as to have been written in MM own hand.

[mklhawley]

To Fishy1118

Even I, who do not think Druitt was Jack, know from the Hainsworths' book that what you wrote is total bunkum.

In 1913, Macnaghten - whose name had never before been associated with the Whitechapel crimes - startled the reporter from "The Daily Mail" who was doing a final interview with the retiring Assistant Commissioner. Macnaghten claimed that he knew the identity of the murderer who had, he reassured him, had killed himself long ago. That this was a "secret" which had come to him personally; that he knew the identity of the maniac in question very well ("that remarkable man"); and that he had destroyed any and all incriminating documentation (implying it was his property, not the Yard's).

The following year in his memoirs, "Days of My Years" he devoted an entire chapter to the case - and is obviously adapting both earlier versions of his Report (one was for public consumption and one for file). He drops all suspects and leaves it at Druitt (albeit he cannot use the name as the killer put himself beyond the protection of due process). He implies the definitive solution came to him, personally and posthumously, from the "protean madman's" own people who knew their member was "absented".

[The Rookie Detective]

To Fishy1118

Even I, who do not think Druitt was Jack, know from the Hainsworths' book that what you wrote is total bunkum.

In 1913, Macnaghten - whose name had never before been associated with the Whitechapel crimes - startled the reporter from "The Daily Mail" who was doing a final interview with the retiring Assistant Commissioner. Macnaghten claimed that he knew the identity of the murderer who had, he reassured him, had killed himself long ago. That this was a "secret" which had come to him personally; that he knew the identity of the maniac in question very well ("that remarkable man"); and that he had destroyed any and all incriminating documentation (implying it was his property, not the Yard's).

The following year in his memoirs, "Days of My Years" he devoted an entire chapter to the case - and is obviously adapting both earlier versions of his Report (one was for public consumption and one for file). He drops all suspects and leaves it at Druitt (albeit he cannot use the name as the killer put himself beyond the protection of due process). He implies the definitive solution came to him, personally and posthumously, from the "protean madman's" own people who knew their member was "absented".

That's a very good post.

You have highlighted MM's ego and inflated sense of self-worth rather perfectly

It highlights that MM spoke to a reporter and told them that he knew the identity of the Ripper, but to protect the killer's identity and by proxy the family of the killer, he chose to deliberately destroy any incriminating evidence that could then implicate "that remarkable man."

A phrase clearly enveloped in admiration for the man who butchered lots of innocent women.

But because it wasn't official Scotland Yard evidence, and just his own personal evidence, i guess he thought he was above reproach and that he was fully entitled to destroy his own property in the eyes of the law, even though it would have closed a cold case that had plagued everyone for many years prior.

What a wonderful example of a man MM was.

He chose to protect the identity of the Ripper for the sake of doing a favour for some very powerful and influential people, rather than expose the real killer and bring justice to those innocent women and their respective families.

If someone in his position chose to destroy incriminating evidence today, he wouldn't be praised for it.

The likes of MM really demonstrate the level of Mysoginistic BS that plagued policing back then.

And this guy was a senior police official.

Shame on him.

And for the sake of the victims families and having the awareness to deliberately destroy evidence that would have closed the case and brought closure to so many, then yes, he absolutely deserved to swing from a rope.

An absolute vile specimen of a police officer, and yet so many still hang by his every word.

That "Canonical" 5 term also being wrong.

But it's okay, as they were only prostitutes right?

Sickening.

It's the likes of MM, Anderson,...etc...etc...that ruined any chance of the case being solved and the victim's receiving justice.

So saddening for those innocent women who deserved so much better.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We cannot be sure, as you say Herlock. All we know is that he allegedly left a note for his brother worded roughly as you quoted. I just feel that when someone writes "since Friday", whatever is the relevant context, it is relevant for the next few days only. If it is intended to be relevant for longer, then it should logically have been "since Friday the 23rd November", or whatever. It seems unlikely to me that a man could write, "the best thing was for me to die", and then do nothing and forget about it.

As I have said, I don't have strong feelings about it, I just recognise that there are aspects of the alleged suicide which don't quite feel right, and I only brought it up because the intro to this thread suggested Motague was murdered. It wasn't meant to cause a great deal of debate! There is an "untidyness" about the suicide which feels wrong for a barrister.

I agree and accept that things do appear straight forward Doc. My speculation though (and that’s all that it was) is that the note could in theory have been written two months or more earlier but he decided not to commit suicide at that time and put the note into a drawer and forgot about it.

