What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[The Baron]

but Druitt was a respectable Barrister/Schoolteacher with no criminal or violent history.

Macnaghten didn't know any of this, he thought Druitt was a sexually insane doctor.

And instead of investigating the man, he favoured René Descartes method, just thinking about it and not doing the slightest of investigations.


The Baron

[Observer]

Macnaghten didn't know any of this, he thought Druitt was a sexually insane doctor.

And by extension so did his source.

[Vincenzo]

It's rather fascinating that Druitt continues to be relevant even tho there is a complete lack of any compelling circumstantial evidence.

[rjpalmer]

‘"Eminent’ was a poor choice of word. I should have said ‘respected.’"

Well, William Druitt was prominent enough to have an obituary in The Lancet, nearly a column in length. Uncle Robert Druitt, meanwhile, had been an editor for one of the national medical journals, and was the author of a standard textbook on surgery, which was used in the 1870s and 80s at various medical schools, including Harvard University in the U.S. James Druitt was a well-known barrister, and other cousins were clergymen, etc.

I think it is fair to say that MJD was of 'good family,' and the upper brass at the Met would hesitate before dragging their name through the mud, in a way they might not have hesitated with a Jim Sadler or John Pizer. But had they evidence against him and he had not plunged into the Thames, they would, of course, have had no option but to arrest him.

As to "Observer's" criticism, we do, in fact, have examples of criminals being suspected and ultimately revealed by their own family members. It's how Ted Kaczynski, the "Unibomber" was captured. Despite the biggest manhunt in FBI history, the authorities couldn't identify the bomber; it was Kaczynski's sister-in-law that first made the connection. She thought the published "Manifesto" in the Washington Post (or was it The New York Times?) sounded a lot like Ted. She and her husband (Kaczynski's brother) mulled it over for weeks, their suspicions grew, and they finally contacted the police. What if they hadn't? We would never have known about their suspicions unless they had confided in a friend.

The fact is, we will never know with certainty how many families suspected men who were ultimately proven to be guilty of murder, because they would hardly admit to it for fear of public backlash, or, in extreme cases, the risk of being prosecuted as an accessory. We only know of cases where the family DID come forward. We even have an example in the Ripper case: the Crawford Letter, whose author is still unknown. She suspected a relative of being the Ripper. And she DID contact a trusted confidant...who..it just so happens... quickly notified Robert Anderson!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Macnaghten didn't know any of this, he thought Druitt was a sexually insane doctor.

And instead of investigating the man, he favoured René Descartes method, just thinking about it and not doing the slightest of investigations.


The Baron

Macnaghten said that he’d received information regarding Druitt who was 31 and the son of a surgeon (and who’d previously been described in a newspaper I believe as around 40.) Later, when writing about events he mistakenly (or intentionally) added ten years to his age and called him a doctor instead of a barrister (even though, in reality, he was the son of a doctor.) These are hardly glaring errors but they are elevated to the level of glaring mistakes by anyone predisposed to dismiss Druitt. These issues are insignificant. We know that Mac was talking about Montague John Druitt the 31 year old Barrister and not Cuthbert Druitt the 41 year old doctor!

You are rapidly becoming the Ogden Nash of Casebook.org

[Herlock Sholmes]

And by extension so did his source.

Nonsense unless you’re suggesting that Macnaghten wrote his memoranda on the same day that he received his private info?

[Herlock Sholmes]

‘"Eminent’ was a poor choice of word. I should have said ‘respected.’"

Well, William Druitt was prominent enough to have an obituary in The Lancet, nearly a column in length. Uncle Robert Druitt, meanwhile, had been an editor for one of the national medical journals, and was the author of a standard textbook on surgery, which was used in the 1870s and 80s at various medical schools, including Harvard University in the U.S. James Druitt was a well-known barrister, and other cousins were clergymen, etc.

I think it is fair to say that MJD was of 'good family,' and the upper brass at the Met would hesitate before dragging their name through the mud, in a way they might not have hesitated with a Jim Sadler or John Pizer. But had they evidence against him and he had not plunged into the Thames, they would, of course, have had no option but to arrest him.

