|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1692
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 4:47 pm: | 
|
David,
Thats very sweet of you to say!
Not sure the word "sensible" describes either me or the tracts I tend to write, but I am so glad you enjoy them!
Natalie |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 747
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 11:03 am: |
|
Natalie et al,
We are just back from England a few days now. We did make it to Blackheath were we located Eliot Place with a minimum of difficulty (pictures will be posted eventually). The current no. 9 is a later building, but I have read that part of no. 10 was originally an addition to no. 9 that was extant in 1888. This addition, and hence a bit of the building in which Druitt worked and lodged, should be clear in my photos.
We did not do any historical research beyond this in the Lewisham/Greenwich area. Having been to the Martime Museum and Royal Observatory on a previous trip, we did not venture to Greenwich.
We did wander to King's Bench Walk for photos of no. 9. Except for the carpark in the middle of the square, I imagine KBW looks much as it did in 1888. I had hoped to get to Chiswick to try to locate the site of Thornycroft's, but it did not work out.
We also took a daytime walk around the East End (Mitre Square, Hanbury Street, London Hosptial Museum, etc.) and felt no danger or unpleasantries whatsoever.
Thanks for getting in touch with Mr. Rhind.
Andy S.
(Message edited by Aspallek on March 22, 2005) |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 748
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 11:23 am: |
|
Fellow researchers --
I am going to try to post this to Mr. Rhind in an e-mail, but in the event he may yet be checking this thread I'll also post it publicly here.
Dear Mr. Rhind:
I wish to both thank and congratulate you on your research concerning Montague John Druitt's connection to Blackheath. I understand your frustration both at being besieged with requests for your paper and being misquoted. I publish work on a limited basis and speak publicly on a very frequent basis and I also have been misquoted or quoted without credit many, many times. I have come to the conclusion that this is the burden an author/speaker must bear. The best one can do is protect one's work by copyright to guard against deliberate and serious abuse. I have found, however, that the vast majority of these offenses are unintentional and the result of misunderstanding rather than malice.
I would suggest to you that to refrain from making your paper available for fear of misuse is to defeat the purpose of conducting the research at all. I understand the issue of the cost of photocopying but I have to agree that 15 pounds sterling is rather high. At US $30, that is the price of many a hardbound book. It seems to me that a simple solution would be to make your paper available in .pdf format or offer it to be uploaded to this website. I'm sure that others would be willing to scan it for you if you don't have it in digital form.
I hope I have not offended you in any way and that you will consider this suggestion.
Sincerely,
Andrew Spallek
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1706
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 4:15 pm: |
|
Andrew,
Glad you enjoyed your trip over here and that you managed to visit Elliots place.
I have had some further correspondence with
Neil Rhind which culminated in me receiving a copy of his Dissertation on the Blackheath connection.I have now read his work and must say I was very impressed.
The first half of the paper concentrates on Druitt"s social and educational background,his sports interests and achievements, including the readiness with which he took on administrative responsibilities connected with those sporting interests.All this is dealt with in a clear, detailed but flowing style, which is immensely readable and helps to create a portrait of the man and his time.
Later we are introduced to a network of associates,from the world of sport,teaching,Oxbridge,the legal profession and significantly some characters from the immediate vicinity that I,for one had never heard about or guessed at and would certainly like to know more about.
Yes ,I can certainly recommend this work to anyone who wants to further their knowledge of Druitt and his friends , colleagues and- maybe- co conspirators!Do email Neil Rhind Andrew!
Natalie |
David Keating
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 1:38 pm: |
|
I am a newie. Is there any evidence at all connecting Druitt with the ripper. I couldnt find any in all the research I did on him.There seems to be nonthing but this Mcnaughtan's oppinion.He may have been gay, and took his life a month after the last murder. This is at best a tenuous connection. Is there any real evidence on him? |
Annikan Skywalker
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 9:42 am: |
|
Driutt supporters,
I wish to impart the oppinion I impart to my colleagues every day.The more fine detail I see on Druitt, the more convinced I am that he was not even close to being the ripper.The fact that he had a mental illness is the only reason he came under suspision.The coppers in 1888 had no leads or any modern forensic help, so what did they do? - they looked at anyone who had mental illness in the area at the time.
