What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[JeffHamm]

....
Yes, who buy's a return ticket if they intend to kill themselves before they use it?
In my view, on Dec. 1st, when he bought the ticket he had no intention of suicide - so what changed?
And, of course there's the question, why carry valuables on him when he still had a room somewhere, where he left the note?
I don't normally theorize about Montie being murdered, but I always keep it at the back of my mind as a possibility.

I've wondered about the return ticket as well, and it occurred to me that if Druitt was suffering from depression, he may have contemplated suicide a few times, each time aborting the attempt and returning home from where ever he went. His return ticket may just have been part of that, he buys it as he goes to contemplate suicide, but may not follow through, in which case he would need the return portion. The alternative is that buying returns was such a habit, he just bought one as his mind was on other things than travel details.

I've read on this thread information that he had told people he was going abroad, which sounds like he was laying ground work to explain his eventual disappearance. That would suggest he didn't want it generally known that he killed himself. That could explain why he didn't commit suicide in the Thames in London. His state of mind, however, is such he's not really thinking things through as he doesn't get rid of identifying papers, just grabs his wallet, containing the cheques, etc, and does other normal, everyday routine things in terms of getting dressed despite venturing out to, perhaps yet again, stand on the edge of the abyss. This time, he doesn't step back. And because he may have done this before, his attempts to conceal are only half considered, as one might expect if he's not even sure when he heads out if he's going to go through with it.

We only have a precis of his note, which sounds like the idea only just occurred to him, but again, this may reflect his thinking at the time, and he's not going into a long description of "oh, I thought and tried this on Wed, and then again two Mondays prior, etc" (if, of course, he had made previous attempts - which I'm only speculating on here).

Anyway, I think it might be worth viewing Druitt's suicide and actions from the point of view of someone who has possibly made attempts in the past, from which he's always returned, and who is to some extent also trying to avoid it being publicly known that he killed himself, although the latter isn't a major determinant in his actions, it sort of colours aspects of it.

I'm not suggesting this should be done at the expense of all other lines of reasoning, only that it might be useful to consider it as well.

- Jeff

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Phil, a couple of comments;

Firstly, if Druitt wanted to drown himself there was a third option - right by the Thornycroft wharf where he was found there is a ferry crossing, and so that this can operate at low tide there is a causeway over the mudflats. So he could have walked along this with relative ease to the deep central channel and simply stepped off the end.

Secondly, Druitt's body was said to have been found when "the tide was at half-flood, running up", which is consistent (or at least not inconsistent) with him having jumped off (or having been thrown off) Hammersmith Bridge and (when his body finally reached positive bouyancy) being washed upstream by the incoming tide to where it was found.

[rjpalmer]

Here's 30 second video of a man dangling from Hammersmith Bridge, which is supposedly the lowest bridge over the Thames. When the river is full, it is not like it is a tremendous drop, so there would be no tell-tale broken bones, bruising, etc. At night, who would notice where he went in at?

https://www.newsflare.com/video/92297/crime-accidents/man-hanging-from-hammersmith-bridge

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Jon and Herlock,

Thank you for your replies. Appreciated.

I have to go back to the suicide point, and the jumping off a bridge, please excuse me.

I certainly have no exception to looking at Druitt’s death again Phil. Murder isn’t impossible.

OK. The Coroner said it was suicide. Let's take that as is, for now. Suicide by drowning.

There are only 3 ways Druitt can have committed suicide by drowning himself.
1) He loaded the stones from the bank, walked back up to the bridge, and jumped off. (Getting hold of heavy stones is most logical from down by the river)
2) He loaded the stones from the riverbank, and waded into the water, drowning when no longer in standing depth.
3) He loads up the stones from the riverbank, gets into a rowing boat, rows out into the middle of the river, and jumps in from the boat.

Agreed

Right. First of all, sadly, we must conclude Druitt cannot swim. Or at best, a poor swimmer. We do not know.
He is, however, a fairly fit athlete. This we do know, re fairly regular games of cricket.

Would even a competent swimmer have been able to swim whilst weighted down with stones? I don’t know?

Next, we must take into consideration the water current. And for that matter, undercurrents. A poor swimmer will always struggle in the currents of the Thames, however, we do not know the depth of the water into which he entered. This is important, for we know not if it was high nor low tide. As shown previously, it ranges from deep 10ft or more, to 18 inches. That's important considering HOW he killed himself.