As to "Observer's" criticism, we do, in fact, have examples of criminals being suspected and ultimately revealed by their own family members. It's how Ted Kaczynski, the "Unibomber" was captured. Despite the biggest manhunt in FBI history, the authorities couldn't identify the bomber; it was Kaczynski's sister-in-law that first made the connection. She thought the published "Manifesto" in the Washington Post (or was it The New York Times?) sounded a lot like Ted. She and her husband (Kaczynski's brother) mulled it over for weeks, their suspicions grew, and they finally contacted the police. What if they hadn't? We would never have known about their suspicions unless they had confided in a friend.

The fact is, we will never know with certainty how many families suspected men who were ultimately proven to be guilty of murder, because they would hardly admit to it for fear of public backlash, or, in extreme cases, the risk of being prosecuted as an accessory. We only know of cases where the family DID come forward. We even have an example in the Ripper case: the Crawford Letter, whose author is still unknown. She suspected a relative of being the Ripper. And she DID contact a trusted confidant...who..it just so happens... quickly notified Robert Anderson!

Thanks Roger. Maybe Eminent wasn’t such a poor choice after all.

Excellent post although being reasonable and unbiased often doesn’t win points here.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's rather fascinating that Druitt continues to be relevant even tho there is a complete lack of any compelling circumstantial evidence.

It’s perhaps even more fascinating why, as he was mentioned as a very likely suspect by Sir Melville Macnaghten and that he’d said that he’d received information that Druitt’s own family believed him to have been guilty, that certain people think that we should assume that Macnaghten was either a liar or a gullible fool. Two things for which there is certainly no evidence at all, whether compelling or not.

[Abby Normal]

‘"Eminent’ was a poor choice of word. I should have said ‘respected.’"

Well, William Druitt was prominent enough to have an obituary in The Lancet, nearly a column in length. Uncle Robert Druitt, meanwhile, had been an editor for one of the national medical journals, and was the author of a standard textbook on surgery, which was used in the 1870s and 80s at various medical schools, including Harvard University in the U.S. James Druitt was a well-known barrister, and other cousins were clergymen, etc.

I think it is fair to say that MJD was of 'good family,' and the upper brass at the Met would hesitate before dragging their name through the mud, in a way they might not have hesitated with a Jim Sadler or John Pizer. But had they evidence against him and he had not plunged into the Thames, they would, of course, have had no option but to arrest him.

As to "Observer's" criticism, we do, in fact, have examples of criminals being suspected and ultimately revealed by their own family members. It's how Ted Kaczynski, the "Unibomber" was captured. Despite the biggest manhunt in FBI history, the authorities couldn't identify the bomber; it was Kaczynski's sister-in-law that first made the connection. She thought the published "Manifesto" in the Washington Post (or was it The New York Times?) sounded a lot like Ted. She and her husband (Kaczynski's brother) mulled it over for weeks, their suspicions grew, and they finally contacted the police. What if they hadn't? We would never have known about their suspicions unless they had confided in a friend.

The fact is, we will never know with certainty how many families suspected men who were ultimately proven to be guilty of murder, because they would hardly admit to it for fear of public backlash, or, in extreme cases, the risk of being prosecuted as an accessory. We only know of cases where the family DID come forward. We even have an example in the Ripper case: the Crawford Letter, whose author is still unknown. She suspected a relative of being the Ripper. And she DID contact a trusted confidant...who..it just so happens... quickly notified Robert Anderson!

hi Rj

Your a wealth of information as well as a good writer and I always enjoy reading your posts. eventhough I don't always agree, I respect your opinion.
Let me ask: Is druitt your favored suspect? anyone else you favor?

[Herlock Sholmes]

There are many interesting little mysteries surrounding Druitt. This from David Anderson’s excellent Blood Harvest.

