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

 Search:
 

Join the Chat Room!

Archive through July 23, 2005 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Suspects » Druitt, Montague John » Some thoughts about M J Druitt » Archive through July 23, 2005 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark Andrew Pardoe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Picapica

Post Number: 122
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 2:46 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Oh I love this jargan. I thought only cricket was full of it but with "at-bats" I beginning to wonder.

Cheers, Mark (who always wondered what was the difference between a googly, a chinaman and a wrong-un)

ps. Why arn't thay any cricketing smileys?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stan Russo
Police Constable
Username: Stan

Post Number: 8
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 4:57 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Comparing Druitt to Ty Cobb is downright ridiculous and a total waste of time. The line of reasoning that concludes Druitt could have committed these murders and then calmly returned to play a normal game of cricket does not hold water. There is his suicide to contend with to refute this theory.

If committing the murders were so unaffecting that he could play his normal scheduled game of cricket only hours afterward, then why would he have committed suicide over the murders?

Again, this does not dismiss or eliminate Druitt from having been 'JTR', yet along this line of theory there are obvious and simple flaws that allow for its complete refutation.

STAN
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon

Post Number: 156
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 5:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Stan, thumbs up... A serial killer is an individual that rarely commits suicide unless the police are on the other side of the door and coming in. A serial killer lives for the rush of the next kill for one of two reasons; either the last kill was unsatisfying and he has to do it again to achieve the thrill, or the rush was so great he has to do it again to see if he can achieve the same level of ecstasy as he did before. It’s addictive! For someone who had achieved such success in that he was able to murder a number of women and the police were clueless to stop him to just up and drown himself makes no sense.

MJD was simply someone who failed to meet expectations and not wanting to face another year of failure and humiliation decided to take a walk in the water. Personally, it’s a quiet way to go, and one I could easily picture him doing. Just take a shot of brandy to numb yourself and walk into the water to meet your fate in the cold dark of night where no one would see or disturb you, and yet at a time where the water is cold enough to preserve the body so it could be identified and have a proper burial when discovered…

Shannon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Donald Souden
Police Constable
Username: Supe

Post Number: 4
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 5:34 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ah, Stan, that is a mighty large imaginary limb upon which you have ventured. That is, first prove that MJD committed suicide because of the murders (as you certainly seem to have averred) and then we can easily walk backward on that limb to the security of solid fact. Until then, however, there are problems.
As for refuting a "theory," it was nothing of the kind. Ty Cobb (and others) were presented as anecdotal examples of some particularly violent people who were also quite capable of performing well in sporting events soon after committing mayhem. Like, perhaps, playing cricket the same day Annie Chapman was killed. No theory, just a point to ponder.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer

Post Number: 190
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 12:00 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Shannon--Hi. "MJD was simply someone who failed to meet expectations and not wanting to face another year of failure and humiliation decided to take a walk in the water."

This claim is not consistant with the historic record. The old claim (made by Cullen and Farson) that Druitt was a failure is no longer viable. It has been disproven in recent years. His law practice was successful, he was socially active, and his presence in Blackheath was out of choice. RP
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon

Post Number: 157
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 12:19 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

R.J. While the firm was successful, he personally was not. He was dismissed from position at one of his jobs, had lost his parents within the last three years, and what is missing in his life is a love interest. While stout physically, it is his emotional state that is questionable. One would think with his position he would have been seen as a fine catch by the ladies in the area and would have had his choice of eligible paramours...

Shannon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100

Post Number: 121
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 3:27 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Shannon

Surely, we just don't know whether MJD had a paramour (of whatever gender) or not, beyond the fact that he was unmarried.

(Of course, his mother was still alive at the time of his death, although mentally ill.)

Chris Phillips


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert

Post Number: 1062
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 6:29 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

With his teaching, legal and sporting activities, I don't suppose Monty had much time available for the hoop-jumping of courtship. He may have been able to whisper a few sweet nothings if he was fielding on the boundary....

I find his suicide puzzling. He writes a suicide note (methodical). He puts four stones in each pocket (methodical). But he doesn't know for sure that the cheques will survive the water and enable the police to contact his brother (unmethodical). Moreover Druitt, as a lawyer, would have been aware of the importance (to relatives) of settling one's affairs. He is respectably dressed (methodical) - except for having no collar (unmethodical). He apparently leaves his keys behind (methodical). Yet he buys a return ticket (unmethodical).

Of course a person in such a frame of mind can do almost anything, and I'm not one for the "Kill Monty" conspiracy. It just bugs me.