The intriguing question of course is - what else was on that note? Something incriminating? Perhaps family information that the coroner agreed not to make public? Or maybe evidence of his deteriorating mental health that might have embarrassed his family? Or maybe he wrote about the reason for his sacking?

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's a very good post.

You have highlighted MM's ego and inflated sense of self-worth rather perfectly

It highlights that MM spoke to a reporter and told them that he knew the identity of the Ripper, but to protect the killer's identity and by proxy the family of the killer, he chose to deliberately destroy any incriminating evidence that could then implicate "that remarkable man."

A phrase clearly enveloped in admiration for the man who butchered lots of innocent women.

But because it wasn't official Scotland Yard evidence, and just his own personal evidence, i guess he thought he was above reproach and that he was fully entitled to destroy his own property in the eyes of the law, even though it would have closed a cold case that had plagued everyone for many years prior.

What a wonderful example of a man MM was.

He chose to protect the identity of the Ripper for the sake of doing a favour for some very powerful and influential people, rather than expose the real killer and bring justice to those innocent women and their respective families.

If someone in his position chose to destroy incriminating evidence today, he wouldn't be praised for it.

The likes of MM really demonstrate the level of Mysoginistic BS that plagued policing back then.

And this guy was a senior police official.

Shame on him.

And for the sake of the victims families and having the awareness to deliberately destroy evidence that would have closed the case and brought closure to so many, then yes, he absolutely deserved to swing from a rope.

An absolute vile specimen of a police officer, and yet so many still hang by his every word.

That "Canonical" 5 term also being wrong.

But it's okay, as they were only prostitutes right?

Sickening.

It's the likes of MM, Anderson,...etc...etc...that ruined any chance of the case being solved and the victim's receiving justice.

So saddening for those innocent women who deserved so much better.

They certainly did deserve justice Chris but MacNaghten’s thinking doesn’t have to be seen as misogynistic in my opinion although he was certainly ‘of his time’ of course. He sees the killer (in his opinion) now dead. No more women will die at his hands. But he also sees the Druitt family who had also done no wrong as far as we know. His thinking might simply have been - what would be gained from forever associating that family with Jack the Ripper?

[The Rookie Detective]

I agree and accept that things do appear straight forward Doc. My speculation though (and that’s all that it was) is that the note could in theory have been written two months or more earlier but he decided not to commit suicide at that time and put the note into a drawer and forgot about it.

The intriguing question of course is - what else was on that note? Something incriminating? Perhaps family information that the coroner agreed not to make public? Or maybe evidence of his deteriorating mental health that might have embarrassed his family? Or maybe he wrote about the reason for his sacking?

It's interesting indeed to have a suicide note.

Many people who commit suicide, do it impulsively and without much prior thought.

But those who choose to leave a suicide note; like Druitt seemingly, indicates at the very least that the person had contemplated it beforehand.

Whether Druitt drowning in the River was an impulsive choice at the time, it still doesn't change the fact that there was a suicide note in the first place.

It also indicates a level of sefl-awarwness that you wouldn't typically find in someone who was clinically insane.

A person suffering from temporary psychosis is of course NOT insane, in a clinical sense.

And when we factor in the syntex of the author specifying an actual day; it eludes to the idea that Druitt was referencing a specific event that occurred on a specific day; in this case the Friday before Druitt wrote the note.

We can also be fairly certain that Druitt didn't write the note on a Saturday, because he would have said "yesterday" instead of last Friday.

So did he get sacked on the previous Friday he refers to?

Or did the specific event that caused him to lose his position occur on the Friday beforehand?

Or both happened on the same Friday?

It all depends on the time frame of course.


It's important to note that the suicide note was written AFTER either the event that caused him to be sacked and/or the day he was sacked (almost certainly the most recent Friday before he wrote the note)

This may sound fairly obvious, but my point is that he clearly wrote the note in response to a specific event that occurred, and it was this that ignited the idea of writing the note in the first place.

He may have indeed contemplated suicide much earlier, but its the Friday he refers to that is the primary catalyst for his decision to then actually go through with committing suicide.

It would also seem statistically more likely that the event that caused him to be sacked, was related to something sexual and/or forbidden.
This is because it has to be something substantial enough to be sacked for in the first place.

Whether it be that he was caught inappropriately touching a minor, licking and sniffing the missing MJK 2 photo, or being found pleasuring himself with a lubricated cricket ball...it has to be something that caused him a significant degree of shame and embarrassment.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's important to note that the suicide note was written AFTER either the event that caused him to be sacked and/or the day he was sacked (almost certainly the most recent Friday before he wrote the note)

This may sound fairly obvious, but my point is that he clearly wrote the note in response to a specific event that occurred, and it was this that ignited the idea of writing the note in the first place.

