Druitt and Monro

[Fiver]

Personally, I doubt that Col. Majendie was the source of Macnaghten's "private information," and the Hainsworths never suggested that he was...

The Hainsworth's didn't suggest it. They stated it as a fact.

"Macnaghten believed that if he been on the Force the year before - and not been rudely fired by Warren before he even started - he would have, as a favour to a close friend, checked and presumably cleared M. J. Druitt. Such a connection to the East End horrors could only do reputational damage to both prominent, respectable families.

Then in 1891 came the shocking revelation from Majendie. He had been approached by a distressed Isabella Druitt, the widow of Dr Robert and Montie's aunt who divulged that their deceased member had indeed been "Jack the Ripper"."

[Fiver]

The reality is that what we might call the 'lower upper classes' in Victorian England were insular, were proud of their family ties--including extended families ties--and frequently socialized.




The idea that they couldn't or wouldn't discuss shared acquaintances one is a bizarre one.

That idea would be a bizarre one, but no one has suggested that they couldn't or wouldn't discuss shared acquaintances.

The Hainsworth theory isn't discussing casual acquaintances. The theory is about trying to discretely contact the authorities about the possibility that your relative is a notorious serial killer. And why would you discuss that with your cousin's wife's step-grandfather's nephew instead of a closer connection? Why seek out Macnaghton, who won't join the Metropolitan Police until mid 1889, when (according to the Hansworths) you have already established discrete contact with Robert Anderson, Assistant Commissioner CID, the man in charge of the White Chapel murders investigation.

(BTW, thanks for the scan.)

[Fiver]

I don’t know about you but I’ve always felt that it’s often the case that more stringent requirements are made of Druitt as opposed to some other suspects. I’m not accusing Fiver of taking the following approach but it’s often a case with some of “there’s no evidence that Druitt could have been a killer therefore Macnaghten must have simply plucked his name out of thin air.” With no consideration of the possibility that Macnaghten might have known something that we don’t.

Exactly. Macnaghten did not just pick the name out of thin air. OTOH, he wasn't part of the Ripper investigation, so his information would be second-hand at best. Druitt was also physically fit, suffering from undetected mental strain, possibly engaged in sexual misconduct, and the Ripper killings probably stopped around the time of his death.

I'm objecting to the Hainsworth's theories about Druitt. If the Druitt family had already contacted Anderson, then they had no need to contact Macnaghten or Farquharson. If the Druitt family wanted discretion, then Farquharson and Macnaghten betrayed them.

The Hainsworth's suggested motive for contacting Henry Farquharson and Macnaghten was to ensure that Sadler did not hang for the Ripper murders. But, as I showed with period sources, Farquharson was spreading his rumors before Francis Coles was murdered and Sadler was cleared of the Ripper murders before he was cleared of the Coles murder.

Also, Macnaghten got almost everything wrong about Druitt. Direct contact with the family would have prevented these errors, so I remain extremely doubtful that Macnaghten got his information from the Druitt family.

[GBinOz]

It is a shame the dates on the two cheques were not mentioned, so perhaps the dates on both cheques were prior to 1st Dec.?
If they were towards the end of December, surely this would have been mentioned somewhere as an indication of when he died.
So, this may also be taken as a factor in support of the dating error suggested (30th Dec. = 30th Nov.)?

Also, I can't see William waiting for 3 weeks to go to Blackheath after learning on the 11th that his brother was missing.
Perhaps you are not aware, the term "gone abroad" was a euphemism in the 19th century, usually used as a means of avoiding inquisitive questions.
You may recall the suspect John Sanders, the insane medical student, who being searched for by police was told by a relative (mother?), that he had "gone abroad".
It could be literal, but it could also be a euphemism for him being incarcerated in a prison, or an asylum.

Hi Jon,

I have no doubt that the cheques would have been written prior to Dec 1st, and I have no doubt that Monty was dead by Dec 4. However, I also doubt that the cheques related to an alleged dismissal. I suspect said dismissal occurred towards the end of December, when it was still unknown that Monty was at the bottom of the Thames, and his failure to attend the start of term constituted a last straw for Valentine.

While I am aware that the term "gone abroad" was a euphemism in the 19th century, what was the term used should someone announce their genuine actual intention of going abroad? Monty was engaged in a legal practice and also attending a school as a teaching master. Would anyone deny his desire to take a break in France? It should be noted that the friend of William did not report Monty as "missing", just that he hadn't been seen at chambers for over a week. Had Monty confided in his brother that he needed a break from the legal practice/School, would William have thought this anything but reasonable? In consequence, would he have attributed Monty's absence from chambers as anything but a need for a holiday...until he failed to return for the start of term at the school?

I re-iterate that there is nothing in the "suicide" note that even hints at a dismissal. It is all about Monty's mental health attributable to hereditary. Sugden took the easy path of adapting the facts to fit a theory. IMHO it is nonsense to attribute "since Friday" as yesterday.