Agreed

We are also totally unaware of the weather on the day/evening/night of his death. Likely towards freezing. So the water is cold, and will kill a person in a short time even if they stayed afloat in the water. Floating however, is unlikely due to the extra weight in his pockets.

I have to say that, if floating is unlikely, why must we assume that Druitt couldn’t swim?

In addition, we do not know if he was sober at the time of his suicide attempt. However, he must have been relatively aware of what he was doing, in order to go and get the stones and return to the bridge.

Agreed


Conclusions.

It is highly unlikely Druitt waded into the water himself to commit suicide. This would take more time than jumping in, and from a practical standpoint, far more difficult to do. It may also attract attention because if how long it would actually take to get to a suitable depth. Suicide by this method is highly unlikely.

I have to disagree on this point Phil. It might have been difficult to do but it was exactly how Virginia Woolf committed suicide. It might have attracted attention but it might not have. We have no way of knowing when he did this or of how many people were around at the time.

It is also highly unlikely he used a rowing boat to get to the middle of the river. He would have to steal the boat, unnoticed. He would also need to be able to row, and know how to row with or against the steam or currents. Additionally, no empty boat was reported found washed up anywhere. An empty boat floating along on the river is noticeable, even at night.

I don’t entirely disagree on this one Phil. If he’d decided to commit suicide he’d have been lucky to have just found a boat. I’d say that this is a neutral point for me

So we are left with the scenario of him jumping from the bridge. Nobody reported having seen him picking up heavy stones from the bank. Nobody saw a person standing for any length of time, seconds or minutes, on the bridge. Nobody saw him climb onto the bridge wall, and nobody saw him jump.
Nobody heard a noise eminating from a person entering the water from that height, and nobody heard a splash. Nobody saw any person enter the water at all.
However, when considering suicide, this seems to be the logical choice when attempting to drown himself.

I don’t see why he’d have had to have been standing on the bridge for any length of time. He might have just arrived at the spot on the bridge and immediately went over. Again the fact that no one saw him collecting stones or heard the splash might have either been down to good timing(luck) or the fact that he did this at a quiet time when there were few people around.

So of the three methods I’d go 1) Wading in. 2) Bridge. 3) Boat. But I’m certainly no expert Phil and it’s purely my opinion.

Next. The murder scenario.

Two conceivable ways to drown a person.

1) load the man's pockets with heavy stones and push him off the bridge.

Surely there would have been an even greater chance of being seen and heard here? 1) it’s difficult to see how one man alone could have achieved this. 2) How could they have prevented him from shouting out?

2) Fill his pockets with heavy stones, and row Druitt out to the middle of the river in a boat, and tip him into the water quietly. Likely this would take 2 men.
It would also mean that Druitt was either drugged or unconscious.

Agreed

Scenario 1 is impracticle in the least, due to time and attention caused. It can quickly be dismissed for obvious reasons.

Agreed.

Scenario 2 is more likely. There are positives vis a vis suicide, but also negatives. However, it could be done with very little noise.

Agreed

One of the big things against, us the fact he was still carrying a large amount of money. (not least). Also the fact that he had with him a so called suicide note upon him.
Conversely, the return train ticket goes the against suicide theory, as well as the fact that the murderers may not have gone through his pockets ar all to empty them, just fill them up with large stones.

William had found the suicide note among Monty’s things at the school. But yes the return ticket implies either that he didn’t commit suicide or that he didn’t set out with the intention of suicide. Might not the murderers have wanted to remove the cheques to make the identification of the corpse more difficult?

In the aftermath, all sort of problems occur due to the high and low tides.. And as to why it took a month for the dead body to be found, as it would have become bloated quite quickly, then we have his brother committing perjury in his comments. Which makes a suspicious situation. Amongst much else.

I don’t know why it took so long for the body to surface. William committing perjury is certainly interesting. Could he have simply been trying to avoid his family being pestered by the press in any way (if the Bournemouth press had learned of the story and gone to question them.) Jon Hainsworth wonders if the person recording what was said at the inquest might have misheard William?

This death could easily have been made to look like suicide. If so, it certainly convinced the Coroner.

It’s certainly not impossible Phil.

And yes Herlock, I'm being neutral. I'm not going to overlook possibilities just incase it harms Druitt's candidacy fir being a Murderer in some way.

