Archive through January 27, 2000

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through January 27, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Contemporary Suspects [ 1888 - 1910 ]: Druitt, Montague John: Archive through January 27, 2000

Author: Ashling Wednesday, 05 January 2000 - 08:27 pm
JON: Was everyone in Druitt's family, except bro William, REALLY dead? I've been re-reading the few dribs & drabs on Druitt in my home library. One sis committed suicide but what about the other two, plus the other two brothers and Druitt's uncle? All those folks were alive when Druitt's dad died. I haven't read Howells & Skinner on Druitt yet - what year was it published? Thanks, Ashling
Author: Jon Wednesday, 05 January 2000 - 11:04 pm
Ashling: Everyone? ..certainly not. At the time of Montague's death he had 5 siblings still alive, 3 sisters & 2 brothers. William b.1856 d.1909 and Edward b.1859, a younger sister Edith & an older sister Georgina who, in her later years committed suicide. Montague was the second son of a family of 7 children. His Father William who died in 1885 had two brothers; Robert and James. Robert's son Lionel went to Australia in 1887. Brother William lied at the inquest when he stated that he & his mother were the only relatives. The Mother had been committed to Brookes Asylum in July 1888 and died in Chiswick Asylum in Dec. 1890. She did not move to Chiswick until after Montague's suicide. The Ripper Legacy was published by Spear & Jackson in 1987 & by Sphere Books in 1988. Regards, Jon
Author: D. Radka Wednesday, 05 January 2000 - 11:57 pm
Bob, I had a friend go off like that too, in the tenth grade. We sat side by side in our English literature class for almost a year, enthusiastically reading and discussing Dickens, and many other things. Then one day after school let out, instead of driving home in his car, he hooked up a rubber hose from the tailpipe through the driver's side window, and ran the engine until he was dead. Right there in the school parking lot. Absolutely no forewarning; I was talking with him an hour before it happened and he seemed perfectly fine. Paul his name was, great guy. Sometimes you just don't know what's going to happen. David
Author: Bob_C Thursday, 06 January 2000 - 06:02 am
Hi all, I was completely stunned at that time. Phil, a mate who shared your dreams and plans and stood shoulder to shoulder, in right or in wrong, when needed. It took a very long time to get over it. More than anything else was the question Why? Returning to Druitt, then, I can only say that in my experience (and yours, David, sorry about your mate Paul) there is often no way to be able to judge when, what, or why people do such things, or the signs are not recognised. If Druitt had been caught making advances to the pupils at his school, or some much lesser matter, is not to say today. It did seem to be the cause of his suicide, or better, the fear of the cause drove him to it. In any case, his suicide may well not have been premeditated. As an assumed strong swimmer, we may indeed ask why his chosen form of suicide, assuming it was. Assuming, however, him to be mentally unhinged at that time, just filling his pockets and jumping on the spur of the moment, we can also assume that he gave no thought to that, but just jumped. A common saying then was '..the bridge', meaning suicide. Incidently, the stones found in his pockets may well not have caused him to drown. If he were mentally unbalanced he would possibly have just breathed water in deeply, until his so induced physical state rendered his unconcious natural struggle for life ineffective. Best regards Bob
Author: Angela Robertson Thursday, 06 January 2000 - 11:08 am
That's a good point about the stones. But think about this: why were they there in the first place? Unless he was a rock collector or something =) . . . Angie
Author: Jon Thursday, 06 January 2000 - 06:16 pm
All the 'IFs', 'BUTs' & 'MAYBEs' arent worth a dam if the provenance of the 'note' is suspicious. We can only speculate as to the reason for the dismissal.....because of the note. We can only speculate as to Montague being insane....because of the note. We can only speculate to the death being suicide....because of the note. He may have been disimissed due to an entirely unrelated reason. He may not have been insane at all. It may not have been suicide. Strange how a few words of unproven provenance can have such a profound effect on a case, so much innuendo, supposition & assumption. Alas, we may never know the truth. Regards, Jon
Author: Bob_C Friday, 07 January 2000 - 03:35 am
Hi Jon, Indeed, your words are so right. In both directions. Had the absence of a note proved anything? Do sane persons never commit suicide? What was to gain by a murder? What could Monty have known that would have made it worth the risk of hanging to eliminate him? Why stage a 'suicide', with no guarantee of the body being found (or not found), when it would have been much safer to have staged an accident? Even a simple street murder would have been, in those violent times, less of a risk. Your words; Strange how a few words of unproven provenance can have such a profound effect on a case, so much innuendo, supposition & assumption. That is, alass, all too true. To suggest a murder no less that to suggest a suicide. Best regards, Bob
Author: Bob_C Friday, 07 January 2000 - 03:45 am
Hi Angie, I think there would have been stones or brick bits all over the place. The streets then weren't what they are today, and the Thames embankments would have supplied enough stones to sink a battleship. Best regards, Bob
Author: joel todd Monday, 10 January 2000 - 07:10 am
hello i am new to the ripper case. i have only read through a few web sites. does anyone know why druitt's family believe him to be the ripper?
