Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Simon Wood 21 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Fisherman 31 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Darryl Kenyon 32 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by rjpalmer 1 hour and 3 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Joshua Rogan 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Torso Killings: torso maps - (23 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (22 posts)
Other: Book on antique medical specimens - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Druitt, Montague John

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 09-29-2014, 04:17 PM
David Andersen David Andersen is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 55
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkmoon View Post
People don't just committ suicide for no reason Druitt seems to have everything to live for he had a good career money coming.Away from work he was certainly very busy with his cricket so what ever caused him to take his life must have been serious .
He thought he was becoming like Mother.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-29-2014, 05:17 PM
Jonathan H Jonathan H is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,329
Default

Everybody has a right to their opinion.

But there are things persistently written about Druitt and Macnaghten that are arguably quite off-track.

Druitt does not first appear in the extant record with the 'memo' but in the 'West of England' MP articles of 1891--albeit un-named.'The accusation emerged from the region in which he had grown up, e.g. from 'his own people'.

Macnaghten, arguably, does not make mistakes about his chosen suspect in the de-facto third version of his report: his 1914 memoirs, e.g. not a doctor, not middle-aged, not a mental patient, and not a suicide instantly after Kelly.

Druitt did not die at the 'right' time but at the wrong time: two years too early. Macnaghten had to pretend that police knew at the time hat Kelly was the final victim, actually she was made the final victim by the timing of Druitt's sucide, not the other way round.

The so-called errors by Mac make sense when you realise this was information he disseminated to the public via cronies. It could not contain completely accurate data because this would expose the Druitt family and trigger a potentially ugly libel suit if it was insinuated that they knew their member was a maniacal killer and they had done nothing. Such an accurate leak would also expose the Yard to embarrassment: they had not known of this man until years after he killed himself.

Druitt broadly resembles the man seen by Lawende with Eddowes. This seems to have been the witness the police used for confrontations with two Ripper suspects-- both Gentile sailors. Though Macnaghten and Sims went to great lengths to deny this and bury this witness sighting, Guy Logan's 1905 opus, 'The True History of Jack the Ripper', has it's Druitt figure--Mortemer Slade--seen by just such a witness with this victim.

The 'North Country Vicar' of 1899 claims the fiend went to the East End for charitable purposes. Oxonians, of which Druitt was one, were part of a social reform movement who went to the abyss to try and bring some education and help.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-04-2014, 03:49 AM
Harry D Harry D is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,171
Default

Hello, sepiae.

Word to the wise, paragraphs are your friend.

For me, if there's enough reasonable doubt linking Druitt to the crime-scenes , then he's not a viable Ripper suspect. Furthermore, this theory that Druitt committed suicide from the trauma of MJK's overkill doesn't wash with me. How many known serial killers throughout history have actually offed themselves when they're not either imprisoned or on the run? Why invent such an unlikely scenario when we already have a working one, i.e. he was depressed over the scandal of losing his job, and fearing he'd end up like his mother, killed himself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sepiae View Post
Jonathan H, - '[...]by Lawende with Eddowes. This seems to have been the witness the police used for confrontations with two Ripper suspects-- both Gentile sailors' - if you refer to Sadler and the earlier witness/suspect confrontation [seaside or elsewhere], it has been convincingly pointed out, here, in some of the podcasts and elsewhere, that it is unlikely that Lawende had been asked to view suspects as a witness twice, due to his refusal of signing his name to it the first time; as much as I like him as a witness [he's the only witness I'd call a good witness without hesitation], it'd be 'positively identifying the 1st time but refusing to make it official, then being asked a 2nd time with another suspect, despite the 1st having been positive, and refused to go on record - could be, but not likely.
Personally, I don't think Lawende was much of a witness, given that by his own admission he wouldn't have been able to recognise the man if he saw him again. If he was used, then it was obviously in the faint hope that something might jog his memory. I have also my doubts as to whether he was really the witness involved in the reputed ID'ing of Anderson's Polish Jew. The consensus appears to be that it was a toss-up between Lawende or Schwartz. I disagree.

If it was anyone who witnessed the Ripper, I'm more inclined to say it was Joseph Levy. As you quite rightly point out, Lawende wouldn't have been used in the Sadler ID if he had already identified the Ripper at the Seaside Home and refused to testify. Joseph Levy saw enough of the couple to make a passing comment about "those sort of characters" and believed that the square should be put under surveillance. Along with this generally shifty behaviour, this suggests to me that he had a good look at the man with Eddowes that night.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-04-2014, 04:07 AM
Jonathan H Jonathan H is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,329
Default

To Harry D

If there was serious doubt linking Druitt to the crime scenes, then his family, an MP, a police chief and a famous true crime writer would not have believed he was the Ripper.