I’m certainly not doing that Phil. I agree that Monty’s death was curious to say the least but I don’t see how Monty being murdered in any way lessens the possibility of him being guilty.

Druitt himself has already done that... Why?

Because at no time, on any occasion, was he known to have been violent in any way, to males nor females.
After all, that one thin string us what Kosminski its pull when referring to one verbal threat of anger against his sister. Druitt has no such string attached to his name. What's good for the goose... Etc etc.

How many of us have made verbal threats in anger Phil. To say that Kosminski has the edge over Druitt simply because we have a provable verbal threat is really a non-starter. The fact that we have no evidence of Druitt being violent in no way weakens the case against him. What if he was sacked from the Blackheath School because of a violent incident? I feel that another point has to be made and it’s one that I’ve made before so I apologise for the repetition.

Mac was compiling a list of ‘suspects’ that were more likely than Cutbush to have been the ripper, which at any time could have come under scrutiny. Ostrog was a criminal (though not really a violent one though he had threatened someone with a gun.) Kosminski was insane. Now, if we were looking at the memo for the first time, I’d have expected the third name to have been another criminal or madman of some kind. But no, we get a respectable Barrister/Schoolteacher from a very respectable, well-to-do family who had absolutely no record of violence or criminality. On the list of three Druitt sticks out like a sore thumb. Macnaghten, with all the resources that he had at his disposal could have picked any slightly violent criminal that died after the murders or some hopelessly insane lunatic and his purpose would have been served. But no, he names Druitt....out of all of the potential ‘suspects’ he could have used. Why, if he didn’t feel that he had very good reason to do so? Why, at a time when honour and reputation meant more to some than life itself did he pick someone that was a relation by marriage to a very close friend of his; risking the shame and dishonour? Macnaghten had any number of easy options with no comebacks or adverse effects. Why choose a suspect that, if he was looked into and discovered that he was absolutely unconnected to these crimes (say if he was in Bournemouth on the night of one of the murders) Macnaghten’s reputation would have been in tatters. And Macnaghten was a man that, in his book, couldn’t mention the truth about Warren vetoing his appointment, because of the possible effect on his reputation.

By far the likeliest is that Macnaghten genuinely felt that he had very good reason for naming Druitt.





Phil

I’m certainly not dismissing the suggestion that Monty could have been murdered. It’s not impossible. But if he was we would have to then ask why would anyone murder this apparently inoffensive and respectable Barrister/Schoolteacher? It would have to have been for a very serious reason. A deteriorating mental state doesn’t really cut it. The family would have had him committed. Probably into the care of the Tukes at Chiswick. So what could have been that serious that caused someone (or group) to murder Monty and then have his brother collude in covering it up. As I said earlier, if Monty was murdered then the suggestion that he might have been the ripper becomes even more likely imo.

[Wickerman]

Right. First of all, sadly, we must conclude Druitt cannot swim. Or at best, a poor swimmer. We do not know.

Hi Phil.

We do know Virginia Woolf could swim when she filled her pockets with stones and drowned herself, for whatever that's worth.

Conclusions.

It is highly unlikely Druitt waded into the water himself to commit suicide.

I think Woolf did.

So we are left with the scenario of him jumping from the bridge.......when considering suicide, this seems to be the logical choice when attempting to drown himself.

By far the most popular method for people jumping in the Thames to kill themselves, and Waterloo Bridge was the most popular place to do it (not a consideration in this case).

2) Fill his pockets with heavy stones, and row Druitt out to the middle of the river in a boat, and tip him into the water quietly. Likely this would take 2 men.
It would also mean that Druitt was either drugged or unconscious.

Agreed.

One of the big things against, us the fact he was still carrying a large amount of money. (not least). Also the fact that he had with him a so called suicide note upon him.
Conversely, the return train ticket goes the against suicide theory, as well as the fact that the murderers may not have gone through his pockets ar all to empty them, just fill them up with large stones.

Yes, I think robbery was the last thing on their minds, if he was murdered, it was by people who knew him.

In the aftermath, all sort of problems occur due to the high and low tides.. And as to why it took a month for the dead body to be found, as it would have become bloated quite quickly,....

Precisely, which may be why it surfaced when & where it did, a buildup of gasses due to putrefaction.

This death could easily have been made to look like suicide. If so, it certainly convinced the Coroner.