“ Montague’s Uncle, James Druitt, had, sometime in the late 1800s commenced writing a memoir. The memoir was dictated to his daughter Barbara. For some unknown reason the memoir breaks off in November 1888, between the last murder and Montagues death. It recommences again in 1894, with the words ‘ ..avoiding all mention of the defects which one hopes to conceal from ones neighbours ’

This memoir broke off before Druitt's death. So it wasn’t his suicide that caused James to halt his memoir. Ann had been ill for a while so it wasn’t that. What other major, shameful event occurred at the time? I’d suggest the murder of MJK or Druitt’s sacking from the Blackheath School or both. The reason for the sacking was kept hush hush to the extent that we are still speculating on the reason 130 years later. It could I suppose have been some other scandalous occurrence in the Druitt family that occurred between the deaths of Kelly and Druitt (were the Druitt’s cursed) Who knows? I think it’s interesting. Not conclusive I hasten to add, but interesting

[The Baron]

These issues are insignificant. We know that Mac was talking about Montague John Druitt the 31 year old Barrister and not Cuthbert Druitt the 41 year old doctor!

These issues are very signficant, but your bias prevents you seeing that.

The police were looking for a mad doctor, Macnaghten thought Druitt fit the bill, a sexually insane doctor! thats what we were looking for!

And stop saying he was a son of a surgeon, his father was a doctor, where have you read he was a surgeon?


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

These issues are very signficant, but your bias prevents you seeing that.

The police were looking for a mad doctor, Macnaghten thought Druitt fit the bill, a sexually insane doctor! thats what we were looking for!

And stop saying he was a son of a surgeon, his father was a doctor, where have you read he was a surgeon?


The Baron

His father was William Druitt F.R.C.S ( which stands for Fellow Of The Royal College Of Surgeons.)

Author and researcher JJ Hainsworth says “”Dr Willian Druitt, Snr., had been Wimborne’s leading surgeon, a Justice Of The Peace, a member of the Anglican Church Governing Body And a Governor of the local Grammar School...””

And so Baron, I deduce that he was a .........surgeon.

. And stop saying he was a son of a surgeon, his father was a doctor, where have you read he was a surgeon?

Id accept your apology Baron but you’re wrong so often it would mean nothing.

[The Baron]

https://www.casebook.org/suspects/druitt.html

"Druitt was the second son of a medical practitioner, William Druitt, born August 15, 1857 in Wimborne"

I've asked you before where you read that but you didn't answer.

you said: We know that Mac was talking about Montague John Druitt the 31 year old Barrister

No, that is not true, he was talking about a 41 years old sexually mad doctor, If he knew who he was talking about, he wouldn't have favored him.


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

https://www.casebook.org/suspects/druitt.html

"Druitt was the second son of a medical practitioner, William Druitt, born August 15, 1857 in Wimborne"

I've asked you before where you read that but you didn't answer.

you said: We know that Mac was talking about Montague John Druitt the 31 year old Barrister

No, that is not true, he was talking about a 41 years old sexually mad doctor, If he knew who he was talking about, he wouldn't have favored him.


The Baron

Just for a change Baron try having the decency to be honest and admit your mistake.

You said ““”And stop saying that he was the son of a surgeon, his father was a doctor, where have you read that he was a surgeon.”””

Even in the quote that you’ve linked it say F.R.C.S for Christ’s sake!

FELLOW OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS. UNDERSTAND?.........SURGEONS.

He was a fully qualified SURGEON.

He favoured him because he was told about him. Not some other person that he mistook Druitt for!

Are you suggesting that there was some 41 year old mad Doctor who just happened to be called Druitt and Macnaghten confused the two. If you do then you’re the only person.

[Wickerman]

Hello Simon.

Hi Jon,

I would have expected no less a defense of a train ticket and ink on a cheque being able to withstand the ebbing and flowing of the River Thames for a calendar month.

How about 75 years, on the sea bed?

A passenger who survived the Titanic lost his wallet. It turned up in 1987 complete with his calling card, streetcar tickets and travellers cheques.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Godfrey_Peuchen