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Severn
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 5:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Stan, do we know the reason Druitt committed suicide if indeed he did? We have only one letter to go by that his brother produced.Maybe he just couldnt cope much longer-hed lost his job,his friends were getting suspicious by all accounts and from what we are told his family were getting suspicious too.But he was still somehow holding on in there.Maybe the cricket restored him to sanity and when the season finished he cracked up comletely.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Severn
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 5:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Stan, do we know the reason Druitt committed suicide if indeed he did? We have only one letter to go by that his brother produced.Maybe he just couldnt cope much longer-hed lost his job,his friends were getting suspicious by all accounts and from what we are told his family were getting suspicious too.But he was still somehow holding on in there.Maybe the cricket restored him to sanity and when the season finished he cracked up comletely.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Severn
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 7:23 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Robert-thanks for the encouragement-yes Ido intend registering and will soon.I find the suicide understandable given the loss of face etc and I also think I detect some pursuit already happening-by family and friends-inquest report Macnaghten etc.If he was in the frame of mind to kill himself[as opposed to him having been killed which I would also doubt]I think he would have been overwhelmed and acting as someone in a confused state of mind at least to some extent. My own reasons for still considering Druitt are as follows: The Goulston St graffiti.Donald Rumbelow writes that it was in a neat schoolboy hand.Well a]who would be likely to have chalk in his pocket? Morover who but someone practised in writing on a vertical surface in chalk could do so "in a neat schoolboy hand". Sorry I havent quite got the hang of this typing.Anyway I also was interested to see a piece of Druitts handwriting in a book on the JtR letters.What struck me was the person who copied the graffiti took trouble to imitate the handwriting and the capital "t"s are itentical.I know this is a long shot but the other slight clue might be his relationship with his mother. She was confined to an asylum latterly and suffered delusions about being eletrocuted and the like so probably she had a schizoid personality which progressed to schizophrenia at times.I wonder how well she was able to bond with little Monty? Did he get rejection feelings when mother "wasnt there for him " as they say.We will never know but the balance of probabilities....?Oh and I forgot about his strong hands uggh!NatalieSevern
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert

Post Number: 1065
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 11:55 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Natalie

One problem with the graffito is that if Druitt was going in that direction with the apron, then where on earth was he heading?

I agree it's still well worth having a look at Druitt, even though we keep hitting a brick wall every time we do so.

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek

Post Number: 195
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 1:01 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Actually, I think Druitt is quite a good candidate. I'm not saying that he's my top choice of suspects, but he fits in many ways.

Although perhaps not a "failure" he does seem to have failed, although bright, to live up to potential and expectations. Typical of many a serial killer, e.g. Bundy. He has a history of mental illness in the immediate family and we may conjecture that he may have been somewhat neglected by his mother, who probably showed traces of mental illness already in Druitt's youth. He certainly possessed the physical strength and his athleticism may have aided him in his ability to escape detection and get away.

Granted, most serial killers that we know of don't commit suicide unless they are about to be captured. Think about that however. The serial killers that we know of we know because they were captured while active. We don't know what they would have done had they not been captured. Furthermore, we don't know that unidentified serial killers, like the Zodiac for example, did not commit suicide.

Up until now, the cricket match was my primary reason for discounting MJD. Now, I'm re-thinking that.

Andy S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100

Post Number: 122
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 3:36 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

One problem with the graffito is that if Druitt was going in that direction with the apron, then where on earth was he heading?

Isn't this really just part of the wider question of how Druitt would have got back to Blackheath after the murders anyway? (I assume that most people agree that he didn't live at his chambers in the Temple.)

I think there are only two real possibilities:

(1) That he skulked in the area until he was able to take a train, perhaps from Whitechapel Underground station. That seems like a long, uncomfortable wait for several of the murders.

(2) That he took a cab home (or most of the way home). One of the interesting suggestions (I think by Ivor Edwards) was that the big cab stand, just to the east of the junction of Aldgate High Street and Commercial Street, could be a significant location. It would fit reasonably well with an eastward route from Mitre Square via Goulston Street, and also with the earlier route westwards from Berner Street via Church Lane (one has to assume that the killer felt unsatisfied, had a change of heart and went in search of another victim after cleaning himself up in Church Lane).

The cab idea presupposes that the killer would have been reasonably well dressed, and could have kept free of conspicuous bloodstains. It also assumes there would have been enough people hailing cabs in Aldgate High Street in the small hours for it to be unremarkable. Perhaps that's possible, from what we hear about respectable people "slumming it" in the area. Presumably the London Hospital would also generate some night-time traffic.

It would also be interesting to know whether the police stopped and searched cabs after the murders. I've seen this suggested from time to time, but never read anything very solid.