Author: Angela Robertson Monday, 10 January 2000 - 11:13 am
Joel, First off, welcome. Secondly, there is really no proof that his family believed him to be the Ripper. Macnaghten, the police officer, worded his memoranda weirdly. "I have little doubt that his family regarded him as the Ripper." That doesn't make sense, at least not to me. First, one's own family will not normally admit to having a vicious murderer among its ranks. Secondly, no documentation has ever been discovered on that angle of Druitt's life. Show me the documents! =) Hope you have a great time on this board. Angie
Author: Dean Tuesday, 11 January 2000 - 06:25 pm
Cheers, you both are right(maybe).I wonder if anyone has read In The Footsteps Of The Whitechapel Murders by John Plimmer? It could change many views.
Author: DEAN Saturday, 15 January 2000 - 07:12 pm
CAN NO ANSWER THIS
Author: R. Justin Thursday, 20 January 2000 - 05:19 am
Actually, throwing a few stones in one's pockets is not unheard of among those who commit suicide by drowning. Virgiania Woolf did, for instance. A woman here in Oregon tragically drowned herself recently, and several large stones were found in her pockets. I don't understand the physics of the thing; maybe it's just psychological...
Author: John Clare Monday, 24 January 2000 - 08:53 pm
Just seen the site today. I might be able to add a little to some points. First, swimming is a comparatively modern hobby. The first pool here in Kingston upon Thames, where I live, was a canvas device floating in the Thames. This dates from 1897. The Thames itself was so filthy then that you might well die of poisoning before you drowned. Organised swimming with classes etc only really started in the 1920's or 30's. A sportsman who played cricket, fives and hockey may well not have bothered to learn. Secondly, the four weeks between the death and the finding of the body is about right. The stones would have sunk the body, but decomposition gradually builds up gas in the body. This can vary dependent upon river temperature, but a time of four weeks in winter is about right for it to pop up again. A friend is a waterman and there are still many cases of this happening. By 1880, the Embankment in Central London looked very much as today and stones would not have been easily available. Most of the stones in the river bed are about the size of pea gravel or smaller. It does suggest that he found them before he went to the river (IMHO). Finally, I know of Blackheath Cricket Club and of Morden Cricket Club. I have never heard of a Blackheath Morden Cricket Club. Morden is an old Club and Morden station is at the end of the Northern Tube line, so not too difficult to get to from a large part of central South London. Maybe he joined both or joined Morden first. If he played senior level Cricket in Dorset, he is unlikely to have been satisfied with an unknown Club, but progression from Morden to Blackheath is understandable.
Author: Jon Smyth Wednesday, 26 January 2000 - 11:15 pm
R.J.Palmer wrote: It is IMPOSSIBLE that Druitt would have become a suspect in the winter of 1888/89 SOLEY on the weight of his timely suicide, since the police didn't yet know the murders had ended. The first mention I recall of Druitt as a suspect was by Macnaghten in 1894, are you suggesting he was named as a suspect in 1888/89? We all know Macnaghten named Druitt because of privey information he had been given, that no-one else apparently knew about. Macnaghten did not draw anything out of thin air....he was basing his comments on stories he had been told (brother William?) and certain 'other' info that he wants us to trust him on. Name something, anything, that connects this sad individual with the murders, any of the murders!!. It is not for another generation to come up with a viable reason for Macnaghtens compilation of suspects. But for a reasonable minded researcher to find something, anything to connect Druitt with these crimes......and they all come up empty handed...everyone, up to now. Mr Palmer, will you be the exception?