Thats why Kosminski was named also. The fact is this: it is not an absolute fact that the ripper was insane or mentally ill.There may have been some method to his maddness.There is nothing in Druitt's known life that would indicate he would flip out to this degree.The original files from Mcnaughton which name him and Kosminski are the product of one dimensional thought.
May the force be with you all. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 760
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 1:09 pm: |
|
Gentlemen,
I am fully aware that there is no hard evidence that Montague John Druitt was the Ripper. Yet the circumstantial evidence (given the amount of time that has passed) is quite strong.
1. We know that he was suspected by the police. Macnaghten makes that very clear. It is also corroborated (tho not by name) by Abberline, Griffiths, Bachert, and perhaps Simms (his "Dr. D").
2. We know that part of Macnaghten's reason for suspecting Druitt was that he believed his family suspected him of being the Ripper.
3. Druitt's death explains the end of the murders. Note that this is not the top reason he is suspected.
4. Druitt has a history of mental illness in his family, probably depression. Depression often accompanies schizophrenia and schizoprenics are sometimes violent.
5. Druitt's "respectability" and his association with some prominent figures gives plausible reason for hesitation to publicly identify him.
6. Druitt had the physical strength to carry out the murders.
7. Druitt's legal career places him near the East End (about a mile from Mitre Square) at the period of the murders.
Other than the lack of direct evidence, the strongest aspect of the case for Druitt's innocence is the narrow time frame allowed him due to some of his known or assumed movements. He may have been playing cricket in Bornmouth the day after the Nicholls murder and he may have been in court in the West Country the day after the double event (see my review of the Leighton book, he gives no source for these conclusions). He certainly played cricket in Blackheath hours after the Chapman murder. None of these conflicts is insurmountable. Even in the even of the longer distances, he would have had more than 24 hours to complete the journeys. In the case of Chapman, Blackheath can be reached from the East end in an hour. Nevertheless, if corroborated, their combined weight is very damaging to the case against Druitt.
I have no idea whether Druitt was the Ripper but he is quite plausible as a suspect.
Andy S. |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 784
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 6:10 pm: |
|
Andrew
I would add one more (problematic) point:
8. Dan Farson claimed that before he discovered Druitt's identity in the Macnaghten memoranda, a Mr A. Knowles wrote to him with a story of a pamphlet entitled "The East End Murderer: I Knew Him", which had been published in Dandenong, Australia, by a Lionel Druitt [or variant of that surname] - and of course Montague had a cousin named Lionel who emigrated to Australia and at one time lived very near Dandenong.
I'm aware that since the publication of "The Ripper Legacy" by Howells and Skinner, this has been dismissed as the consequence of confusion with the story of Deeming or other Australian reports relating to the Ripper murders.
However, any such theory completely fails to explain how Farson's correspondent could have come up with Lionel Druitt's name before anyone knew Montague Druitt was a suspect.
To explain it away, one has to assume that Farson, after discovering Druitt's identity, and researching his family's history sufficiently to identify his emigrant cousin, either convinced himself that he remembered reading the name in Knowles's letter, or else simply invented the fact.
The "false memory" theory is problematical, because - although Knowles's letter had been lost when Farson's research dossier was stolen - he claimed to have kept separate notes of it, which presumably included the name of the author of the pamphlet.
That leaves outright fraud on Farson's part, which I suppose is difficult to rule out definitely, though it doesn't really ring true in my opinion.
At any rate, I don't think the evidence of the Dandenong document deserved to be dismissed as glibly as it was in the late 1980s, and has been ever since.
Chris Phillips
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 6:55 pm: |
|
Hi Andy.
Bravo. An extremely well explained and detailed summing up of the strong circumstantial case against Druitt. I've never seen it put better.
I've examined everything about every plausible suspect over a number of years, and I have never been able to see past Druitt.
For no other suspect can a jig-saw be made, where all the pieces fit, to produce a realistic circumstantial case. The timing of his beloved Mother's confinement to an asylum, just prior to the beginning of the murders, could easily have been the trigger that set him off.
You look at the devastation that insanity brought to the Druitt women, all decent women to Monty, and it's easy to imagine him forming a hatred of those who sold their lives cheaply on street corners.
As you said Andy, depression can bring on Paranoia and Schizophrenia, and in a violent form, that combination can be devastating. Also as you say, Druitt was a sportsman, fit, agile, and very strong, which I feel the Ripper had to be. Druitt was also possessed of a very good brain. A psychiatrist told me that, suffering from the above condition, this could translate into clever animal cunning.