Yes, and if the suicide note was a prop, then it might help to avoid a police investigation & an autopsy.

Because at no time, on any occasion, was he known to have been violent in any way, to males nor females.

Except that we don't know the reason for his dismissal from Blackheath school, and there were 6 or 7 females working there; maids, servants, a cook, etc.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Firstly, if Druitt wanted to drown himself there was a third option - right by the Thornycroft wharf where he was found there is a ferry crossing, and so that this can operate at low tide there is a causeway over the mudflats. So he could have walked along this with relative ease to the deep central channel and simply stepped off the end.

Cheers Joshua, certainly another option.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, and if the suicide note was a prop, then it might help to avoid a police investigation & an autopsy.

Agreed Wick.

Its strange that there’s a gap between when the note was written and Monty’s actual death.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Except that we don't know the reason for his dismissal from Blackheath school, and there were 6 or 7 females working there; maids, servants, a cook, etc.

Id forgotten this point. He could have been sacked for an incident of violence or perhaps some kind of inappropriate behaviour with one of the female staff. This is as likely as any other conjecture as to why he was sacked. How would the view of Druitt change if it was discovered that he’d sexually assaulted one of the female staff? If there’s one thing that we know about the reason for his sacking it’s that it was serious (as opposed to incompetence or poor attendance or simply distracted behaviour due to mental decline.)

[Wickerman]

I've wondered about the return ticket as well, and it occurred to me that if Druitt was suffering from depression, he may have contemplated suicide a few times, each time aborting the attempt and returning home from where ever he went.

Exactly Jeff, which means that if the suicide note was genuine, we can't rule out the "Since Friday" referring to Millers Court.

I've read on this thread information that he had told people he was going abroad, which sounds like he was laying ground work to explain his eventual disappearance. That would suggest he didn't want it generally known that he killed himself.

Valentine was aware of the story, so one question might be, 'who told him Druitt was going abroad'?, and the next question might be, 'why would Druitt keep his possessions at Blackheath if he was going abroad'? Especially as he had just been dismissed.

Therefore, what place "where he resided" was William talking about when he said he had Montie's property searched?
It probably was not at Blackheath.

[Joshua Rogan]

Regarding the date that William went to the school and found Monty had got into serious trouble....
The ambiguous statement that it "was on the 30th December" has often been taken to mean the date he got into trouble, and suggested as a mistake, and should have been 30th November. But if I recall, wasn't the date of the cricket club noting that he had "gone abroad" also the 30th Dec? This is well outside the cricket season and the club was unlikely to have had a meeting scheduled, so isn't it likely that this is indeed the date that William found the note, and he then let the club know that he wouldn't be coming back?
Or am I talking nonsense?

[Phil Carter]

Id forgotten this point. He could have been sacked for an incident of violence or perhaps some kind of inappropriate behaviour with one of the female staff. This is as likely as any other conjecture as to why he was sacked. How would the view of Druitt change if it was discovered that he’d sexually assaulted one of the female staff? If there’s one thing that we know about the reason for his sacking it’s that it was serious (as opposed to incompetence or poor attendance or simply distracted behaviour due to mental decline.)

Hello Herlock and Jon,

I thank you for your comments. Appreciated.

You may or may not recall that at the start of December, PAV was visiting Wimborne, on a shooting weekend?

Mrs Druitt, his mother, and MJ Druitt himself, were ALSO both on the invitation list.

It begs a rather obvious question.

If Druitt didn't turn up to the shooting weekend invitation, and nothing was heard by the host, nor his mother, nor any family member for that matter, surely Someone would have raised an eyebrow to try and find out where he was?

If that isn't enough, not only did he not turn up for Christmas, a typical family gathering time, but gave no message to the family either, who may/possibly been expecting him back home?

But again, nobody raised an eyebrow. Nobody said to the Coroner that they'd tried to get into contact with him for 4 weeks.. Nobody.

Now THAT IS odd. It isn't normal family behaviour.
And again puts a stronger light onto William Druitt's perjury.

When I realised the two things above, I realised that William Druitt's actions, and the family non action, has signigicant meaning.

Because MM was contacted by the family years later saying they/he/she suspected MJD to be the Whitechapel Murderer. The family. The same family that didn't bother to go searching for him, nor even pick up a telephone and call London, where no doubt someone in and around his legal practice would have kept them updated by his absence.

