Druitt's room

[Jonathan H]

I think probably not re: the Tuke asylum.

I subscribe to the theory that Montague Druitt knew he was headed for the madhouse because of the murders he had committed in Whitechapel, and he did not want that to be his fate.

Instead of 'going to be like mother' he decided to take his own life but did it at a place completely remote from his life--except that it was near where an Oxford rowing race was held.

Contemporaneous confirmation of this interpretation can arguably be found in Guy Logan's "The True History of Jack the Ripper" from 1905, republished in 2013.

[Steve S]

Sounds fine, but why not tell Valentine or the Cricket club or His Chambers.

I'm being hypothetical here...But IF he was in disgrace..Wanted a 'refuge'...Why would he tell them?

[Jonathan H]

Anything is possible, but I do not think Montague Druitt was seeking a refuge. Rather he was seeking to discreetly even secretly kill himself outside the city limits, in terms of the press, and to hide his own body forever. He succeeded with the first objective and failed with the second (suggesting the "notes", or at least what he claimed about their contents to the inquest, was made up by the brother).

If M. J. Druitt died in disgrace it was certainly unknown to the press and public of Jan 1889.

I think that had Druitt been sacked to his face for "serious trouble" he would have been offered a face-saving resignation.

Instead he was likely sacked in absentia, just as with the club, because he had likely left word he was going overseas. As a 1905 source, with a direct line to Sims to Macnaghten, now confirms.

William Druitt seems also to have wandered into perjured territory in claiming that there was just himself and his mother of the family left alive (or this was another stumble by the reporter). William may have also made it up about a "friend" telling him that his sibling was missing from his legal chambers, when in fact he had left word there too that he was going overseas.

These might not look like the acts of a man acting under duress, e.g. whilst his mind was unbalanced.

Whatever the exact meaning of this or that detail in an ambiguous source, the sources in totality allow us to see that William Druitt was likely under almost intolerable pressure because he now knew his brother was the Whitechapel murderer. He also knew that to divulge this, the real reason for this inexplicable suicide to the inquiry --to anybody outside of the small circle who knew the "secret"-- would be to destroy his clan in respectable society.

[Steve S]

I agree there's something off about William's story........

[Jonathan H]

Yes, and I think that, on balance, re: the meager amount we have, the dismissal was due to being AWOL and that perhaps this is what William Druitt meant in his inquest testimony.

I say this because a face-to-face dismissal would have more likely led to a resignation, and because the club sacked him for this reason, e.g. being unaccountably still overseas his responsibilities left to wither.

Therefore the reporter just misheard or misunderstood what the witness was saying, and, similarly, perhaps misunderstood what William meant about being the only living relative apart from the ill mother (as in, the only relative in the room).

It is still possible that William was trying to use the mundane dismissal for his own deflective purposes, but the reason this seems to be, on balance, unlikely is the complete lack of connection between the dismissal and the act of suicide -- both in the Chiswick source and all other 1889 sources.

The latter do not mention this detail at all, perhaps because -- if any had a reporter sitting in the room -- they understood that it was a dismissal caused by being AWOL. It was irrelevant. The words "serious trouble" at the school maybe the reporter's error, or not. We need to see the brother's testimony for ourselves and it is long dust.

The theory that William Druitt was voluntarily exposing, to a public and official inquest no less, that his brother had been sacked for being a moral degenerate is untenable.

Many of the secondary sources argue that the date is mistaken, that of Dec 30th, e.g. that it must be a mishearing or misprinting of Nov 30th. This is possible, but unlikely if Druitt had falsely told people he was going overseas therefore there would be perplexity, but not yet panic. As Montague was inevitably sacked from perhaps his legal chambers, perhaps the school and we know from a fact the club, the brother suddenly had cause to visit the place in which his sibling lived (why are his belongings still there if he was sacked to his face?)

I think at that point William Druitt had been informed of his missing brother's dual identity and was in full panic mode.

Another possibility, based on the dismissal from the school having zero impact on any other contemporaneous source, is that William Druitt did not say Montie was sacked from the school at all.

instead he said he went to the school, arriving on Dec 30th, and they did not not where he was but George Valentine reported that (nine days before) Montie had been sacked from his sporting club for "serious trouble" (e.g. being AWOL -- a Valentine, coincidentally also a William, sat on the club's executive).

Whatever, I argue that Macnaghten would have made a thorough investigation of all aspects about his chief Ripper suspect and he judged it was nothing. He knew far more than we ever can about Mr Druitt, despite a brilliant writer and analyst such as Phillip Sudgen arguing to the contrary.

Was Sir Melville Macnaghten a reliable, well-informed or unreliable source about Montague Druitt, or not? If the answer is yes, then that's that. Not absolute, of course, but as close as we can get.

[caz]

It is still possible that William was trying to use the mundane dismissal for his own deflective purposes, but the reason this seems to be, on balance, unlikely is the complete lack of connection between the dismissal and the act of suicide -- both in the Chiswick source and all other 1889 sources.