Aren’t we in danger of making assumptions here though Chris. We he wrote: “Since Friday..” can we really be sure that we know why Friday. Maybe he’d simply had a bad day and felt depressed? I agree that “Since Friday…” points to that particular day being significant in some way but I don’t think that we should assume that it was connected to his sacking. That’s certainly not to say that it couldn’t have been connected to his sacking though.

[Doctored Whatsit]

It would also seem statistically more likely that the event that caused him to be sacked, was related to something sexual and/or forbidden.
This is because it has to be something substantial enough to be sacked for in the first place.

Whether it be that he was caught inappropriately touching a minor, licking and sniffing the missing MJK 2 photo, or being found pleasuring himself with a lubricated cricket ball...it has to be something that caused him a significant degree of shame and embarrassment.

Knowing the reason for Druitt's dismissal, and therefore what "serious trouble" actually means, would help us to decide whether his dismissal was especially shameful, sufficient to cause consideration of suicide. We are guessing, of course, but I think that those who have suggested a homosexual encounter with a pupil must be wrong. Homosexual acts were illegal and punishable by imprisonment, and such an act with a pupil would have been appalling beyond belief and impossible to keep quiet. Valentine would have had to report the matter to the police, to demonstrate that he was protecting his pupils and not his staff, and even if he didn't, the boy's parents would certainly have done so. The police were unaware of what happened, and news of it didn't reach the newspapers, so it was unlikely to have been something criminal or impossible to "hush up".

It was probably something significantly less serious, but serious enough to require dismissal. As has been suggested, some promiscuity with female staff, unwanted homosexual advances on male staff, assault of another member of staff or a pupil, foul language in front of students, or as you suggest, being caught pleasuring himself. The possibilities are endless as this was a "posh" school, and lapses such as those mentioned would have been totally unacceptable.

The words, "I felt I was going to be like mother", are also capable of being interpreted in different ways. Ann Druitt had depression and paranoid delusions, so if Druitt did write this, was he excessively depressed or delusional on Friday? Or could he have just meant that he feared he would end up in an asylum like his mother?

As always happens, we don't know, and can only guess.

[c.d.]

His dismissal might not have been based on one particular incident but something that was the culmination of strange and unacceptable behavior relating to his increasing depression. Perhaps a crying incident in front of his pupils, preceded by bursts of anger towards them or failing to appear for a class which he was supposed to teach. And finally the school said okay enough is enough.

c.d.

[c.d.]

It highlights that MM spoke to a reporter and told them that he knew the identity of the Ripper, but to protect the killer's identity and by proxy the family of the killer, he chose to deliberately destroy any incriminating evidence that could then implicate "that remarkable man."

A phrase clearly enveloped in admiration for the man who butchered lots of innocent women.

I don't see how we can conclude that with any certainty, R.D. MM might simply be referring to how Jack was able to avoid detection and capture.

After all, we are here on a website devoted to Jack the Ripper some 137 years later so yes, he was a quite remarkable man.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

It highlights that MM spoke to a reporter and told them that he knew the identity of the Ripper, but to protect the killer's identity and by proxy the family of the killer, he chose to deliberately destroy any incriminating evidence that could then implicate "that remarkable man."

A phrase clearly enveloped in admiration for the man who butchered lots of innocent women.

I don't see how we can conclude that with any certainty, R.D. MM might simply be referring to how Jack was able to avoid detection and capture.

After all, we are here on a website devoted to Jack the Ripper some 137 years later so yes, he was a quite remarkable man.

c.d.

I see your point c.d.

But in MM's eyes, the Ripper didn't escape.

He knew the killer's identity.

Therefore the comment he made of "that remarkable man" is both posthumous and misplaced.

Once a killer's identity is known, they lose their "remarkable" status.

We don't use that term for the Yorkshire Ripper or Bundy for example.

I actually see MM as a man who saw an opportunity to inflate his own self importance.

It's akin to a major event occurring that nobody expects and then one of the senior police officials says "i knew that would happen, and I also know who did it."

If MM was alive at the time of the JFK assassination, you can bet your bottom dollar that he would have told a journalist... "Oh I know who he was, a remarkable fellow...but I'm connected to his family, so I deliberately destroyed any evidence to prove what I'm claiming...but trust me."

MM is only given any credence by token of the fact that he lived at the time of the Ripper murders.

If he did now what he did then, he would have been imprisoned for destroying evidence and manipulating an official police enquiry.

MM likely didn't know squat about anything relating to the case and jumped on the bandwagon (as did Anderson) by coming across as though he knew the identity of the killer.

