Archive through January 29, 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 29, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Contemporary Suspects [ 1888 - 1910 ]: Druitt, Montague John: Archive through January 29, 2000

Author: Christopher T. George Thursday, 27 January 2000 - 11:03 pm
Hi, Jon, Nick, et al. I believe the name should be Bachert not Backert. See A to Z, "Bachert, William Albert (b. 1860). . . . Frequently misspelled [as] Backert." As the authors of A to Z state, Bachert had a long-standing connection to the murders, beginning in early September 1888 when he wrote to the Evening News "expressing horror at the murders." As reported in the East Anglian Daily Times of Monday, 1 October, Bachert made a statement that on Saturday, 29 September, the night of the double murder, while he was in the Three Tuns pub, Aldgate, he witnessed a man with a shiny black bag asking about "loose women" and that the man expressed hostility to prostitutes. This newspaper report, by the way, corrects the date of this incident as stated by A. M. Phypers in his interesting Casebook dissertation on "THE HOUSE WHERE JACK SWILLED? An Investigation Of Pubs, Beer & The Ripper." A.M.P. stated that "Albert Bachert, who was a member of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee and later its Chairman, visited the pub just two days after the 'double event.'" The incident was, as the newspaper reports proves, the night of the double event not two days later. A.M.P. does, however, get the name of the Three Tuns pub right -- Sugden says the "Three Nuns" and the East Anglian Daily Times gives the name as the "Three Guns." :-) A tun by the way was a barrel, so it makes a "natural" device for a pub sign. In regard to Druitt's suicide, it is usually stated that he committed suicide because he believed he was losing his mind. Might not a plausible scenario have been that if he was the Ripper, he committed suicide because he knew the police were close to arresting him and he didn't want to bring disgrace on his family? Chris George
Author: Jon Smyth Thursday, 27 January 2000 - 11:27 pm
Chris, it is never difficult to find a plausible scenario for the suicide. But the scenario presuposes the note to be genuine. The issue isnt really 'was it suicide?' but the issue is of the note, 'was it genuine?'. Everything that is suspected about Druitt is based on that note. As you say 'it is usually stated'..but it was originally stated in the suicide note, found by William......no matter what is suspected about Druitt, all roads lead back to William.
Author: R.J. Palmer Friday, 28 January 2000 - 04:25 am
Hello again. There has been plenty of evidence unearthed that Druitt was showing no outward signs of mental instability during the time of the Ripper killings and even up until very close to the time of his suicide. His cricket schedule. His presence at the board meeting of the Blackheath Cricket Club on November 19th (Sugden). It is now known that Druitt pleaded in court on behalf of the Druitt family firm of solicitors (of which William was head) on 22 November, 1888. (Amazingly Druitt won this case, the triumph of which was apparently published in The Times on Friday, 29th of Novemember, 1888----the very day his alleged suicide note was supposedly written!) William made it sound as though he hadn't seen Druitt since the end of October in the testimony from the inquest, which seems highly unlikely in the light of this information. Yes, I agree with you Jon, it is brother William that must be reckoned with. If you haven't seen it yet, you can read the very interesting report on M.J. Druitt's court cases during the fall of 1888 at the Cloak and Dagger Club's website at: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/7020/issue8/fido8.html But has anyone seen a copy of the Acton, Chiswick, and Turnham Green Gazette from 5 January 1889? There were also summaries from the testimonies of the man who found Druitt's body and the PC who was summoned. I have only found William's testimony in print. Cheers.
Author: R.J. Palmer Friday, 28 January 2000 - 04:42 am
Oops. Correction on the above. I meant to say that Friday 29th of December is generally thought to be the very day BEFORE the alleged suicide note was written.
Author: Christopher T. George Friday, 28 January 2000 - 07:09 am
Hi, RJ: I am sure you mean that "Friday 29th of November [1888] is generally thought to be the very day BEFORE the alleged suicide note was written." Chris George
Author: Jon Smyth Friday, 28 January 2000 - 06:27 pm
R.J. In Howells & Skinner's The Ripper Legacy, page 176 is the report from Acton, Chiswick & Turnham Green Gazette of Jan 5th, 1889.