Hi Jonathan,

At the risk of being called 'unhinged' again , I simply fail to understand how you can keep saying this. We have just a single mention of Druitt being dismissed from the post he had held at the school until recently. Whether it originated with William and was true or false; whether the reporter garbled what he was told; it's there on the record, and what's more it only came out in connection with the inquest into his brother's death. The source - right or wrong - links the two events for us. If the dismissal is not mentioned anywhere else, in any other context, we would not even know about it today if William himself (or the reporter) hadn't helpfully alluded to it in connection with his brother's suicide.

"I had recently hit my sister over the head repeatedly with her hockey stick. Mind you, there is absolutely no connection between this and the brain damage she subsequently suffered. Just thought I'd mention it in case nobody else ever does."

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

Just for jolly hockey sticks, wouldn't you?

[Jonathan H]

I think that, on balance, re: the meager amount we have, the dismissal was due to being AWOL and that perhaps this is what William Druitt meant in his inquest testimony.

I say this because a face-to-face dismissal would have more likely led to a resignation, and because the club sacked him for this reason, e.g. being unaccountably still overseas his responsibilities left to wither.

Therefore the reporter just misheard or misunderstood what the witness was saying, and, similarly, perhaps misunderstood what William meant about being the only living relative apart from the ill mother (as in, the only relative in the room).

It is still possible that William was trying to use the mundane dismissal for his own deflective purposes, but the reason this seems to be, on balance, unlikely is the complete lack of connection between the dismissal and the act of suicide -- both in the Chiswick source and all other 1889 sources.

The latter do not mention this detail at all, perhaps because -- if any had a reporter sitting in the room -- they understood that it was a dismissal caused by being AWOL. It was irrelevant. The words "serious trouble" at the school maybe the reporter's error, or not. We need to see the brother's testimony for ourselves and it is long dust.

The theory that William Druitt was voluntarily exposing, to a public and official inquest no less, that his brother had been sacked for being a moral degenerate is untenable.

Many of the secondary sources argue that the date is mistaken, that of Dec 30th, e.g. that it must be a mishearing or misprinting of Nov 30th. This is possible, but unlikely if Druitt had falsely told people he was going overseas therefore there would be perplexity, but not yet panic. As Montague was inevitably sacked from perhaps his legal chambers, perhaps the school and we know from a fact the club, the brother suddenly had cause to visit the place in which his sibling lived (why are his belongings still there if he was sacked to his face?)

I think at that point William Druitt had been informed of his missing brother's dual identity and was in full panic mode.

Another possibility, based on the dismissal from the school having zero impact on any other contemporaneous source, is that William Druitt did not say Montie was sacked from the school at all.

instead he said he went to the school, arriving on Dec 30th, and they did not not where he was but George Valentine reported that (nine days before) Montie had been sacked from his sporting club for "serious trouble" (e.g. being AWOL -- a Valentine, coincidentally also a William, sat on the club's executive).

Whatever, I argue that Macnaghten would have made a thorough investigation of all aspects about his chief Ripper suspect and he judged it was nothing. He knew far more than we ever can about Mr Druitt, despite a brilliant writer and analyst such as Phillip Sudgen arguing to the contrary.

Was Sir Melville Macnaghten a reliable, well-informed or unreliable source about Montague Druitt, or not? If the answer is yes, then that's that. Not absolute, of course, but as close as we can get.

[Robert]

Jonathan, do you think that Macnaghten ever hunted up the inquest papers and read them?

[Jonathan H]

To Robert

Frankly, I don't how you could have stopped him.

I think that in 1891 Melville Macnaghten met with William Druitt -- and perhaps other Druitts -- and that he also met with the priest to whom, I believe, Montague confessed (who may or may not have also been a family member).

The Chief Constable then did a thorough check of the drowned barrister's movements to see whether he was the Ripper, or just believed he was e.g. because he was having some kind of breakdown. The police chief, judged, rightly or wrongly, that his confession was not delusional.

Mac's dilemma became what to do with this solution, as he could not trust his loathed, egocentric boss to be discreet, the reputation of the Yard and the murderer's family hung in the balance, and there was nobody to arrest.

[Robert]

Thanks Jonathan. I'm wondering if the secret would have been strictly between William and the man who received the supposed confession, whoever he was. William seems to have not wanted the rest of the family involved, if the inquest is anything to go by.

[GUT]

Thanks Jonathan. I'm wondering if the secret would have been strictly between William and the man who received the supposed confession, whoever he was. William seems to have not wanted the rest of the family involved, if the inquest is anything to go by.

Given what the family had been, and was, going through is that any wonder?

[Paddy]

Druitts sister was married to a vicar and living just down the hill from Blackheath, in New Cross. (walkable in about 10-15 minutes)

I wonder if William dealt with this as he was a solicitor and was protecting his brothers interests in a legal aspect of his dismissal?

Pat....

[Jonathan H]

Yes, Robert, very possibly.

This is the veiled, middle section of the story that the people involved never wanted us to know anything about, and they largely succeeded.

We only have glimpses.

Then we have the end of the story, at least according to Mac -- it was Druitt.

The Reverend William Hough is the priest that Druitt might have confessed to, his socially progressive brother-in-law.

[Rosella]

The burden on the Rev. Hough would have been very heavy. Wouldn't somebody choose a non-family member to confess something like these murders to?