What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Harry D]

I can't see sir Melville naming Druitt without good cause he seems to be a very well respected police official I just can't see him coming up with Druitt based on a piece of gossip the "gossip" must have come from a very good source like Druitts family.

This is an argument from authority that we should be careful to avoid. Whilst Macnaughton was a respectable high-ranking police officer, he was still a product of the times and the police had a different psychology for how a killer's mind worked back then. He seemed sold on this idea that the killer's mind snapped after the Miller's Court horror show, when we now know it's very rare for serial killers to commit suicide. And if MJK's death had really been the trigger for his mental breakdown, Druitt clearly showed no signs of it in the weeks immediately after. It was business as usual.

Druitt's suicide is already perfectly explained to us. He'd lost his job under a cloud of scandal, his family had a history of depression, and so he took his own life. There's nothing linking Druitt to the Whitechapel murders other than this secret info of Macnaughton's, which no one knows the contents of, therefore it's purely speculative as to its veracity. One would hope it wasn't the same source Macnaughton used for his error-ridden report of his number one suspect.

[Jonathan H]

To Harry D

Everything you have written is contestable, and arguably redundant.

1. The 'error-riddled' memo was used for public relations purposes. It could not, therefore, contain entirely reliable data without exposing a respectable family to ruin and Scotland Yard to ridicule (for not knowing the murderer was deceased until years after he had taken his own life).

In 1905 George Sims told a fellow reporter that he could not say more about the "mad doctor" without exposing the killer's super-prominent, London-based family. Yet he had said enough already to expose them?! Unless he knew that he hadn't.

2. The 1889 primary sources show that Druitt's suicide was inexplicable, except for maybe an inherited mental instability. There was no 'scandal' attached to his dismissal. His dismissal from the lesser of his two vocations is mentioned by only a single account, and even in that one is not linked to his self-destruction. Put all the sources together and he seems to have been dismissed for being AWOL, e.g, the same article seems to be saying he was not dismissed until Dec 30th, after he had been sacked from his sporting club for "going abroad".

3. Druitt is linked to the Whitechapel murders by the 'West of England' articles of 1891, albeit un-named. This totally upturned the conventional wisdom that Druitt only appears as a Ripper suspect due to being named in the Chief Constable's memo--e.g. it predates Macnaghten's involvement.

Upturned except that is among Whitechapel die-hards here.

4. Mac's "awful glut" litmus test is a con; both versions of the Report--unlike the memoirs--give the deceitful impression that Druitt was a suspect in 1888.

The official version claims that he was not arrested due to a lack of hard evidence. That he was as strong or as weak a suspect as the Polish madman and the Russian doctor.

Except that the "awful glut" test when measured against this trio--any one of whom apparently could have been the killer and against whom there was not even a shadow of proof--the reader has to choose Druitt because he had supposedly vanished immediately after the Kelly atrocity. His is the mind that was most shattered, so he is he is the best bet.

It's a case of pick a card, any card, but the one the reader of the official version ends up with is Druitt.

The unofficial version confirms that Druitt is Mac's favored solution. His memoir revealed that it was information posthumously received "some years after" about this suspect that was decisive, e.g. nothing to do with passing a test.

To C.D

I disagree. Once Mac used cronies to quash the "North Country Vicar" of 1899, who claimed that the Ripper had confessed, he could not go back.

He probably did not want to put the true reason for this man being known to be fiend.

Instead, in his memoirs, Macnaghten borrows the plot device of the novel 'The Lodger', e.g. the killer lived with his family who knew he was the murderer because, although a recluse, he was 'absented' exactly the same nights of the crimes. That's how his own people knew (in fact, a fictionalized version of Macnaghten appears in the novel).

To Rosella

Anderson, Swanson and Abberline knew nothing about Druitt. Because Macnaghten did not tell them. He hated his boss, and did not trust him to be discreet. Macnaghten can be shown to know more about 'Kosminski' than Anderson (and Swanson) and therefore the former probably misled them.

On the other hand, Anderson and Swanson believed the Ripper was a man who was long deceased, who was sexually deviant and who was known by his own people to be guilty.

This is Druitt, refracted by Macnaghten through another, minor suspect. Sure enough, Anderson began bragging about him from 1895.

In his 1903 interview Abberline mentions three aspects about the drowned man: that he was a Ripper suspect in 1888, that he was a young doctor (or medical student) and that he was the subject of a Home Office Report. All three are untrue of Montague Druitt. It has been speculated long before me that Abberline is mistaking the 'drowned doctor' for John Sanders, who was a medical student, was a Ripper suspect in 1888 and was the subject of a Home Office Report--or somebody has misled him to believe the drowned man was Sanders.

[gnote]

Nothing.

From what i've read about Druitt this is appropriately succinct.

[Jonathan H]

You've been hanging with the wrong crowd, Gnote.

[GUT]

From what i've read about Druitt this is appropriately succinct.

Maybe you need to read more! He may or may not have been the ripper, but there is as much [probably more] to support his candidacy as any of the others we seem to have jammed down our throats.

[John Wheat]

Maybe you need to read more! He may or may not have been the ripper, but there is as much [probably more] to support his candidacy as any of the others we seem to have jammed down our throats.

No there isn't, there's no evidence that Druitt was Jack other than he topped himself after Mary Kelly's murder. There are several better suspects for instance WH Bury.

Cheers John

[GUT]

No there isn't, there's no evidence that Druitt was Jack other than he topped himself after Mary Kelly's murder. There are several better suspects for instance WH Bury.