Then of course, his suicide so soon after the Kelly "massacre", was enough to finish off any man who still retained an ounce of sanity on his good days.
Everything else, you've covered brilliantly Andy.
A cover-up wouldn't surprise me in the least, if he was known by the Police to be the killer. After all, if the murders were over, and the killer dead, why put an honourable family through the public mangle. Also, with the east-end volcano ready to erupt, it would hardly be advisable to have it known in Whitechapel, that the man who butchered their women was from the better classes of society.
As you may gather, I'm a confirmed Druittist. If it wasn't him, I just can't accept any of the other suspects that have been put forward thus far.
Best wishes Andy.
DAVID C.
|
David Keating
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 2:20 am: |
|
Does anyone know why the family of Druitt suspected him, for this is interesting. Did they go to the police with their suspisions? What did they find out about John that led them to think he was involved in the Whitechapel murders. Was it tangible clues or his behaviour? Family blood is very thick, and families usually stick by eachother through thick or thin. That is why I find it stange that they went to the police about him. |
David Andersen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 75
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
I knew Dan Farson very well for many years. Whatever else Dan was he was not a fraud. However, although Dan claimed that his notes had been lost he also claimed that they had been taken from his office by an American author who used Farsons findings in his own book.
Dan was working from memory when he talked of the document. My own feelings were that Dan was tempted to go further in his speculations but he knew he could not back them up. He did eventually recant the Australian connection.
Regards
David
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 368
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 4:57 pm: |
|
David,
Very interesting post. So Dan Farson recanted on
the "Dandenong Document", ("THE EAST END MURDERER: I KNEW HIM")?
Did that take the form of written utterance that he could not find it? Or that he felt it had never existed?
I would be very interested to read his exact words.
Good post Chris Phillips. (Comme l'habitude). |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 792
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 5:06 pm: |
|
David
Yes, I too would be interested in more details.
On the loss of his dossier, do you mean that Farson made contradictory claims about it at different times? I have certainly heard it speculated that "an American author" was the thief, but hadn't seen a public claim by Farson to that effect.
And like John I'd be interested to know what form the recantation took.
Chris Phillips
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 595
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 10:14 pm: |
|
I have heard a solution to the "Dandenong Document" though I can't recall where. It may be that such a pamphlet did exist, but had nothing to do with Druitt. The pamphlet (if it was published) appeared in Australia about 1892. It may have referred to Frederick Bailey Deeming, who used (among many alias names) the name "Droven" or "Drewin". Possibly such a pamphlet was written at the time of Deeming's trial and execution in Melbourne in 1892.
But I was also under the impression that absolutely no record of this pamphlet has ever surfaced at all - that aside from Farson's mentioning it there was nothing about it.
Jeff Bloomfield |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 793
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 2:57 am: |
|
Jeffrey
Yes, that's essentially the "solution" of Howells and Skinner, which I mentioned above. But unless Farson's account of the letter he received from Knowles is completely inaccurate, it doesn't really explain things at all.
Chris Phillips
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 765
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 2:44 pm: |
|
Thank-you David.
I'm going to look into the pamphlet once again as I plan to write an article on Druitt. My best recollection now is that it coincidently involved someone with a Druitt-like name and coincidently involved some places that played in the Druitt family history. But the pamphlet (actually a newspaper insert) dealt with Deeming and had nothing to do with Druitt,
Right now I'm going back and reading some of the early Druitists: Cullen and Farson.
Andy S.
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 596
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 3:11 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Thanks Chris for reminding me of the source. I wonder, regarding the "Dandelong Document", if the pamphlet might turn up in some historical society in Australia in some file concerning Deeming? When Farson tried to trace the pamphlet, and when others attempted to look for it, their concentration was on Druitt because it was supposed to be about Monty, and was supposed to be written by his cousin Lionel. If it was about Deeming, archivests and librarians in Australia (in particular in Victoria, and Melbourne) would end up overlooking any files on Deeming because they'd be concentrating on Druitt.
It's just a thought - and very possibly others have looked into it.
