What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Darryl Kenyon]

I don’t really understand this perception Darryl as I appear to be the only person on this thread that considers Druitt the likeliest suspect that we have.

Sorry Herlock, didn't want to mention you by name.
Regards Darryl

[rjpalmer]

Is Littlechild answering a question put to him by Sims about the subject? Or is Sims explaining to Littlechild that Druitt was a sexual sadist who liked inflicting pain and the ripper probably did as well, in a previous correspondence?

Hi Darryl. A key question and a subtle line of inquiry. Years ago, Andrew Spallek theorized along similar lines, and it raises a number of valid questions. Whatever Sims had said to Littlechild about "Dr. D," it seems to have triggered this discussion about sadism. Littlechild then goes on to discuss the Thaw case, and Thaw's flogging of a young boy. There is no direct evidence for it, of course, but it could be that Druitt was 'into' some sort of flogging, either on the receiving or administering end. One would assume the 'administering end' (no pun) because the former would have left marks on his flesh, and these would have been noticed when the body was examined in Chiswick, and would have led to the suicide being listed as a 'suspicious death.' Evidently MJD's own body was unblemished, as it were.

That said, it is difficult to believe that these theoretical events could have been directly connected to the Blackheath school. At least to me it is. Possibly, but once again it would raise the old conundrum. If this took place at the school, and Sims is alluding to it, then presumably he (and Macnaghten) would have been fully aware that Druitt was a school-master. So why do both men refer to him as a 'young doctor'?

These are the mysteries that propel some of us forward, and make us interested in MJ Druitt. Some seem exasperated at any mention of MJD, but to each his own.

[rjpalmer]

Here is something I notice awhile back. It might be worth pointing out that flogging, caning, corporal punishment, etc. in board schools became a national issue in 1888 when Mr. Paget, the Hammersmith Police Magistrate, fined a school-master for caning the living heck out of a young student. Somethings never change. This led to a flurry of letters to the editor, in newspapers across Britain, either supporting Paget's decision or denouncing it, with many being of the 'spare the rod, spoil the child' variety. There was even talk of the Home Office paying the school master's fine, in protest of Paget's decision. The case was eventually overturned in July, 1888, when it was decided that Tate (the school-master) did "absolutely nothing wrong." I suppose it would depend on Mr. Valentine's view of such matters, whether whipping the heck out a young student would be a "serious" matter or not. The courts and the Home Office seems to have been okay with it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry Herlock, didn't want to mention you by name.
Regards Darryl

No problem Darryl. I’ve no issue with saying that I feel that Druitt is the likeliest of the named suspects. It’s just my own opinion.

[John G]

To be honest, prior to this thread Druitt wouldn't even have been on my list of suspects. Now I see him as a realistic suspect, although I still have problems with the geographical profile!

[Herlock Sholmes]

As John pointed out in Days of my years Mac described sexual mania as "gaining erotic pleasure from either witnessing or causing acts of ultra violence and/or death."
With that in mind looking at the Littlechild Letter it seems to me he is replying to Sims about Druitt. " I never heard of a Dr D". He then goes on to mention that Tumblety wasn't a sadist and then goes on to mention - "It is very strange how those given to 'Contrary sexual instinct' and 'degenerates' are given to cruelty, even Wilde used to like to be punched about. It may interest you if I give you an example of this cruelty in the case of the man Harry Thaw" explaining the case, Why?
Mac says that Druitt was said to be sexually insane. Is Littlechild answering a question put to him by Sims about the subject? Or is Sims explaining to Littlechild that Druitt was a sexual sadist who liked inflicting pain and the ripper probably did as well, in a previous correspondence?
With the fact that Littlechild says Contrary sexual instinct and then mentions Oscar Wilde, could Sims have explained to Littlechild, again in a previous letter that Druitt was gay and liked to inflict pain on boys. Hence the trouble at school? And the replies? Just a few thoughts
Regards Darryl

An interesting point Darryl. I can’t really add anything to Roger’s reply though. I have to echo a point that Roger made a few days ago in that anyone interested in the case would have to be ‘incurious’ beyond the bounds of normality not to find Druitt an intriguing suspect. Why would anyone seek to simply dismiss the MM and Druitt. I find it bizarre to be honest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To be honest, prior to this thread Druitt wouldn't even have been on my list of suspects. Now I see him as a realistic suspect, although I still have problems with the geographical profile!

It the very least he’s an intriguing suspect though John? Now, if I could convince that Wallace was guilty that would be an achievement.

[Wickerman]

Because if there was very good evidence linking Druitt to the murders [as I disagreed with in my last post], experienced officers like Anderson and Swanson would not have disagreed with Mac and seen the worth of said evidence.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'good evidence'. I think we've been over this several times, the evidence was more circumstantial, Mac. said himself that there was no proof.