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 27 January 2000 - 05:39 am
Hello Everyone. Jon, to answer your question: no, probably not. I never suggested that Druitt is KNOWN to be a suspect in 1888/89. I made the statement in the context of showing that it is illogical and ridiculous to suggest that Druitt's suicide is the reason he became a Ripper suspect, since the police didn't yet now whether the killings had stopped in 1888/89, and, if they only began to suspect him at a later date, it would be hard to convince me that they were pouring over the files of old Acton and Chiswick newspapers looking for a suitable scapegoat suicide that took place after Mary Kelley's death. Thank you for admitting that Macnaghten therefore MUST of had private information. Macnaghten joined the force in the summer if 1889. When he first began to suspect Druitt is unclear. There is, of course, also the old story of Dr. Thorton Dutton, who stated that the Whitechapel Vigilance committee was told that a Ripper suspect had drown in the Thames in the early winter of 1889...obviously a reference to Druitt. This would pre-date Macnaughten, though it hasn't been backed up by any secondary evidence. But returning to the subject of Druitt's drowning. I agree that it is precarious to use logic in trying to explain the actions of a suicide. Still, it strikes me as highly unlikely that Druitt would both leave a suicide note AND buy a return ticket to Hammersmith. I think it is plausible that Matthew Fletch's conjecture (in his disertation on Druitt) is correct; Druitt's brother William fabricated the suicide note to put a hasty end to a troubling and embarrassing inquest in Chiswick. This explains why the note's awkward "since Friday" doesn't make good sense. Obviously William wasn't entirely forthcoming. He fibbed at the inquest when he stated that Druitt had "no other relative." No doubt he didn't want his family bothered. Every single detail of the inquest is a muddle when examined closely. If what Macnaghten said is true, it is reasonable to assume that it was William that suspected him of being the Ripper.
Author: NickDanger Thursday, 27 January 2000 - 04:49 pm
Hi all, Does anyone know if there is any source other than Donald McCormick for the story about Albert Backert being told in March 1889 that the killer had been found drowned in the Thames? Thanks, Nick
Author: Jon Smyth Thursday, 27 January 2000 - 07:46 pm
R.J. I wouldnt put much weight in the idea of Macnaghten having private information which could just be a euphemism for 'gossip'. And especially as Willaim Druitt's actions can be called into question, coupled with the story of Macnaghten & Druitt's family close connections. That suicide note has done all the damage as far as Druitt's reputation goes, and as we cant substantiate anything about Druitt being insane, or depressed or suspected as a killer, then we must question the origin of the note itself. There simply isn't anything to pin on Montague Druitt, unless you believe his brother. Nick: As far as I know McCormick is the only source for that statement, though Backert did make a statement to the Pall Mall Gazette the day before the Frances Coles inquest, "..if evidence is brought forward which can prove that it has been committed by the late Whitechapel fiend,...." The reference to 'late' has always been taken to mean that Backert was under the impression the Ripper was dead by this time. Jon
Author: NickDanger Thursday, 27 January 2000 - 09:16 pm
Hi Jon, Thanks for the reply. I dug out my old copy of Tom Cullen's book and there were the quotes on Backert from McCormick, noted as having been obtained from Dr. Dutton. I'm by no means a Victorian grammarian, but I wonder if the word 'late' in reference to the 'Whitechapel fiend', might be more readily interpreted as 'recent' as opposed to the more familiar usage implying that the subject is dead. Best regards, Nick
Author: Jon Smyth Thursday, 27 January 2000 - 10:27 pm
Your suggestion of an alternate meaning for 'late' is exactly what has fueled a minor debate. Supporters of the Ripper dying accept the former meaning, while opposers accept your meaning. 'Late' certainly could be taken either way. Dr Thomas Dutton's Chronicles of Crime, if it ever existed, would certainly be a much sought after collection, supposedly of three volumes of hand written notes. But it as yet has eluded all researchers to the best of my knowledge.