Author: R.J. Palmer Friday, 28 January 2000 - 08:36 pm
Jon: Many thanks. I'll try to look it up this weekend.
Author: Alfred Grayte Saturday, 29 January 2000 - 06:22 am
There is no evidence that Druitt was regarded as a suspect before February 1894. The probability is that whatever information was about suspicions of Druitt's family as to him being the Ripper, it did not reach the police until at least 1891. Even then it was only suspicion, there was no evidence. The tale about Bachert of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee receiving information from the police in March 1889 about the murderer having died by drowning at the end of 1888 was another of Donald McCormick's Dr Thomas Dutton inventions and should be totally disregarded. It is a fiction. There is little doubt that Druitt's death was nothing more than suicide and the arguments about stones and the return ticket half to Hammersmith are specious. As for Druitt having been murdered rather than having committed suicide, this is just another theory that was first seriously suggested in the Howells/Skinner book The Ripper Legacy. The scenario in that book for his murder was sheer fantasy and the idea that William murdered him is little better. The details in the press of the inquest were reported in abbreviated form and no conclusions should be drawn, other than obvious facts, from what is printed. Nothing untoward is indicated and there is no indication that his brother lied. His statement that Druitt had "no other relative" merely related to relatives relevant to the inquest hearing, that is next of kin and close relatives, he was a single man of course. The Whitechapel murders were so high profile, and so widely reported in all the newspapers, including the provincial ones, that they were discussed throughout the land. The popular idea that Kelly was the final victim on 9 November 1888 then gained currency. Therefore, surely, if the relatives of someone known to have committed suicide within a month of the last murder put two and two together they could easily come to the conclusion that he was the killer. Especially if he was believed already to be odd sexually. Don't forget, in Victorian days masturbation led to blindness and insanity.
Author: Jon Smyth Saturday, 29 January 2000 - 09:21 am
A couple of points, Alfred..... When an asertive statement is made here it is always though prudent to supply a source for than statement. You say 'suspicion' against Druitt, but not evidence. What was the source for the suspicion? Macnaghten's statement is not 'suspicion' ..what he offered was the result, his opinion, of info received. I question the use of the word 'suspicion' as it implies more than one person having that opinion. If it cannot be shown to be any other person's opinion other than brother William, then it hardly even rates as 'suspicion'. The tale about Bachert's statement was another of McCormicks inventions? I dont doubt it for one minute, but you should indicate why. Do we know that the statement reported in the Pall Mall Gazette was fact? (I do not have a copy of it yet) Do we know Bachert made no other statement? (this would be tough to prove) McCormick offers that the statement was never published, thats the only clue I know of that may lead us to conclude it could be spurious. Druitt's death was for sure determined to be suicide, but like it or not there are suspicious circumstances around the last moments of Druitt, and the actions of brother William do not help clarify matters. I have never seen any reason to regard Druitt as a Ripper suspect. I see enough reason to question the suicide verdict. And I give all the reasons for that. (just a hint) If you choose to write with asertion, give yourself credence by posting supporting evidence for your asertions, rather that leave everyone thinking its just your opinion. Regards, Jon
Author: Alfred Grayte Saturday, 29 January 2000 - 02:29 pm
A couple of points Mr Smyth, I will make as many assertive statements as I wish, and don't give a damn whether you or anybody else thinks its my opinion or not. The fact of the matter is that I am in possession of a lot more information than you are. Macnaghten's notes said; "From private information I have little doubt that his own family suspected this man of being the Whitechapel murderer..." (Aberconway version). There is absolutely nothing stronger than suspicion or belief indicated, certainly no evidence offered. Why should I indicate why the Bachert tale was another McCormick invention? The fact suffices to stand on its own merits. The use of the phrase 'the late' Whitechapel fiend has nothing to do with being dead, it just means as of the 'late' (i.e. past) series of murders which had ended over a year before. All McCormick's tales emanating from Dr Dutton in relation to the murders are pure invention on McCormick's part. The Bachert tale is just one of them. There is no evidence at all to show that any such volumes as 'Dr Dutton's Chronicles of Crime' even existed, except in McCormick's inventive mind. When we talk of being assertive surely we must look closely at you Mr Smyth. Not only are you assertive, you are very presumptuous also. You presume to advise me of how to make my statements, you also presume to know better than an 1889 inquest coroner and jury in full possession of the facts. Far be it from me to call you a 'know it all,' but your ideas are most certainly only opinions. (just a hint) If you choose to step forward and criticise, give yourself credence by getting your own supporting evidence for your assertions, rather than leaving everyone else think you are a know-it-all.