Cheers John

And the evidence again Bury that makes him such a great suspect is?

[Jonathan H]

Druitt killing himself before the McKenzie and Kelly murders 'proved' he was not the Ripper.

What I am getting at is that the timing of his suicide is immaterial.

When Macnaghten was privately brifed about why the family believed, I think they were in possesion of data--via their deceased memer--that could only have been known to the killer.

Hence the police chief ended up a believer too.

That's far from nothing.

[J6123]

What an excellent question Harry, I have been wondering myself.

It would be interesting to know what the private information was though..

[GUT]

Druitt's suicide is already perfectly explained to us. He'd lost his job under a cloud of scandal, his family had a history of depression, and so he took his own life. There's nothing linking Druitt to the Whitechapel murders other than this secret info of Macnaughton's, which no one knows the contents of, therefore it's purely speculative as to its veracity. One would hope it wasn't the same source Macnaughton used for his error-ridden report of his number one suspect.

There's also the Mp and the Vicar.

[TomTomKent]

Like Kosminski I think this is a case where we know something was considered important enough to put him on the MM, but we will never know what. Was there talk of information passed from his family privately? It could be as simple as that. Whom it was who received the private information might even have been enough of an influence to keep his name on the list, though that is wild speculation that does not sound likely even as I type it.

[Jonathan H]

To TTK.

For a moment you speculated that maybe the information came from the family and then nothing less than panic set in, and you speedily retreated before you'd even finished your sentence.

I do understand why.

To GUT

Druitt's suicide is already perfectly explained to us. He'd lost his job under a cloud of scandal, his family had a history of depression, and so he took his own life. There's nothing linking Druitt to the Whitechapel murders other than this secret info of Macnaughton's, which no one knows the contents of, therefore it's purely speculative as to its veracity. One would hope it wasn't the same source Macnaughton used for his error-ridden report of his number one suspect.


That's quite a perfect summary of everything that's wrong with this entrenched paradigm. It just misses out on the cliche of Druitt dying 'at the right time' (he didn't). Otherwise everything single element is false--or at least contestable--but is treated of course as fact.

1. Druitt's suicide is inexplicable to the primary sources of 1889.

2. Nothing in the surviving sources suggests that any scandal was attached to his name in those same 1889 sources.

3. If it was just simply hereditary depression Macnaghten would have happily [posthumously] cleared Montie.

4. Druitt is first linked to the Whitechapel crimes by the MP sources of 1891. from his own people in the region in which he had grown up in.

5. The Vicar of 1899 likely does provide us with the contents of the secret info (and Sims'veiled version claims that culpability came from the doctor's own lips).

6. The report is error-riddled because it was used for public consumption and be definition could not be accurate without exposing the killer's family.

7. Mac's memoirs are not error-ridden about [the un-named] Druitt. The memoir chapter is the de-facto third version of the memo and can arguably be considered his definitive account of laying to rest this ghost.

[barnflatwyngarde]

The credibility of Druitt as a viable suspect surely relies on the "private information" alluded to by McNaughten.

If we accept that this is a credible scenario (and why shouldn't it be?) then we are looking at what form this "information took.

It could have been a combination of depressive symptoms, erratic behaviour, extreme mood swings and even possibly talk of suicide.

But why would these medical symptoms lead his family to believe that this seemingly personable and popular 31 year old Barrister/teacher was responsible for a series of brutal murders?

It is true that McNaughten states in his memorandum that "from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer."

This is clearly not a definitive declaration of Druitt's guilt, but we are still left with the fact that his family harboured very real suspicions about him.

Again, it comes down to why?

In my opinion, if Druitt's family did indeed have reason to connect him with the murders, it must have been the result of either a letter or a comment by him intimating that he was the murderer.

Could it be that simple?

[John Wheat]

And the evidence again Bury that makes him such a great suspect is?

I never said Bury was a great suspect all I pointed out was that there were other better suspects than Druitt giving Bury as an example. However I believe Bury is a better suspect than Druitt as there is no actual evidence that Druitt was the Ripper and because Bury murdered his prostitute wife in a manner similar to the Ripper murders, strangulation and abdominal mutilation.

Cheers John

[Wyatt Earp]

No there isn't, there's no evidence that Druitt was Jack other than he topped himself after Mary Kelly's murder. There are several better suspects for instance WH Bury.

Cheers John

And the evidence again Bury that makes him such a great suspect is?

Signature evidence is at the heart of the case against Bury, and signature evidence is admissible in court. The signature evidence is great evidence against Bury.

If you have a series of unsolved murders that can be linked to a common and evidently extremely rare signature—and yes, Robert Keppel has the credentials and standing within his field to go before a jury and provide expert testimony on this point—and if you then take a man into custody for a murder that can be linked to that signature, then it seems to me there are three possibilities: 1) this man is a copycat killer, 2) the similarity in signature is simply a coincidence…or 3) this is the man who committed those unsolved murders. As I explained in my article in Ripperologist 139, the first two possibilities can be ruled out, but the third one cannot.

“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?” quoth Sherlock Holmes. The fact that Bury burned some of his victim’s clothing in the fireplace after her murder, as was done at the Kelly crime scene, is important corroborating evidence that Bury was indeed the Ripper.

I’m aware that this is a Druitt thread. If you or others here want to contest what I’ve presented with Bury or otherwise continue the conversation about him, let’s take it over to the Bury section, please.

Finally, I would like to add that I’m among the many here who look forward to reading Jonathan’s book.