Chris Phillips



Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Severn
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 4:20 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi All, Last nights post hasnt got through yet but my suggestion was the layout of Spitalfields might be the clue with its enticing labyrinth of alleyways such as Artillery Row leading into Liverpool Street where he could have been off and away-maybe into the developing tube tunnels.I like the suggestion of the cab though.Would blood stains really have been that much of a problem with the number of public water pumps and horse troughs? Best NatalieSevern
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Severn
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 3:11 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Robert/Andy.Thanks for your thoughts on Druitt.I think Druitt made use of the underground tunnels that were already developing around Liverpool St Station which was already in use and I think already connected up with the embankment tube.I am not certain of this and intend to research after half term when I have more time.But the tunnels were most definitely beginning to branch into Whitechapel.Druitts chambers were situated near the embankment and could have given eventual refuge-sometimes.At any rate anybody leaving the Ten Bells even today has only a few minutes walk through Artillery Row-still a narrow little passage and he or she is in a new area with a number of escape routes.All of this is but a stones throw from Goulston St.These days its all lit up all the time but those days it would have provided cover.There were public pumps water troughsetc to wash hands and even the doss houses may have been useful to hide for a few hours.Its a good point that Andy how do we know what happened to some of these serial killers?I look forward to reading your posts. Natalie
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert

Post Number: 1067
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 3:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi All

Chris, I'm afraid I haven't read Ivor Edwards's book yet. The cab idea is certainly interesting.
I may be mixing it up with something else, but I half-think I remember a story told by a cabman, about how a man came into his shelter one night and started talking about the murders. I can't remember exactly where I might have read it, though.

Natalie, going back to the chalk : we don't know that the graffito was written by Jack, but let's suppose for a moment that it was, and that Monty was Jack. The trouble is, he would probably have been dressed reasonably well, as Chris says. Whether he used a cab or not, it's difficult to imagine him entering and leaving Valentine's school in working men's clothes. So I suppose he would have used a spare set of clothes - he wouldn't have gone ripping dressed in the clothes he was to teach in next day. And therefore I don't see why he would have had a piece of chalk in his pocket, as they were his spare clothes - unless of course he intended to leave the message all along.

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark Andrew Pardoe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Picapica

Post Number: 124
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 6:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Whatho all,

If Monty had a piece of chalk in one pocket to write the graffito, he must have had a torch in the other so he could see what he was writing.

Cheers, Mark

ps. He was on his way to Chelmsford to watch Essex play.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert

Post Number: 1073
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 6:47 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mark, it's just occurred to me that if the cab was like some of today's late night cabs, Monty would have had to get out and wipe his hands on the apron again.

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100

Post Number: 123
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 3:27 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Robert

I may be mixing it up with something else, but I half-think I remember a story told by a cabman, about how a man came into his shelter one night and started talking about the murders. I can't remember exactly where I might have read it, though.


I think that one is in the Complete Sourcebook, although I'm not absolutely sure.

By the way, I saw the suggestion about the cab stand on the old message boards. I don't know whether it figures in Ivor Edwards's book, which I haven't read either.

Chris Phillips


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty

Post Number: 337
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 7:56 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Chris, Robert, Mark, Nat,

Ive read Ivors book and certainly cannot recall any mention of Cabs or stands.

If anyone has checked out a contempary map of Goulston st they will notice that there was a lamp north of the doorway. The graffito was written on the right (south) jamb so it would reasonable to assume that the writer was using this lamp as light. Only problem I can see is the fact that gaslight doesnt travel that far.

Natalie,

Have you considered the public Baths in Goulston st itself ?

Monty
:-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Severn
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 4:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Robert,In my haste I forgot to write "suspect" or similar precursar re Montague Druitt who may indeed have had nothing to do with it all.In so many ways he seems such a decent sort of fellow-I especially liked what I read about his views on the French Republic, Bismarck even fashion etc and have difficulty matching such thinking with the activities of JtR.However he was Machnaghtens prime suspect and i"d like to know why.The fact that he was an ace cricketer and sportsman doesnt rule him out though in my opinion. With regard to the chalk.Perhaps these were simply his old clothes-the shabby gentille ones!Actually I would quite like to rule Druitt out because in so many ways it seems unlikely but ofcourse if he did suffer from a major mental illness that came on in his late twenties then he could in my own opinion have been our man. Best Natalie
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Severn
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 3:52 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Chris/Robert.Page 333 of Source book-Cabmans shelter incident I think its what you refer to. I must say I ve often wondered if Monty was such another as Duncan and maybe told someone he thought he was JtR. As regards needing a torch to write in Goulston St -well he didnt neen a torch in Mitre Square or Bucks Row.........Natalie
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash

Post Number: 120
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 9:46 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Robert

The cabman story is in the Press Reports section in the Newcastle Chronicle for 2nd October.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Donald Souden
Police Constable
Username: Supe

Post Number: 6
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 12:08 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

If we are to put so much importance on Jack having chalk at hand in the pocket, perhaps it is time for yet another generic suspect to be put forth --"Jack the bookmaker/turf accountant!" What are the odds?

Seriously, though, in an era without spray-paint cans or felt-tip markers, chalk may have been a more ubiquitous commodity than it is today. The police did say the area was full of graffiti and what else would they have used? As with the postulated bookie who used chalk to keep changing the odds at a track, it seems likely chalk was widely used by merchants to advertise daily specials and prices.