From two newspaper accounts it appears that Joseph Lawende was used in 1891 and 1895 to confront Ripper suspects: Tom Sadler and William Grant, respectively.

The 'Seaside Home' confrontation almost certainly never happened. It only enters the extant record in 1910 when Anderson can be shown to have \n unreliable memory. The location-event is a mis-recalling by either Anderson and/or Swanson of the Sailor's Home that was part of the Sadler affair--the sailor was apparently "confronted" with a Jewish witness, e.g. Lawende.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-04-2014, 04:29 AM
sepiae sepiae is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 145
Default paragraphed. promise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry D View Post
Hello, sepiae.

Word to the wise, paragraphs are your friend.

For me, if there's enough reasonable doubt linking Druitt to the crime-scenes , then he's not a viable Ripper suspect. Furthermore, this theory that Druitt committed suicide from the trauma of MJK's overkill doesn't wash with me. How many known serial killers throughout history have actually offed themselves when they're not either imprisoned or on the run? Why invent such an unlikely scenario when we already have a working one, i.e. he was depressed over the scandal of losing his job, and fearing he'd end up like his mother, killed himself?



Personally, I don't think Lawende was much of a witness, given that by his own admission he wouldn't have been able to recognise the man if he saw him again. If he was used, then it was obviously in the faint hope that something might jog his memory. I have also my doubts as to whether he was really the witness involved in the reputed ID'ing of Anderson's Polish Jew. The consensus appears to be that it was a toss-up between Lawende or Schwartz. I disagree.

If it was anyone who witnessed the Ripper, I'm more inclined to say it was Joseph Levy. As you quite rightly point out, Lawende wouldn't have been used in the Sadler ID if he had already identified the Ripper at the Seaside Home and refused to testify. Joseph Levy saw enough of the couple to make a passing comment about "those sort of characters" and believed that the square should be put under surveillance. Along with this generally shifty behaviour, this suggests to me that he had a good look at the man with Eddowes that night.

Hi Harry D,

sorry about the lack of paragraphs, they sometimes get lost in the rush

linking/suicide:
I absolutely agree there [perhaps you misunderstood me?]. The original question at the start of this thread what could have possibly linked the man in the minds of people in the 1st place, which is what I was trying to answer.
For me personally Druitt is a terrible suspect.

Lawende:
actually, and this will sound a lil funny, but I'd more inclined to trust a witness saying precisely that than one who claims an exceptional memory - after all, it was not an encounter that seemed to ask for making a mental note.
[note the paragraph] Memory is quite an unreliable thing, and anyone admitting to that finds more credit with me. Somewhere people do understand this, just look at the general lack of trust in Hutchinson's observations [though there's more than one reason for this lack].
Preferring Levy, well, alright, but they've all seen them, and Levy's remark alone doesn't make him a better witness. In the very least it was Lawende on record with an actual description.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-04-2014, 04:40 AM
sepiae sepiae is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan H View Post
To Harry D

If there was serious doubt linking Druitt to the crime scenes, then his family, an MP, a police chief and a famous true crime writer would not have believed he was the Ripper.

From two newspaper accounts it appears that Joseph Lawende was used in 1891 and 1895 to confront Ripper suspects: Tom Sadler and William Grant, respectively.

The 'Seaside Home' confrontation almost certainly never happened. It only enters the extant record in 1910 when Anderson can be shown to have \n unreliable memory. The location-event is a mis-recalling by either Anderson and/or Swanson of the Sailor's Home that was part of the Sadler affair--the sailor was apparently "confronted" with a Jewish witness, e.g. Lawende.

Hi Jonathan H,

I'd rather accept some actual facts, at least circumstantial evidence, than credentials.
Being a senior policeman means little in itself where it comes to favouring a suspect, and also where it comes to people making mistakes.
Unfortunately we don't seem to have anything beyond the mentioning of this connection. The senior policeman heard it from the local politician who has it from the family. 3rd hand information. And family really isn't the most reliable informant, especially if the suspect doesn't live at home - all the family has on a suspect is behaviour much more previous.
Grudges run high in families, misinterpretations as well. Be it as it may, in the end it's the testimony of relatives [not on record] that is the counting factor. Not a very convincing one here, as it ran over 3 corners. Nothing in the end to build anything on.
As for linking Druitt to the crime scene, I'd say there is serious doubt.
You wrote, 'if there was serious doubt,' no, not if. The question should be 'is there serious evidence.'