I am not saying Druitt is not a suspect and I believe Mac's sincerity but I personally believe it is more of what he perceived the killer to be. Why else mention "Said to be a Doctor" for instance, without being sure?

Well, I don't think that issue is resolved yet.
But if I had to speculate I'd say because obviously, Mac. did not know Druitt personally.
If you recall, the Farquharson letter from Feb. 1891 claimed the killer was 'the son of a surgeon'. Sim's then wrote in Mar. 1891, that the Home Office Archives contained the identity of the Ripper, and he was a mad physician.
So these details were already in the public domain before Mac. wrote his report, in 1894.

And in the Aberconway version of the memorandum Mac says - I have always held strong opinions over Druitt [1] and the more he thinks it over, the stronger the opinions become, and finally if his conjections are correct. Conjecture -an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

Yes, and Mac's report was dated Feb. 1894, so "always" just may refer back to 1891 when the Farquharson letter surfaced, though the killer at that point was not named, but that letter may have instigated an investigation which came up with the name Druitt.

[harry]

While there may be only two of us,Herlock.posting in support of using police practices,there may be numerous readers who accept this as a sensible view to take,accepting that it was only police that were empowered to investigate murder.Again, while it may be true others support your way,it is only two of you that appear to insist it be used.I do not insist on my way,I simply believe it is the best.
It wouldn't affect the boards at all if the word suspect was dropped.There is an alternate expression,and it is widely used today,and because the police investgating the ripper crimes,state there were no suspects,much preferable in my opinion.By the way,against who,out of all the persons named,do you claim the word suspect should be used? You claim Mac used it against Druitt.Show where this is stated,and on what grounds.
You know that the crimes are historical.What a great revelation.I know that the crimes are historical,so what?,but I asked what made them historical to you.
You state you were not aware of the remarks used against me.Either that is true,or it's an indication you do not read the posts carefully.So why should I believe anything you post?
I am not indiginant against personnel remarks.I welcome them.It gives me an opportunity to reply in kind.I took the remarks as faction based,so to me anyone opposed to my posts were fair game.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Does it not seem strange that Druitt was probably dismissed on the last day of term - 30 Nov, Friday?
If he had got into serious trouble why let him see out that term and not dismiss him on the spot? Unless the serious trouble didn't manifest itself until that particular day.
If he had been sexually/sadistically abusing one or more boys they might have been scared to say something with Druitt being an assistant master. So they may have waited until the end of term to tell a parent when they felt safe who then confronted the headmaster. He would have been paid off and sacked if he didn't give a satisfactory explanation, or showed signs of guilt.
This is all conjecture on my part but I do find it interesting that he was in court the Tues/Wed before successfully in his role as a barrier, showing, I guess no signs of anything untoward.
To me it seems very likely that his suicide is connected to what happened at school.
One question I ask myself is why have a position at said school in the first place? He was making a decent living as a barrister [taking up much of his time I assume], plus his family were not poor. Speculation of course, it could be because he loved sport and liked to teach the boys his skills, or there could be a darker reason in the fact it gave him access to his vices.
Regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

While there may be only two of us,Herlock.posting in support of using police practices,there may be numerous readers who accept this as a sensible view to take,accepting that it was only police that were empowered to investigate murder.Again, while it may be true others support your way,it is only two of you that appear to insist it be used.I do not insist on my way,I simply believe it is the best.
It wouldn't affect the boards at all if the word suspect was dropped.There is an alternate expression,and it is widely used today,and because the police investgating the ripper crimes,state there were no suspects,much preferable in my opinion.By the way,against who,out of all the persons named,do you claim the word suspect should be used? You claim Mac used it against Druitt.Show where this is stated,and on what grounds.
You know that the crimes are historical.What a great revelation.I know that the crimes are historical,so what?,but I asked what made them historical to you.
You state you were not aware of the remarks used against me.Either that is true,or it's an indication you do not read the posts carefully.So why should I believe anything you post?
I am not indiginant against personnel remarks.I welcome them.It gives me an opportunity to reply in kind.I took the remarks as faction based,so to me anyone opposed to my posts were fair game.

Exchanging suspect for person of interest is utterly meaningless and worthless Harry. There can be no other possible reason for yours and Trevor’s point of view other that some kind of suspicion that it might reduce interest in Druitt. A kind of demotion. Call him what you want to Harry. It bothers me not one jot but I, and others, will not be told what term I should or should use. By anyone.

By the way,against who,out of all the persons named,do you claim the word suspect should be used?

All of them. Every single person that has been suspected at any time by whoever. Simple.

but I asked what made them historical to you.

That they occurred 130 years ago and are not an ongoing police investigation.

You state you were not aware of the remarks used against me.Either that is true,or it's an indication you do not read the posts carefully.So why should I believe anything you post?