As always, while we have differing opinions, I feel privileged to be able to discuss our differences in an amicable framework.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Don't forget, the report did say the body was decomposed, which is consistent with it being in water for weeks.

Hi Jon,

I have no doubt that the body had been in the Thames since early December. However, Valentine (and everyone else) was not privy to that information. As far as they knew Monty was alive and just couldn't be bothered to turn up for work at the start of term, or even give notice of said reticence to attend for duty.

Cheers, George

[mklhawley]

The Hainsworths respond. I asked them too as I know that Fiver has as usual misrepresented their point of view because he refuses to acqiaint himself with its details. Forget reading their books, he won't even pay attention to their posts.

From the authors:

We have to correct a record distorted by trolls.

Everything regurgitated by Fiver is wrong

Druitt was not "undetected" in his mental illness if he was placed in an asylum - it is claimed twice.

Druitt was not accused of sexual misconduct. Not a single extant sources even hints at such an event.

Druitt did not die at the right time. He died two years too early. Nobody thought he was the killer because of Mary Jane Kelly. If the police noticed his name at all, and they knew he was deceased, then they also assumed he could not be the killer; he was not around to despatch Mylett, McKenzie and Coles.

In the filed version of his report, Macnaghten gets the following correct: Druitt's name, and that whilst hus medical credentials were sketchy, his being sexually insane (gaining erotic pleasure from violence) was not. Macnaghten does not claim he was middle-aged but he does claim the family "believed" in their member's culpability.

In the 'draft' version, Macnaghten mixed fact and fiction because he expected the data to be shared by the Home Sec in a statement to the Commons. Even if the minister just said "young barrister who drowned himself in the Thanes" that would have been enough for the Druitts' neighbours, work colleagues and friends to know it must be the late Montague.

1891:

Whomever Anderson saw, the lady in question would not give him her name. She wanted to be able alert the police that Jack was dead but keep her family safe Anderson thought she was mistaken and tried to reassure her. We think this was Isabella Druitt based, partly, on cryptic glimpses in her surviving letters.

Having left this failed interview, we think she tried her son's MP, to alert the authorities without divulging their identity. Unfortunately Farquharson - whose name appears in Isabel's address book though she resides in London - told his ten closest pals and it leaked to the press.

In fairness to the loose-lipped politician he did attempt to have his cake and eat it too as he fudges the details to render the Druitts unrecoverable: a surgeon's son which is true but avoids saying barrister; bloodstained but with whose blood?; and a confession in action rather than verbally by compressing the final murder and the maniac's suicide into the same night.

Within days Frances Coles is murdered which sent the Druitts into meltdown.

Leading the hunt of the docks was Melville Macnaghten at the head of a police dragnet. Tom Sadler is arrested for Coles and investigated for the other Whitechapel murders of sex workers.

Farquharson tells a reporter that Sadler cannot be "Jack the Ripper", as that killer is definitely deceased.

Either the Druitts activated Majendie who was seconded to the Home Office, and a national hero, and reputationally had as much to lose as they did (the Liberal tabloids could say that a Tory Ripper from a famous Tory family was being protected by a Tory big shot in the civil service).

Or, Macnaghten interviewed Farquharson, whom he knew to be an unreliable bounder, and moved on to the Druitts. The family were relieved to discover that this charming, unusually upper class police chief was determined to protect them - and his pal - and thus keep the truth away from the Yard and the vulture press.

But the spanner in the works, in terms of simply deep sizing the story forever, is that Montague had made his cousin, Rev Charles Druitt, pledge to go public with the hideous truth no later than a decade.

A Church of England clergyman was in effect an employee of the state religion and were not under the same confidentiality obligations as a Catholic priest not to divulge confessions (Druitt's confession was not 'in the confessional:; he was coming clean to a member of his extended family).

We know that the Vicar's Ripper of 1899 is Druitt because Macnaghten shared how the Vicar's Ripper died with a reporter, whilst trying to dismiss the story - he committed suicide in the River Thanes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Once William arrived at the school, I expect one of the school officials would show William to his brothers rooms, and presumably helped him search for personal possessions. Perhaps that is all it means?

That’s a possible Wick. Over the years I’ve occasionally wondered if William had suspected that Monty might possibly have ended his own life (perhaps from a previous conversation). Not knowing which method he would use perhaps William didn’t want to enter Monty’s room at the school to find him slumped over a table, revolver in hand.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Also, Macnaghten got almost everything wrong about Druitt. Direct contact with the family would have prevented these errors, so I remain extremely doubtful that Macnaghten got his information from the Druitt family.