And don't read too much into MJD's positions taken in formal debates. He was probably just assigned those sides of the question or, if he did select them, it may simply have been that he thought those positions were the easier to argue. Remember, in a formal debate your personal opinion doesn't matter; what counts is how well you marshall and argue your "facts."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert

Post Number: 1078
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 3:11 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all

Chris, Natalie, Alan - thank you. The police said that the man checked out OK for the dates of the murders. So they checked up on him for the whole lot, and not just the most recent. Wonder if they did the same with Barnett?

Donald, yes, it's difficult to see what else they could have used for writing on walls, except paint.

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Severn
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 5:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Donald you make some good points.Yes many around Whitechapel might have used chalk for the reasons you offer and as Robert pointed out earlier the graffiti need not have been the work of JtR.Likewise on the subjects debated.MJD could have used these subjects to show off his debating skills.Thats all.So these may or may not be pieces of the jigsaw. Monty yes I had noticed the public baths and I know that many people bathed themselves in this way before private baths and showers became more widely used.I dont think it likely they were open at night but its possible.Ill try to check it out.
You are right Robert-brick walls whenever you think you are finding a way through.Sometimes the silence of a century seems to be telling us something though rather like finding out what it was that the women didnt fear about him.Natalie.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty

Post Number: 343
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 11:14 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Natalie,

I think the baths were checked out to be honest....though I do get confused with details concerning the MacKenzie murder.

Monty
:-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek

Post Number: 209
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 11:24 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I, too, think it is a stretch to link the use of chalk for the graffito with MJD being a teacher. Although I am not a teacher by profession, I have taught college classes. I used the blackboard extensively but I never once put a piece of chalk in my pocket or walked out of the classroom with it. I don't think he was more likely than anyone else to have chalk with him.

The only relevance might be that a teacher would be accostomed to writing on a vertical surface and the graffito was said to be written neatly.

Andy S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark Andrew Pardoe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Picapica

Post Number: 126
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 6:57 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Whereas I have had pieces of chalk in my pocket at one time but I am also not a teacher. I was a land surveyor.

By the way, how do we know Jack didn't have some sort of lamp with him in Mitre Square? Especially if he was a policeman.

Yes, I know that effects my thoughts about the graffiti but it needs to be asked.

Cheers, Mark (still in the dark)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Severn
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 2:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Monty,I have checked out the Goulston St Public Baths.I used two sources;i] Tower Hamlets local history section[by phone] who told me the baths were open in Autumn weekdays7.30am-9pm[1888]Sat until 9.30pm
However Erin gave a web site www victorianlondon.org and this provided some fascinating information on the Goulston Street/Square Baths which were part of a project to encourage the establishment of Baths and [laundry] workhouses.The Goulston Street complex formed part of a"Model Establishment which it says was open "at all times to visitors" one assumes this means that special times need not be set aside to accomodate visitors rather than such could visit at any time of the day or night.
However in another paragragh it says the baths were open from 7am-10pm
It refers to a committee meetingin ctte room 5Exeter Hall and Model Establishment Goulston Square Whitechapel.It made me wonder a bit about who might have sat on such a committee-perhaps calling up the minutes of that time to see if any of the names ring a bell. Apparently there was always plety of hot water for showers and for washing clothes drying clothes and there were ironing facilities.Natalie
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 9:25 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Andy S. & John Savage. This concerns the finds on Goulston St., the graffiti & the piece of apron. The former may not have been the Ripper's work, but the latter certainly was. The Ripper authors, to a man, use this as a case against MJD being the murderer. But why? Again, all the authors I've read, say that the Ripper "discarded" the piece of apron in Goulston St. But what if the apron was not discarded, but "placed". Philip Sugden tells us that if the statements of PC's Long & Halse are true, then the Ripper loitered in the area for between 36 & 71 minutes after Eddowes' murder. I believe that Druitt laid this false trail. When the apron & graffiti were found, the whole investigation descended on Goulston St. I believe that Druitt was concealed in the darkness close by, and when all attention was on Goulston St., he slipped quietly back across the city boundary to King's Bench Walk, leaving the police to believe that his direction from Mitre Square indicated that the killer resided in Whitechapel. Well, Andy & John, do you know if this has been considered??
Best Wishes
David Cartwright
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage

Post Number: 263
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, October 29, 2004 - 7:54 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi David,

I do not know if your suggestion that Montague left a false trail, before doubling back and heading for Kings Bench Walk has been considered before; but the idea seems unlikely to me. Why, having never left any clues at the previous murders, should he suddenly decide the need to lay a false trail? As I have said in a previous post, I do not believe that Monty resided at his chambers in Kings Bench Walk, this would have simply been his office. Also from what we read, his railway ticket was FROM Blackheath to London, had he resided at Kings Bench Walk and travelled to Blackheath to teach, then his ticket would have been the other way round.