Seaside-home: heartedly agree.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-04-2014, 05:00 AM
Harry D Harry D is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,171
Default

Hello, sepiae.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sepiae View Post
linking/suicide:
I absolutely agree there [perhaps you misunderstood me?]. The original question at the start of this thread what could have possibly linked the man in the minds of people in the 1st place, which is what I was trying to answer.
For me personally Druitt is a terrible suspect.
No, I catch your drift. It was just a general comment based upon the fact that we have no evidence placing Druitt at any of the crime-scenes. We can debate the logistics of whether Druitt was able to carry out the Nichols murder some six hours before his cricket match in Blackheath, but unless we can put Druitt in the East End on the night of the murders, he's a non-starter. There are better suspects available who we KNOW were residing in the area at the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sepiae View Post
Lawende:
actually, and this will sound a lil funny, but I'd more inclined to trust a witness saying precisely that than one who claims an exceptional memory - after all, it was not an encounter that seemed to ask for making a mental note.
Perhaps, but there's a lot of middle-ground between someone like Lawende who could barely remember the man he saw, and a witness with a photographic 'memory' like Hutch.

So we're assuming that the Seaside Home story was just Anderson having a senior moment? Well Lawende certainly didn't recognise Sadler, so where does the part of the Jew refusing to name another Jew come into it? Or is that another discrepancy we're putting down to senility?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-04-2014, 05:23 AM
sepiae sepiae is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 145
Default more paragraphs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry D View Post
Hello, sepiae.

Perhaps, but there's a lot of middle-ground between someone like Lawende who could barely remember the man he saw, and a witness with a photographic 'memory' like Hutch.

So we're assuming that the Seaside Home story was just Anderson having a senior moment? Well Lawende certainly didn't recognise Sadler, so where does the part of the Jew refusing to name another Jew come into it? Or is that another discrepancy we're putting down to senility?

Hi Harry D,

drift etc: absolutely.

Lawende: actually, for a passing man at night with little to no reason for attaching a red flag to a pair that was just standing there his description was quite detailed, to a degree I'd expect under the circumstances from a relatively reliable witness.
His statement read that he wouldn't expect to recognize him - which to me gives it credibility. A face seen under the conditions given might easily get confused with some time passing in between. The general description given was of some value meanwhile.

Hutchinson: if for the sake of it we for now believe him, a detailed description such as his is possible [some say there should be more, based on better interview-skills of a policeman to be expected, perhaps more would just possibly open the possibility of prompting], and he claimed to have a reason for his attention [suspicion].
As said, this if we believe him. All in all, such observation gift is rather rare, and not usually employed if one is merely passing a pair in the night.

Anderson's jew: I confess, I'm a little confused about the issue, put perhaps we needn't be. All that is needed is another jew, someone other than Lawende It appears to have been Lawende with Sadler [I'm not surprised he didn't ID him], which makes it unlikely to have been in the previous case, so...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-04-2014, 05:33 AM
sepiae sepiae is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 145
Default p.s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sepiae View Post
someone other than Lawende

Levy, for instance
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-04-2014, 05:40 AM
Jonathan H Jonathan H is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,329
Default

To Sepia

Macnaghten spoke directly to the family, not second or third hand, or so he implies in his memoirs. We also have a veiled version of such a debriefing propagated to the public in the Edwardian era.

I believe the hands-on police sleuth discovered that the deceased man had confessed to a priest (ho was likely a family member too).

The chief checked out everything he could about this posthumous suspect, in the most minute detail, and, despite his not wanting it to be true for a number of personal and professional reasons/pressures, he judged it was true--a lucid confession by a guilty man.

Families are usually the last people to be convinced by the ghastly criminal truth about a fellow member. Not in this case--Druitt enters the extant record as the Ripper, albeit un-named, from the region in which he had grown up.

I appreciate that this is heresy as much of what is called 'Ripperology' hangs by a slender thread, e.g. 1.) that it was not solved, 2.) that this suspect could not have done it, and that 3.) Macnaghten--completely out of character--did not make a thorough and personal investigation of the appalling allegations against this drowned barrister.

In a sense this slender thread is Ripperology, and it is cut and voided if the above is shown to be a modern construct (beginning in 1923) totally at odds with the original sources.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.