Author: Jon Smyth Saturday, 29 January 2000 - 05:24 pm
Well, that was a waste of space...... Nothing added to the discussion that has not been pointed out before. Macnaghten received private info that indicated he suspected suspicion, .....blather. All the main police officials try to give the impression they knew the 'real story'. Almost as if being a repository of information makes 'some' believe they know all the answers.....must be inherent in policework. We already know that 'late' can be taken two ways, nothing new there. I'm pretty sure most researchers regard Dr. Duttons 'notes' as a pure fiction, most wont declare this belief as a fact, as you can hardly prove that something never existed. So, we learned nothing in that exchange. Maybe what was learned was that 'anon' by any other name is still 'anon'. ruffled feathers? :-)
Author: R.J. Palmer Saturday, 29 January 2000 - 06:12 pm
Alfred, your speculation about the inquest is tasty, but I'm having a bit of trouble swallowing it. Can you offer any examples where the phrase 'He had no other relative' is Victorian legal jargon for 'He had no wife and kids'? It is a simple declarative sentence. It strikes me as odd and evasive considering Druitt had a mother, 2 brothers, 3 sisters, 2 paternal uncles, cousins, etc. alive at the time. Except perhaps for little old ladies writing tracts on personal hygiene, I doubt that the average Victorian believed masturbation would lead to insanity or blindness. It is like saying that the average contemporary of Columbus thought the world was flat. It is ludicrous to suggest that Macnaghten was gullible enough to equate something as trivial as masturbation or collecting French postcards with the 'sexual insanity' needed to kill and mutilate five women. Whatever you think of Macnaghten or his 'suspicions', something led him to find Druitt --a respectable and successful barrister with no ties to Whitechapel-- a more credible suspect than the raving loonies Ostrog and Kosminski...both of whom where suspected AT THE TIME OF THE MURDERS. But to apply your own standards to Macnaghten, I'm sure he had his own opinions and didn't "give a damn" who believed them or not.
Author: Alfred Grayte Saturday, 29 January 2000 - 07:44 pm
R.J., it is not speculation that it was jargon used at the inquest, it merely meant that there were no other close relatives, other than ones the court was aware of. With no full court record available, you are the one who is speculating in order to invent your own silly ideas of plots and conspiracy. Regarding your second comment we need do no more than quote Macnaghten himself regarding Kosminski, "This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices." In case you are not aware 'solitary vices' means masturbation. Also the asylum records in relation to Kosminski's mental state show that the cause of his illness was "self-abuse," so I suggest that you check out your facts before you make crass statements such as "Except for little old ladies writing tracts on personal hygiene, I doubt that the average Victorian believed masturbation would lead to insanity or blindness..." You are obviously sadly wrong on this point. You then go on to broadcast your next crass error by shouting it out - "...Ostrog and Kosminski...both of whom were suspected AT THE TIME OF THE MURDERS..." PLease show us all one fact that indicates that this was the case. As with Druitt, there is no evidence that either Ostrog or Kosminski were suspected at all in 1888. In fact quite the contrary, the first police mention of their names is Macnaghten's 1894 report. Until you can get your basic facts right I suggest that you stay out of arguments with those, like Mr Smyth and me, who know a lot more than you do. Get back to your studies and come back when you can get your facts straight.