I am afraid there is really no evidence against Monty apart from the McNaughton memorandum, and that was best summed up by Inspector Abberline, who stated that there was absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at the time.


Best Regards
John Savage
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert

Post Number: 3336
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 4:51 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi John

I agree that the discarded apron, with its seeming indication that the murderer lived in the east, is one of the main objections to Druitt's being the Ripper. 9 KBW was partly residential, and it's possible that Monty stayed with a residential friend there on one or more murder nights (his regular address remaining Blackheath). But still there is that damning piece of apron.

It's possible to imagine a scenario that might explain the apron. Suppose that the Ripper abandoned Kate's body because he heard Watkins on his way down Mitre St. I think it more likely that he left because he heard Morris opening his door, but it's possible that Watkins was the trigger. Well, in that case Jack would have had to go the other way - he couldn't leave via Mitre St, with Watkins at hand.

The question then becomes, how far east would the killer have felt obliged to go, before he felt it was safe enough to double back and try to go west again. This is a matter of individual psychology.

In favour of the 9KBW idea is the fact that Jack went west to Mitre Square in the first place after killing Stride. I'm aware though, that
1. Stride may not have been a Ripper victim.
2. The movement west may have been a matter of chance (like the movement east mentioned above).

I've got an uneasy feeling my own movement has been in circles!

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 10:20 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Robert. Thank you very much for that refreshing and encouraging message. I always try to think seriously and constructively about the Ripper and MJD, and to allow for all possibilities. But I find that most Ripperologists are too inflexible, in that so many things are set in stone, and no other ... alternatives seriously considered. One such thing is the piece of apron, which all refer to as "discarded", but could just as easily have been deliberately placed. You have just made a great point, which I for one had never thought of. With PC Watkins approaching from Mitre St., the Ripper(or Monty) would've had no choice but to go east from Mitre Square. Good thinking Robert. If Monty then found himself caught between the Whitechapel force and the City Police, planting the apron to bring all the attention to Goulston St, then doubling back to KBW,is more than possible. It seems that everyone credits the Ripper with being cool, cunning, and clever, yet never allow for such things as I've just suggested. I'd also like to know why else he carried the piece of apron all the way to Goulston St. If it was just to wipe his hands and knife on, he could have done so, and "discarded" it, within the first hundred yards of his flight. John S. said that he never left a clue after the other murders, so why this one. Exactly John. There must have been a reason, and I believe that reason was because it was Druitt,and he was trying to get back to King's Bench Walk. I hope to share more thoughts and views about MJD with you in the future Robert. Until then, take care.
Best Wishes.
David Cartwright.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, October 29, 2004 - 10:43 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi John. Thanks for the reply. I've never thought that Druitt resided at King's Bench Walk, only that it was a convenient bolt-hole to change clothes and clean up. I pay no attention to Abberline. He was just one of many inspectors on the ground, and was only assigned from the "yard" due to his Geographical knowledge of the area. This is the man who accused a wife-poisoner of being the Ripper, 15 years after the event. Any study of the two killers, and it's obvious that there was no chance of Chapman being Jack the Ripper. Abberline even "imagined" that he'd questioned Lucy Baderski about Chapman at the time of the Ripper murders, when the pair had never even met, and Chapman was unknown to the police. So Abberline's comments on Druitt are worthless. Macnaghten on the other hand was an official at the very top level, and didn't just pluck Monty out of thin air without good reason. Why should Druitt leave a false trail?? Why not?? With two murders on that night, saturation police coverage may have made a decoy necessary, to aid his escape back into the city. You're forgetting John, that Philip Sugden has shown us that it's virtually certain that the killer loitered in the area for some time after leaving Mitre Square. Again, why?? It's great to exchange thoughts and views with you John.
Best wishes
David Cartwright
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, October 29, 2004 - 10:44 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi John. Thanks for the reply. I've never thought that Druitt resided at King's Bench Walk, only that it was a convenient bolt-hole to change clothes and clean up. I pay no attention to Abberline. He was just one of many inspectors on the ground, and was only assigned from the "yard" due to his Geographical knowledge of the area. This is the man who accused a wife-poisoner of being the Ripper, 15 years after the event. Any study of the two killers, and it's obvious that there was no chance of Chapman being Jack the Ripper. Abberline even "imagined" that he'd questioned Lucy Baderski about Chapman at the time of the Ripper murders, when the pair had never even met, and Chapman was unknown to the police. So Abberline's comments on Druitt are worthless. Macnaghten on the other hand was an official at the very top level, and didn't just pluck Monty out of thin air without good reason. Why should Druitt leave a false trail?? Why not?? With two murders on that night, saturation police coverage may have made a decoy necessary, to aid his escape back into the city. You're forgetting John, that Philip Sugden has shown us that it's virtually certain that the killer loitered in the area for some time after leaving Mitre Square. Again, why?? It's great to exchange thoughts and views with you John.
Best wishes
David Cartwright
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek

Post Number: 621
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 12:08 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hello David,

Sorry to be so long to reply. I've been taking a break from the message boards. My answer is really much the same as Robert's and John's. I do not think that the finding of this piece of apron really proves anything about where the Ripper lived or stayed. All it proves is that he passed by that location after killing Eddowes. Whoever frightened him, I believe that the killer had a close call at Mitre Square and very nearly got pinched. This may well explain the long delay before the next murder as well as the fact that no more outdoor murders took place. I think the murderer fled in whichever direction was most convenient and safest to him.

I must also agree that there is no evidence against Druitt other than Macnaughten. But I do consider this mention significant. I do also believe that Druitt has the means and opportunity to be the killer -- and perhaps the "motive" if insanity can be considered a motive. I also think he fits the personality profile of a serial killer fairly well. In short, while we have a shortage of evidence, Druitt should not be discounted. I also think there is a possibility that further information might be forthcoming some day. His background seems relatively unprobed.

Andy S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr

Post Number: 288
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 5:40 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Good Ev-ening...
Having belatedly plugged back into this thread, I find fascinating just what grist can be made from the limited information provided by the briefest of press reports of Montague Druitt's Inquest, and from the lack of mention of his name in the surviving Home office and MEPOL papers.
Using a disease common enough today amongst historians, "twenty- twenty hindsight", it seems several retired policemen tried to cover their
failure to capture Jack The Ripper by drawing on unlikely or little-considered trifles from the files.(But we cannot reveal his identity because he was never brought to trial..Hmmm, very convenient).
Sir Melville Macnaghten seems to have been particularly active in wanting to tidy up the Ripper file. (Today, he would been talked of as seeking "closure").Thus providing a tiny "clue".
But one mystery I cannot find an answer to, is this: If Macnaghten's friend and confidante, and the keeper of a collection of crime memorabilia,
George R Sims was told more than anyone else about the chief Macnaghten suspect-Druitt,why oh why did Sims not follow up the leads? Talk to Druitts Blackheath cricketing
contemporaries, school pals, 9KBW occupants and even members of his family?
At that time, the Ripper Crimes were the Crimes of the Century.
The mystery to me is why Sims exhibited such a seeming lack of curiousity about the background of the man whose name he alone, had been gifted by Macnaghten!
Once again, I can only highlight one minute piece of seeming, information from Sims' 1907 LLOYDS WEEKLY NEWS article (see Press Reports) where Sims speaks of Druitt suffering from a hatred of women of the street....How accurate is this?
Perhaps two: Druitt's friends or relatives approached the authorities in the proper manner when Monty went missing...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100

Post Number: 511
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 8:43 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

John

From the Littlechild Letter - in which he responds to Sims's query about a "Dr D" being a suspect with the suggestion that it could be "Dr T[umblety]" - it sounds very much as though Sims was only given the initial of Druitt's surname.

I agree it's fascinating to speculate how much more he could have found out if he'd started with fuller information.

Chris Phillips

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg

Post Number: 1046
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 10:04 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Chris

You might be right that Littlechild in only using the letter "D"--presumably to indicate Druitt--might infer that Sims was only given the initial of Druitt's surname. However, in a letter that would pass through the mail system, Littlechild might have felt the need to be circumspect given that Druitt still would have had living relatives. Littlechild might not have cared as much about hiding the identity of Tumblety for obvious reasons related to Tumblety's notorious lifestyle.

All the best

Chris

Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr

Post Number: 290
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 5:35 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hello Chris and Chris,
I agree about Littlechild and Macnaghten's need to be circumspect.(To do so would only bring pain and suffering to his family..)
However, Sims elsewhere seems to be aware that "Dr D" resided at Blackheath, because he writes in the paper that the Ripper resided some six miles away from Whitechapel. And, if memory serves me correctly, around World War one, even mentioned Blackheath!!
Does that indicate Sims had put two and two together, and was now doing what he had been unable or neglected to do earlier? Checking the
movements of "D"?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr

Post Number: 292
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 6:27 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Sorry to jump in again, but I have just been watching an interesting documentary on the ABC
(public free-to-air television) here in Sydney, Australia.
It was about the "Back Packer murders", five girls and guys all European travellers touring Australia. All young, couples and singles.Stabbed, shot and raped.Around ten years ago.
The police arrested and subsequently succeeded in having gaoled for life road-worker Ivan Milat.
The senior detective in the case Detective Chief Superintendent Clive Small was interviewed and had this to say about the serial killer.(I para phrase):
Ivan Milat was a "control freak" he liked to manipulate women. When his wife left him he was devastated and in shock. He was no longer in control. It was then he lured and murdered these travellers.Whilst he had them in his clutches he could order them to do anything -out of fear of his gun and knife- he was in control again.
And after he had brutally murdered them he felt a release of pressure.He would feel calm again and would casually attend a friend's wedding or family gathering and be amusing: the life of the party...
These last comments made me think about the discussion above about whether Jack The Ripper(in this case Montague Druitt) could commit an horrific mutilation murder and then calmly go and play cricket: his favourite game. And play well.
If Druitt was the Ripper I wonder if he was a "Control Freak"?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert

Post Number: 3398
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 7:15 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Interesting, John. The impression I get about Druitt is that he was (until his illness) a fairly laidback sort of man. He doesn't seem to have thrown himself wholeheartedly into his legal career, preferring to make a reasonable living from it in a fairly average position, and augmenting his salary by teaching. His university degree was not top standard. maybe he just wasn't all that ambitious?

Still could have been JTR, though.

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 5:57 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hello Andy. Nice to hear from you. I do hope that you're right about MJD, and further knowledge forthcoming. I've always had the feeling that there was something hidden about this man. I also agree with everything you say about him, personality profile etc. Druitt's family, mostly the females, were cursed with hereditary insanity and suicide, and Monty himself was infected, as his own suicide proved. It is easy to believe that Druitt, seeing the tragedy that struck the "decent" women in his own family, could form a hatred of these "cheap" women selling themselves on street corners, especially as he was now unbalanced too. Then when his beloved Mother was hauled off to an asylum, only a couple of weeks before the murders began, "there" is the perfect trigger. Add to that, the sudden end to the killings, only about three weeeks before his suicide, and you have a circumstantial case, a motive, a beginning, and an end. Druitt was also a sportsman, fit, agile, and very strong, as the Ripper had to be. No sensible thinking person could believe that a maniacal killer with such a monstrous lust for blood, could just stop, and carry on leading a normal life. There have been other reasons put forward for the end of the murders. That the Ripper went abroad, or was imprisoned for another, unrelated offence. But when you look at the unbelievably horrendous slaughter of Mary Kelly, the only satisfactory explanation for the cessation of these murders, is the death of the killer. As one expert put it, referring to the Kelly murder, "The perpetrator of this horror, was undoubtedly in the last stage of some terrible form of insanity". I believe absolutely that "that" person was Montague Druitt. Well, it's been great to hear from you Andy, and to share thoughts and views with you. I think there's still some mileage in the Druitt mystery. I hope to hear from you again soon.
Very best wishes.
DAVID C.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 6:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hello John R. On the subject of whether MJD could have committed the murders, and then gone off to play a good game of cricket, remember the "Yorkshire Ripper", who after committing atrocious murders, went calmly back home to a wife, and then carried on his daily working life totally unperturbed. Druitt, like most serial killers, was a quiet inoffensive man who would attract very little attention. This facet of their make-up is often the reason why they stay at liberty for so long. However, I wouldn't compare MJD with Peter Sutcliffe in every way. Sutcliffe was simply evil, while Druitt was obviously rapidly deteriorating mentally. My own view is that he had a dual personality, a real life Jekyll and Hyde. But no man who possessed even a modicum of humanity, could live with waking up to the atrocious massacre of Miller's Court. I agree with Macnaghten's statement,that "The murderer's brain gave way altogether, after his awful glut in Miller's Court".
Best wishes John
David Cartwright
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

CB
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 11:25 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all,

Macnaughte discribed Druitt as being sexually insane. I believe this term was used in regards to homosexuals? Douglas Browne wrote in his book the rise of Scotlandyard that Macnaughten claimed to connect the ripper with the leader of a plot to assasinate Mr. Balfour. Druitt was Macnaughten preferd suspect. Could Druitt have been involved in such a matter or could he have been associated with people who were?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer

Post Number: 664
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 10:14 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

From another thread:

"It is of great intrinsic value, such as the understanding we now know that Melville MacNaghten was basically a boob, making such ridiculous errors on his personal suspect as his age and his actual first name."

This thinking, repeated by many others in other ways, has never sat well with me. It's easy to dismiss Macnaghten's errors as the 'ridiculous' words of a blustering boob, or --as other do-- of an old man with a 'garbled memory.' But is this the right answer?

It seems to me that very few have thought a bit futher, given Macnaghten a pinch of credit and asked why his biographical details about Druitt were wrong. And it's an important question because with the Druitt theory, one is faced with a seemingly irreconcilable contradiction: that, on one hand, Macnaghten is underinformed, and, on the other, that he is totally convinced. In his new book, Paul Begg, I think has come up with a very sensible answer.

