MJ Druitt: Mr Valentine's School

[Jonathan H]

I think so.

The date of Dec 30th 1888 is correct, not incorrect as generally theorized, though it is a fair theory.

William discovered his brother had been sacked on Dec 30th, because what else could Valentine do as they prepared the new semester? He had been sacked nine days before by the club for the same reason. Where on earth is he?

This suggests that any notes alluding to self-harm were not found, and were not lokked for until just before his body was found.

It measn that when it says William came to London he did not do so immediately because how that would asist him if he intiially thought his brother was on the continent?

I think a frantic William Druitt came to the school only when he had been informed that his brother was (or believed he was, or claimed he was) Jack the Ripper.

I don't not think this case is actually a mystery.

[pinkmoon]

I think so.

The date of Dec 30th 1888 is correct, not incorrect as generally theorized, though it is a fair theory.

William discovered his brother had been sacked on Dec 30th, because what else could Valentine do as they prepared the new semester? He had been sacked nine days before by the club for the same reason. Where on earth is he?

This suggests that any notes alluding to self-harm were not found, and were not lokked for until just before his body was found.

It measn that when it says William came to London he did not do so immediately because how that would asist him if he intiially thought his brother was on the continent?

I think a frantic William Druitt came to the school only when he had been informed that his brother was (or believed he was, or claimed he was) Jack the Ripper.

I don't not think this case is actually a mystery.

With all this renewed interest in Kosminski we have to also look at Druitt after all sir Melville did choose him over Kosminski as the answer to the mystery.I can See no reason unless to cover up something really nasty that William informed the inquest about montys sacking and the mother's mental illness.keep coming back to the same question why would an educated family like montys think he was the ripper.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

With do respect we do not know for sure that Druitt's family did think he was the Ripper. All we know is that MacNoughton said that they did. You also have to add that the fact that he made major errors in describing Druitt, which certainly couldnt have come from his family.

Best wishes.

[Jonathan H]

To Hatchett

I think you have hit the nail on the proverbial with that last post.

Much of what is called 'Ripperology' hangs from that slender thread, and most here do not even know it; do not know how very, very thin is that thread.

e.g. that Macnaghten did not know what he was talking about, and therefore there is no evidence that the Druitt family believed their Montie was the fiend.

Let's turn that around.

If it can be shown that both these views are erroneous or at least very unlikely, e.g. that Macnaghten obviously did know exactly whom Druitt was, and that his family did think he was the Ripper where would that leave the 'mystery'.

Where would it leave your individual perception of the subject?

The revsionist interpretation put succintly:

The 1891 MP sources show that belief in Druitt's guilt originated not in London, not at Scotland Yard, and not due to some muddle-headed mix-up, but rather from the region where his family had lived; and the secret travelled along the local constituency grapevine in Dorset.

The 'errors' you refer to by Macnaghten are non-identical twin documents he prepared for the public. For a public relations campaign. The official version of 1894 was never used--but it did contain, for file, the accurate information that Mr Druitt might not be a doctor but was definitely turned by ultra-violence, and that his family "believed" he was the murderer (an extraordinary thing to think about one of your own). The second version which arguably dates from 1898 (it is undated) was used for such a publicity campaign to both reveal and conceal the chief suspect to the public.

The memoirs of Sir Melville Macnaghten--that sadly do not make it into a number of secondary sources--do not claim that the un-named Druitt was a middle-aged medico, or a rich recluse, or that he had been sectioned, or that he killed himself immediately after Kelly. The biggest concession, matching the MP leak of 1891, is that the Ripper was not known to police until some years after he killed himself.

In other words though Mac was not there for the 1888 investigation he was at the head of the 1891 inquiry into a man who was deceased and met with the family--or so he claimed in 1913, and impliedin his memoirs, and in Sims' 1902 account of the "friends" of the missing "doctor" being in touch with "Scotland Yard". George Sims functions as a Macnaghten source at one remove. His writing that the frantic "friends" were trying to find the "doctor" is the textual evidence that the police chief knew that William Druitt was trying to find his missing sibling. If he knew that, Mac knew the bsics at least.