Author: R.J. Palmer Saturday, 29 January 2000 - 08:13 pm
Alfred, see the top 3 paragraphs of pg. 433 of Sugden in respect to Ostrog being suspected at the time of the murders. I'm sorry for putting a bur under your saddle, but your short temper makes you leap to conclusions. Where, sir, did I ever claim that there was a conspiracy or plot in conjunction with Druitt's death? Where? I firmly believe Druitt committed a rather garden variety suicide, and have never said anything to the contrary!!! Gain control of yourself and perhaps you can see more clearly. And I find it amusing that you are suddenly kissing up to Jon after attacking him in the two preceding messages.
Author: R.J. Palmer Saturday, 29 January 2000 - 08:22 pm
"Macnaghten says that Druitt was 'alleged' to be sexually insane. It is clear from page 109 of his autobiography, where he refers to the murderer Neill Cream as a 'sexual maniac', that Macnaghten defined this term as a person who derived pleasure from killing. However, the point is Macnaghten did not know that Druitt was sexually insane." (Begg, page 184) Begg, at least, finds Macnaghten's use of the term a little more serious than mere self-abuse. I don't dispute any of the information that you have given, Alfred, but I find your conclusions neither better or worse than anyone elses.
Author: Jon Smyth Saturday, 29 January 2000 - 08:23 pm
R.J. Dont feel offended, 'Alfred' is actually helpful friendly type, even though he cant bake cakes to save his bloody life !! Alfred & I know each other, he's very knowledgeable......not an expert :-) but still very knowledgeable. He has his opinions, and I have mine, I assume we both respect that, but then he would probably say I assume too bloody much !!! :-) Neither Druitt, Kosminski nor Ostrog were suspected at the time of the murders, their names simmered to the surface in the following years. Regards, Jon
Author: R.J. Palmer Saturday, 29 January 2000 - 08:55 pm
No, I'm not offended. It is indeed refreshing to see someone care enough about a bit of history to get their blood flowing. I suspect I was wrong about Kosminski; and yet, I remember reading that he was somewhat dubiously identified by one of the eyewitnesses. For now I will admit defeat and leave the message boards to the experts. But, damn it, I think you Ripperologist would say anything but your prayers!
Author: Christopher T. George Saturday, 29 January 2000 - 09:32 pm
Hi, R.J.: I certainly hope you will not quit the boards but will continue to contribute. I for one find this discussion of Druitt refreshing. It seems that these days he is not regarded in the front rank of suspects and it is interesting to try to take a closer look at what we do know about him and weigh that against what Macnaghten says. Chris George
Author: Jon Smyth Saturday, 29 January 2000 - 09:55 pm
This poste vanished into the ether...... I'll try again... R.J. I should have appended this to my previous poste.. Those such as Sugden, Begg & Rumbelow are viewed as icons by some ripper students, but their works are not error free. Unfortunatly it is a fact of life that errors creap into published works for one reason or another. Even though Sugden's work is viewed by many as one of the best, if not thee best (up to date), which offer an overall view of the ripper murders, it is always advisable to do your own research where possible. Do not leave, this is NOT the domain of experts, I have enjoyed our exchanges, "if you only wate a whil longer" you may enjoy the exchanges too. Regards, Jon
Author: R.J. Palmer Saturday, 29 January 2000 - 11:04 pm
Chris, Jon, Alfred, and etc. Thanks for the discussion and the constructive criticism. My skin is thick; I shant be gone from the boards forever. I already enjoy the exchanges. But unfortunately, like Druitt, I only have time for the Ripper thing on weekends... No doubt one could and should question Begg, Sugden, etc. when appropriate. But I'm not sure what particular errors you mean, Jon. Begg states that Ostrog is mentioned in the Police Gazette of 26 Ocotber 1888. I haven't seen a copy of the Gazette. But if true, this certainly puts into doubt Alfred's broad statement that "the first police mention of their names is Macnaghten's 1894 report". Wouldn't it be more prudent to say that it has not been proven either way whether or not the three were suspects at the time of the Whitechapel murders? Until we meet again, Best regards to all.