Do you recall every single sentence of every single thread that you post on Harry. You don’t have to believe or agree with anything I say but I’ll say this with absolute confidence. I have never once made a dishonest post on this Forum. I have made mistakes and have admitted them when they’ve been pointed out. A while ago on this very thread I confused posts made by two posters. It was pointed out to me, I checked, they were right I was wrong. I admitted it and apologised to the person involved.

The reason that discussion on here has become heated Harry is because of attitudes and unfounded over-confidence. We have posters seeking to dismiss Macnaghten as a liar or an idiot. We’ve had posters trying to say that Druitt shouldn’t be called a suspect despite the dictionary definition and despite the points made by honest posters that don’t even rate Druitt as a good suspect. Yet they still say that he should be called a suspect. We’ve had a poster trying to say that Druitt was gay (despite complete lack of evidence) purely to dismiss Druitt - is that honest? We’ve had a poster claiming that we know that Mackenzie was a victim of Jack therefore we can eliminate Druitt - is that honest?

What the hell is wrong with an open-minded, reasoned approach Harry. You may have a low opinion of me but do you honestly believe that researchers like Paul Begg, Wickerman, Roger Palmer, Gareth Williams to name but four are all so twisted with bias that they’ll go to any lengths to keep Druitt in the game? Come on Harry, be fair. I really don’t understand this crusade Harry. Compare the reasoned posts of the four that I’ve mentioned to Trevor’s bias view in favour of his own suspect and The Baron’s journey into lunacy.

Its time this was put to bed.

[Abby Normal]

Does it not seem strange that Druitt was probably dismissed on the last day of term - 30 Nov, Friday?
If he had got into serious trouble why let him see out that term and not dismiss him on the spot? Unless the serious trouble didn't manifest itself until that particular day.
If he had been sexually/sadistically abusing one or more boys they might have been scared to say something with Druitt being an assistant master. So they may have waited until the end of term to tell a parent when they felt safe who then confronted the headmaster. He would have been paid off and sacked if he didn't give a satisfactory explanation, or showed signs of guilt.
This is all conjecture on my part but I do find it interesting that he was in court the Tues/Wed before successfully in his role as a barrier, showing, I guess no signs of anything untoward.
To me it seems very likely that his suicide is connected to what happened at school.
One question I ask myself is why have a position at said school in the first place? He was making a decent living as a barrister [taking up much of his time I assume], plus his family were not poor. Speculation of course, it could be because he loved sport and liked to teach the boys his skills, or there could be a darker reason in the fact it gave him access to his vices.
Regards Darryl

hi DK
good points. I agree-his suicide had partially to do with what happened at school, but mainly with his mental illness-"I would be like mom". perhaps the sacking was due to something darker.

I wonder if his description as a sexual maniac might have to do with pedophilia.

[Wickerman]

hi DK
good points. I agree-his suicide had partially to do with what happened at school, but mainly with his mental illness-"I would be like mom". perhaps the sacking was due to something darker.

I wonder if his description as a sexual maniac might have to do with pedophilia.

Hey Abby.

Do you think Druitt's claim to "not want to be like mother" referred to her mental condition, or that he didn't want to be incarcerated for life, "like mother"?

[Abby Normal]

Hey Abby.

Do you think Druitt's claim to "not want to be like mother" referred to her mental condition, or that he didn't want to be incarcerated for life, "like mother"?

perhaps both, but probably the former

[harry]

Herlock,
If you want to put it to bed(Where have I heard that expression before)do not address your posts to me.Don't use my name in your headings and quotes,then I will not be obliged to reply.
Attitudes and over confidence would apply to you as well as any other poster on this thread Herlock.It is remarks like that, that inflame. Who are you refering to?
So every person that has been mentioned as being a suspect should be accepted as one.Every single one of them.Is that a sensible assessment.I doubt you will have a single poster back you on that,even the persons you name.I know some of them wont,as even they have rubbished persons that have,over time, been named.
No I do not remember everything I post,but I refer back if need be.
I'll repeat,I haven't told you anything as to what term you should use.I have repeatedly given my reasons why I use the terms I do. Those terms have a source,but I am not the source.They are legitimit.Funny that you should use present day sources though,text and dictionary,then say I shouldn't use my present day law enforcement terminology.
As for a poster referring to Druitt as gay,I think that is mild compared with Homicidal Maniac and sexual maniac.Where was the evidence for that. Was that fair on the part of MM.You appear a little bit onesided Herlock.
A hundred and thirty years ago.Is that ancient history,another era? The ripper could still have been alive in my lifetime.Aberline was alive when I was born.Walter Dew had not yet written his memoirs when I was abroad as a serving soldier.MM's daughters didn't die until I was nearing middle age.I write and think different to them?I don't think so Herlock.