If that was the case then we would appear to be left with two alternatives - a) Macnaghten received his information from a source outside the family, or b) Macnaghten received no information; he just selected Druitt for whatever reason (the time of his suicide is usually the preferred option of course)

If b) was the case then surely this would give us another two options. a) he remembered a barely reported suicide from 6 years previously, or b) either he, or another officer tasked by him, did some research to come up with a likely (and conveniently deceased ‘suspect.’)

Certainly a) seems unlikely but what about b)? Surely if Mac or a subordinate had ‘found’ Druitt by research then they would have had the details in front of them…correct age, correct occupation etc.

So for me, if anyone doesn’t agree with the Hainsworth’s theory, then the likeliest alternative is that Macnaghten, like many who perhaps think that their memory is better than it actually is, simply misremembered a couple of details. And let’s face it…41 instead of 41 (both ending in a one so perhaps not a particularly extraordinary error) and Doctor instead of son of…

[mklhawley]

The Hainsworths' Long Goodbye.....

In 1894, Macnaghten writes a report in which claims the Druitt family suspected their member of being "Jack the Ripper".

In 1898 in the intro to his big book, "Mysteries of Police and Crime", Major Arthur Griffiths utilised the suspects section of that 1894 document in order to reveal that Scotland Yard actually had three prime suspects. Griffiths is careful to not write these mens' names.

But regarding M.J. Druitt, Griffiths was even a little more careful and discreet; he changes "family" into anomic "friends" who suspected their ... pal of being the fiend.

From 1899 to 1917, the famous George Sims - who was close friends of both Macnaghten and Colonel Vivian Majendie; they were a trio of besties - began adding details regarding the drowned doctor prime suspect Sims persistently claims this man was, allegedly, Scotland Yard's definitive solution, albeit the maniac would never be found guilty by a jury.

In 1904, 1907 and 1913, Sims claims the mad doctor's "friends" suspected he was "Jack" because the latter had confessed (in this scenario, the rich, retired surgeon had told his physicians whilst a private patient in an asylum, that he desired to fatally savage East End sex workers).

In those three accounts, Sims also added a detail not in Mac's report(s); the "friends" discovered that their reclusive friend had vanished from where he lived. They were searching for him, but could not find him. In despair, they decided to warn the police. They discovered the police were so super-efficient that they had already zeroed in the mad doctor as the likely fiend.

A month later the doctor's body was recovered from Thames (over the years, Sims shifted this date backwards by nearly a month: from December 31, 1888 to December 9, 1888). Case closed - the police knew at the time Mary Jane Kelly was the final victim and that her killer was now beyond earthly justice.

Since the source for Griffiths and Sims is Macnaghten, how did the police chief know that Druitt's "friends" were trying to find him after he disappeared from where he resided? We know that the frantic friends stands in for brother William and his frantic efforts.

The maximal reason is because Macnaghten heard the whole story from William Druitt, face to face, in 1892. The minimalist reason is because Macnaghten read about the brother's inquest testimony in the Chiswick local. But even the latter scenario means the chief had to have also read that Montague Druitt had been 31, and a barrister and teacher (actually the incompetent reporter never mentions the dead man's Christian names.)

In the 1913 Dagonet column, Sims knows that Druitt had been a lodger in Blackheath. If Macnaghten is so woefully ignorant about Druitt's basic particulars, how does he know that. The body was recovered with a season rail pass listing Blackheath as his starting location. But how did Mac and Sims know that Druitt lodged in that suburb rather than own or rent a home?

The 1913 column confirms that the frantic friends - which is brother William - conferred with the chiefs at the Yard about their hideous suspicion about the doctor. Behind that is Macnaghten conferring with William in 1891, and like he does in other aspects of his 1894 reports, he backdates those events neatly into 1888. In his 1914 memoir he admitted it was "some years after" he joined the police.

[rjpalmer]

That idea would be a bizarre one, but no one has suggested that they couldn't or wouldn't discuss shared acquaintances.

The Hainsworth theory isn't discussing casual acquaintances. The theory is about trying to discretely contact the authorities about the possibility that your relative is a notorious serial killer....

Ah, so now we get the inevitable shifting of the goalposts ... What would a 'Ripperological' discussion be without moving goalposts?

I don't think any further discussion is worthwhile for me, Fiver, because you labor under the mistaken impression that I'm endorsing the entirety of the Hainsworths' theories, when nowhere have I said that. You'll have to take that up with them.

What I'm suggesting is that you're so afraid that you're being deceived, and so eager to find that "gotcha!" moment, that you have a strong tendency to jump to wrong conclusions and settle for superficialities.

All I've done here is to challenge your inaccurate claims about the friendship between Macnaghten and Majendie--which you incorrectly cast doubts upon--as well as your weak understanding of the full social connections between Colonel Majendie and the wider Majendie/Du Boulay clan. It is that aspect of the Hainsworths' research that I am defending against misinformation and misinterpretation.

The risk of extreme cynicism is that the baby ends up thrown out with the bathwater and lines of further investigation end up swirling down the drain.

RP