I will add a little ending for which I cannot recall the source, my apologies.

When contacted, I think by Daniel Farson, though may be in err there, the direct family decendent had no idea that Montague John Druitt was suspected as the Whitechapel Murderer.

I have to say.. Something like that would almost certainly have been passed down the line through the years WITHIN the family, even if kept under 4/6/8 eyes. That it hadn't been heard of before, tells me that this sensational titbit was unknown, and that if told to MM, by a family member in 1894 ish, it could well have been a completely made up story... To explain something else.

Given the obvious dislike at least one member had towards MJD, (his brother), I find that a plausible excuse/explanation towards MM for Druitt having been a little more than an embarrassment to the family. Especially if MM knew the family and asked about MJD on a totally innocent point of off duty enquiry.

Points to ponder?


Re Virginia Woolf.. One well known person walking into water and drowning herself is a very weak example for comparison. I'd estimate that 99% of all drowning suicides in the Thames would come from jumping from a bridge.

Oh, and re wading in. I've fished there. In low to middle tide it can be very muddy indeed. To walk into the river would take waders. I know.. I've done it when fishing.


Phil

[Wickerman]

Regarding the date that William went to the school and found Monty had got into serious trouble....
The ambiguous statement that it "was on the 30th December" has often been taken to mean the date he got into trouble, and suggested as a mistake, and should have been 30th November. But if I recall, wasn't the date of the cricket club noting that he had "gone abroad" also the 30th Dec? This is well outside the cricket season and the club was unlikely to have had a meeting scheduled, so isn't it likely that this is indeed the date that William found the note, and he then let the club know that he wouldn't be coming back?
Or am I talking nonsense?

Hi Joshua.

We read that William learned about Montie being missing on Dec. 11th, so if he went to Blackheath and found the note on Dec. 30th, how do you explain William taking nearly three weeks to locate the note at Blackheath?

[Wickerman]

You may or may not recall that at the start of December, PAV was visiting Wimborne, on a shooting weekend?

Mrs Druitt, his mother, and MJ Druitt himself, were ALSO both on the invitation list.

It begs a rather obvious question.

If Druitt didn't turn up to the shooting weekend invitation, and nothing was heard by the host, nor his mother, nor any family member for that matter, surely Someone would have raised an eyebrow to try and find out where he was?

If that isn't enough, not only did he not turn up for Christmas, a typical family gathering time, but gave no message to the family either, who may/possibly been expecting him back home?

Hi Phil.

Not sure what you mean about Montie's mother, she was incarcerated in an Asylum in Clapton at that time.
However, I do agree about Montie not turning up or at least communicating with his siblings over Christmas is another reason the suicide note cannot have remained undiscovered until 30th Dec.

I'm not sure about the rest of your post, although Mac. said he received information he doesn't say it came directly from the family.

[GUT]

Regarding the date that William went to the school and found Monty had got into serious trouble....
The ambiguous statement that it "was on the 30th December" has often been taken to mean the date he got into trouble, and suggested as a mistake, and should have been 30th November. But if I recall, wasn't the date of the cricket club noting that he had "gone abroad" also the 30th Dec? This is well outside the cricket season and the club was unlikely to have had a meeting scheduled, so isn't it likely that this is indeed the date that William found the note, and he then let the club know that he wouldn't be coming back?
Or am I talking nonsense?

The cricket club, unless I remember wrongly, also had Hockey teams, so I guess the committee would meet all year round.

come to think of it, I’ve been on football club committees and they’ve always had meetings during the off season, perhaps less frequently, but there was still decisions to be made

[harry]

If my posts are read correctly,Herlock,It will be seen that I am supporting MM,who I contend never labelled any one a suspect,least of all Druitt.
What MM did was refer to an article that named Cutbush a suspect MM states quite clearly that there was no proof against anyone.He also makes it clear that he was writing of a theoretical situation in which at least three persons would be of more interest than Cutbush,and because of information given to him(MM),Druitt was the most interesting of the three. He further writes his(MM) comments as being of opinion and conjecture.So how is bias being shown against MM.Furthermore there is nothing in the memoirs which would indicate that the information of madness and complicity in the Whitechapel murders was investigated and believed. So where is the basis for Druitt being classed a suspect? Show me one proven piece of incriminating evidence against him.