He argues that Macnaghten's biographical details are wrong, not because his memory is garbled, but because he is working almost soley from the police report of Druitt's suicide. (I won't entirely step on Mr. Begg's toes...refer to his book for the full explanation). In other words, Macnaghten is not 'garbled'---he never really knew the details to begin with. Personally, I think Begg is very likely to be right about this.

Does this make Druitt an awful suspect? Not necessarily. We have to still explain why Macnaghten was so impressed. And the only reasonable answer is that there were some circumstances that convinced him. This is likely to have been something at the administrative level. So, for the sake of argument, it might have gone down something like this. The 'private' information from a Dorset MP reaches Macnaghten. A wild tale about a surgeon's son with blood on his clothes or whatever. Later, he turns up drowned. A second scrap of information includes that the man's brother was making inquiries, 'his own family suspected him.' Beyond that, Macnaghten doesn't know much. Using this, he rubbishes around and comes up with the Police Report on the drowning shortly after the Kelly murder which seemingly confirms the rumor he has been handed. It's persuasive. But then, there's something else, something that proves the clincher in his mind. We don't know what this is, but I think it is very likely to have existed. Scotland Yard had been compiling all sorts of lists. Insane medical students. Recently released lunatics. There must have been others. Sexual deviants, and so on. I think (and again, I can't prove it) but I think at the 'administrative level' Druitt's name turned up somewhere else. A man stopped for questioning in a darkened street, or a man who's name came up in a brothel raid, or so on. Somewhere, somehow, Druitt's name was already in the Ripper 'files', so when Macnaghten or his underling began poking around the 'rumor' seemingly was confirmed on two more levels--and that is why it proved so powerful a structure to so many, even though the individual bricks were weak. It was simply a circumstantial case, but that is all one is likely to get in a case like this that went unsolved. So it doesn't mean that Macnaghten was a boob, nor does it even necessarily mean that he was wrong. Signed,

~the last gasping of a faint hearted one-time Druittist.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100

Post Number: 1241
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 11:28 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

R. J.

One factor in speculating about Macnaghten's thought processes must be that - while he later seems to have become more convinced of Druitt's guilt, and while G. R. Sims (whose information presumably came from Macnaghten) was absolutely convinced - when he wrote the memoranda in 1894 he was far from certain about it.

If he became more convinced as a result of additional information, it must have been information received afer 1894.

One other little point to throw into the mix. How is this statement from Macnaghten's memoirs (1914) consistent with what we know of Druitt?
Not infrequently the maniac possesses a diseased body, and this was probably so in the case of the Whitechapel murderer.

Chris Phillips

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling

Post Number: 757
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 11:48 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dear R.J.

Actually it sounds like a coherently argued statement for giving old MacNaughten some respect. But actually, "blustering boob" is an extreme term of dismissal for those of us who question Sir Melville. He had a fine career in Scotland Yard, and was nobody's fool. My guess is that the number of petite errors in the description of Monty (his age, his profession, etc.) that were in Sir Melville's description have made most of us keenly defensive about picking Monty as the Ripper. The fact that he is a middle class barrister - solicitor - cricket player from Winchester and Oxford actually does also add to his being protected. While nobody says so, his background is as good as it goes for any non-entity type suspect (property holding, old family, well connected, etc.) to fight off insinuations. It is the comment about private information that bugs us. Nothing has turned up, while much has turned up.
We now know more about the Druitts, the number of suicides connected to poor health (diabitis), the relations with the Tukes, Monty's actually flourishing legal practice in November 1888. I really wish it was as easy to find such information about the poorer suspects.

What really gets me that in all these years (now forty six since Daniel Farson began to reveal "MJD" to the public) nobody in the Druitt has spoken up - at least none that I know of.

Your point about Druitt's name popping up on some police list is a fine one. One wishes such lists still existed. But even it did, all it would reveal is Monty was in a police raid on a given night, and gave his name. Somehow, if he was the Ripper, I would imagine he would have been more circumspect - gave a John Doe name or had false identification on him. Of course, if he had been in such a raid and the police - in checking him out - came to his workplace and put the boss through a hard time, it might explain his dismissal. Mr. Valentine would not have liked his teachers being arrested in the East End at that time. Then too, it would have given him a record with the police which might have haunted his barrister career. It could have been the key to his course towards suicide.

But why has nothing seem to come from the Druitt family or their descendant clans about Monty's innocence? Something ought have come out by this time. I was recently in touch with a young woman about a piece of writing I put down regarding a 19th Century American poisoner on another web site. The young woman was a collateral descendant (the young poisoner was hanged). She mentioned that the family is aware of his story, but either does not discuss it, or questions the story.

Nothing like that from any Druitt descendants. I find that incredible. I personally feel that Monty is more pitiable than frightening, but I can be dead wrong (for that matter any of us can be dead wrong - what if someone did prove it was Lewis Carroll!). But it really would help if members of that family could fully cooperate to the furthest of their abilities.

Best wishes,

Jeff

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

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.