Jeff |
David Andersen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 76
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 3:34 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Dan claimed that he had received Mr Knowles letter after the transmission of his Farsons Guide to the British TV show had been shown. Dan appeared to remember the name of the writer but he was never sure of the Druitt/Drewett/etc name. The pamphlet, in any event, did not exist, at least not in the form that Farson believed it would.I did a lot of research for Dan and I am afraid that we differed as to the course of Dans Book. He eventually conceded, to me, that like me, he was still convinced of Druitt but that the Australian pursuit was a waste of time.
If Dan were to write his book today I feel sure that he would concentrate much more on the Manor House Asylum end of things.
David.
Regards
David
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 794
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
David
Dan claimed that he had received Mr Knowles letter after the transmission of his Farsons Guide to the British TV show had been shown.
Did he not receive the letter in early 1959, whereas the program identifying (but not naming) Druitt was aired in the Autumn? (I'm going by memory here.)
He later believed that the author was a Mr Knowles of Blackheath, whose death was registered in the 2nd quarter of 1959, didn't he?
Chris Phillips
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 369
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 5:31 am: |
|
Dear Andrew, David and Chris,
It is quite obvious all three of you have information and a view on Daniel Farson's search for the Dandenong Document and the importance of
a Mr Knowles, who claimed to have seen it.
Why not all three of you, (and I will too), write up the results of Druitt Theory/Farson book research, so as we can bring the results forward from the state they were in when Howells & Skinner published on the matter in 1987 ?
Why not each approach one of the Ripper journals or prepare it as a Dissertation for posting on these boards?
The existence or otherwise, of such a document is relevant to throwing light on the life of this puzzling candidate for the Ripper murders, Montague John Druitt. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 767
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 12:06 pm: |
|
John,
I hope to write an article on Druitt soon which I will offer to at least one of the journals. Caution: "soon" in my busy life does not mean "immediate future." I have to confess that I have never read Farson or Cullen, which I must do first. (I'm enjoying Cullen right now).
As to the nature of my article, it will probably be a logical walk through the considerable circumstantial evidence for his being JtR. I also have a hypothesis (I have no proof so I can't call it a theory) concerning his dismissal from Valentine's that would give him opportunity to commit the murders and help to explain why murders did not take place at the expected times in October and November. A clue: remember that one would have expected a Ripper murder on the weekend Druitt died.
Andy S.
(Message edited by Aspallek on April 03, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 803
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 5:26 am: |
|
David
Just to confirm my recollection - Farson does refer to receiving Knowles's letter "early in 1959" (p. 146 of 1973 paperback edition), and if I understand correctly, the dossier containing the letter was itself stolen before the broadcast (he says this happened "while I was finishing the programmes").
It's interesting that you imply he relied on memory for the name of Lionel Druitt, Drewett or Drewery. When Farson refers to his separate notes of places and people to visit in Australia, which were not lost with the dossier, he puts part of the information in quotation marks ("printed privately by a Mr Fell of Dandenong in 1890"), but not the name of the author, Lionel D.
By the time the program was broadcast, he certainly knew that MJD had a cousin named Lionel who was a doctor, and in Australia in 1887.
Apparently Farson traced more of Lionel's movements when he visited Australia, but it's not clear to me whether he ever discovered that at one point Lionel lived in Dandenong Road, Oakleigh (about 12 miles north west of Dandenong).
It still seems to me that there may be more in this story than simple confusion.
Chris Phillips
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 7:27 pm: |
|
Hi Andy.
I've just read your post about the future article you intend writing, with absolute fascination and anticipation.
Any new hypothesis about his dismissal from Valentine's school would be very welcome to me.
There have been theories put forward, that his dismissal from the school may have been due to homosexual activities, but personally, I've never gone along with that. Homosexual killers tend to target their own sex, and if Druitt was JtR, which I believe, then I think such theories are nonsense.
I'm also very keen to read your hypothesis about the absence of killings throughout October, which as always puzzled Ripper students, and also what gave him the opportunity to have been able to commit the murders. You're certainly a step ahead of me with your closing clue. I'll be giving that a lot of thought.
I think you're going to have a lot of Druittists pestering you to make this future article, a NEAR future article. Certainly, I for one applaud any new ideas that can bring us another little step nearer to a satisfactory solution. I believe we've got the right man. Proving it is just tantalisingly out of reach.
Very best wishes Andy.
DAVID C. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page