So he was either deceitful, callous and deliberately covered up the identity of the killer and effectively stopped justice from having its day.

Or he was a lying incompetent buffoon who knew that nobody could question his integrity or could prove that he was talking complete BS when he lied about knowing who the killer was.

Callous Rogue, or an incompetent liar?

Or both perhaps.

[Wickerman]

. . .

He may have indeed contemplated suicide much earlier, but its the Friday he refers to that is the primary catalyst for his decision to then actually go through with committing suicide.

Some have suggested the "30th December" is in error for 30th November, which was a Friday.

One of the return tickets found on body was dated 1st Dec. (Sat), which means, if the note is genuine, it was written that weekend, and in turn suggests the "Since Friday", referred to the day previous, being "yesterday", so "Since yesterday", or "Since the 30th", which the journalist paraphrased as "Since Friday", or those were the verbatim words on the letter.

Either way it points to Druitt being dismissed from the school on Friday 30th Nov., and he decided to kill himself that weekend (Dec. 1st/2nd).
Subsequently, the following week (Tues. Dec. 11th) William Druitt received a communication that Montague had not been seen in his chambers for over a week.
Druitt's body was found on 31st Dec. and was estimated to have been in the water about a month.

[Fiver]

To C.D.

According to the Hainsworths' book, anything is possible, but it is very improbable that of all people, Melville Macnaghten - hands-on; obsessed with the Whitechapel murders; a rogue operator in the field; outranking everybody at the Yard in terms of 'breeding' - would have left it at an account by a family acquaintance.

Mac would have gone straight to the Druitt family to whom, after all, his close friend, Colonel Vivian Majendie was related by a marriage - and would have done so discreetly and reassuringly. He implies as much in his memoir chapter "Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper" (1914); the de-facto third version of his 1894 report.

Lets look at the Macnaughton Memorandum.

"A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer. "

"said to be a doctor" - talking to any member of the family would have showed that Montague Druitt was not a doctor, he was a teacher and barrister.

"who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder" - again, minimal investigation would have shown this was wrong.

* 9 November - Kelly is murdered.
* 19 November - Druitt is present at a board meeting of his cricket club.
* 27 November - Druitt appears in court as a barrister.
* 30 November - Druitt is dismissed by Valentine's school.

These errors show Macnaughton did not talk to the Druitt family, did not talk to anyone at his cricket club, did not check his court schedule, and did not talk to anyone at Valentine's school.

The only "source" that Macnaughton was a friend of Colonel Vivian Majendie, appears to be Hainsworth, so not a reliable source. I have been unable to find what, if any, relation that Colonel Vivian Majendie would have been to Isabel Majendie Hill. She married Montague Druitt's cousin Charles Druiit on September 15, 1888 in Wiltshire. That's after the Ripper murders had begun and only a couple months before Druitt's death. Why would Vivian Majendie have known anything about Montague Druitt?

[etenguy]

But we don't know for certain whether a member or members of the Druitt family ever spoke directly to the police, correct? Mac seems to imply that they were the original source but that doesn't eliminate a family friend or acquaintance being the one who actually passed the information directly to the police. And if that were the case, it is possible that the original suspicion of the family was taken out of context.

c.d.

You are quite right - and I believe two neighbours were identified that might have provided information to the police. However, this may be either instead of, or as well as, a family member providing information.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lets look at the Macnaughton Memorandum.

"A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer. "

"said to be a doctor" - talking to any member of the family would have showed that Montague Druitt was not a doctor, he was a teacher and barrister.

"who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder" - again, minimal investigation would have shown this was wrong.

* 9 November - Kelly is murdered.
* 19 November - Druitt is present at a board meeting of his cricket club.
* 27 November - Druitt appears in court as a barrister.
* 30 November - Druitt is dismissed by Valentine's school.

These errors show Macnaughton did not talk to the Druitt family, did not talk to anyone at his cricket club, did not check his court schedule, and did not talk to anyone at Valentine's school.

The only "source" that Macnaughton was a friend of Colonel Vivian Majendie, appears to be Hainsworth, so not a reliable source. I have been unable to find what, if any, relation that Colonel Vivian Majendie would have been to Isabel Majendie Hill. She married Montague Druitt's cousin Charles Druiit on September 15, 1888 in Wiltshire. That's after the Ripper murders had begun and only a couple months before Druitt's death. Why would Vivian Majendie have known anything about Montague Druitt?

Monty’s cousin Reverend Charles Druitt (1848-1900) married Isabel Majendie Hill in 1888. She was the daughter of a step-cousin of Colonel Sir Vivian Majendie.