[Rosella]

Monty might have behaved in a strange or rather vague way in front of the pupils, perhaps not for the first time. There could have been an interview with the headmaster who kindly but firmly suggested that he should take a break from teaching. I don't think in those circumstances Druitt's salary would have been witheld and Valentine would have paid his salary (by cheque) up to that time.

Of course, the truth is that none of us know why Druitt was sacked, or if he was. My instinct, however, is that if Druitt was caught in a homosexual incident with a pupil then the scandal would have been immense and rumours would have spread like wildfire throughout the school and then into the outside world, whatever the school authorities tried to do. Nothing of that nature seems to have come down to local historians or others.

I believe he was dismissed from Valentine's school on the 30th November, a Friday, and committed suicide the next day. The unused train ticket from Hammersmith to Charing Cross, dated the 1st December that was found in Druitt's pocket seems to back this.

[TTaylor]

A cheque for 50 pounds - a very large sum at that time - was found on Druitt's body. It is often said that this must have been a severance payment from the School, in lieu of notice. If so, then he was dismissed in person and well before his death.

But we are not sure who drew that cheque.

[GUT]

A cheque for 50 pounds - a very large sum at that time - was found on Druitt's body. It is often said that this must have been a severance payment from the School, in lieu of notice. If so, then he was dismissed in person and well before his death.

But we are not sure who drew that cheque.

In my opinion, as likely (maybe more likely) to be for his Barrister work.

[bkohatl]

If the headmaster saw evidence of mental illness, he would have no choice but to let Druitt go. Since Monty's note indicated mental illness which he himself recognized, that could be the reason for his dismissal. What would anyone do when an employee, a teacher of 10 to 12-year-old boys was showing erratic behaviour. And it could have been done with regret, I am assuming Druitt was likeable, whether gay or not, and letting him go was necessary but not an enjoyable task.

[John Wheat]

I'm struggling to find anything whatsoever that suggests Druitt was Jack.

[Jonathan H]

Not a Mystery?

Then let me ease your struggle, John Wheat, and recommend my own book (from your local library) which attempts to prove that the evidence against Montie Druitt was certainly compelling and convincing to a VIP clique of his fellow toffs. An American reviewer was kind enough to open his generous critique of my book by writing:

"I have read many Jack the Ripper books, some very well written and argued, but this is the first to convince me the 1880's case has been definitively solved, and, in fact could have been laid to rest 124 years ago..."

Here's the full review:

http://www.mysteryscenemag.com/41-reviews/nonfiction/5232-jack-the-ripper-case-solved-1891?highlight=WyJyaXBwZXIiLCJyaXBwZXIncyJd

I was also asked to speak recently to 83 members of an Australasian Forensics Society about my book and its "case disguised" theory/solution. I was very humbled by the invitation. Judging by the positive feedback afterwards, many found it intriguing as to how an infamous true crime story, one that was [posthumously] solved -- and the solution broadly shared with the public -- could be rebooted, a generation later, as an unsolved case.

[John Wheat]

Then let me ease your struggle, John Wheat, and recommend my own book (from your local library) which attempts to prove that the evidence against Montie Druitt was certainly compelling and convincing to a VIP clique of his fellow toffs. An American reviewer was kind enough to open his generous critique of my book by writing:

"I have read many Jack the Ripper books, some very well written and argued, but this is the first to convince me the 1880's case has been definitively solved, and, in fact could have been laid to rest 124 years ago..."

Here's the full review:

http://www.mysteryscenemag.com/41-reviews/nonfiction/5232-jack-the-ripper-case-solved-1891?highlight=WyJyaXBwZXIiLCJyaXBwZXIncyJd

I was also asked to speak recently to 83 members of an Australasian Forensics Society about my book and its "case disguised" theory/solution. I was very humbled by the invitation. Judging by the positive feedback afterwards, many found it intriguing as to how an infamous true crime story, one that was [posthumously] solved -- and the solution broadly shared with the public -- could be rebooted, a generation later, as an unsolved case.

Thanks but no thanks. Everything I've ever read regarding Druitt suggests that he shouldn't even be a Ripper suspect and I know your book will not convince me otherwise.

Cheers John