Druitt, cricket and other statistics

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

I saw that a while back Chris Scott had been trying to compile a full list of Druitt's cricket games. Herewith a few details that may be of use for Chris and others.
I looked up a few details of Montague John Druitt's cricket games, and put some details together. Some of these underneath are known. A few may not be. I have added a few details under some of the games which may or may not be known. Additionally, a few details of other known Druitts and possibly another game which MJD may have played under another initial.
If any of these details have been submitted before, my apologies.


1) 8th June 1876. Winchester College v MCC (Marylebone Cricket Club), played at Winchester College Ground. Druitt played for Winchester.
1 day game. 2 innings per side.Winchester batted first. 11 players per side. 4 balls per over.

Winchester 1st innings 121 all out (Druitt 17 not out, batting No. 10)
MCC 1st innings 75 all out (Druitt took 2 of the 10 wickets)
Winchester 2nd innings 57 all out (Druitt 9 not out, batting No.10)

MCC needed 104 runs to win
MCC 2nd innings 108 for 2 wickets. (Druitt did not take a wicket in this innings)

MCC won by 8 wickets


2) 23rd and 24th June 1876. Winchester College v Eton College, played at Winchester College Ground. Druitt played for Winchester.
2 day game. 2 innings per side. Eton batted first. 11 players per side. 4 balls per over.

Eton 1st innings 240 all out (Druitt took 2 wickets) His bowling figures were:- 48 overs 15 maidens 67 runs 2 wickets. He bowled two wides.
Winchester 1st innings 74 all out (Druitt batting at No.10, was run out, and scored 10 runs)
Winchester followed on, 166 runs behind.
Winchester 2nd innings 68 all out (Druitt, batting at No.10, was bowled after having scored 2 runs)

Eton won by an innings and 98 runs.

For the cricket enthusiast, an interesting player in the Eton side was IFW (Ivo) Bligh, the first England captain that brought back the "Ashes" from Australia in the early 1880's.
In this game, he scored 73 runs in Eton's 1st (and only) innings. Ivo Bligh (later the 8th Earl of Darnley) was the uncle of the Reverend Henry Bligh who was President of Hampton Hill CC
1883-87, 1889-90 and 1893. Hampton Hill is where we find during the 1880's the figure of George Morris, resident in Pantile Close, Hampton Common (renamed Hampton Hill in 1890), he of
Mitre Square fame. One E.J. Ruggles-Brise played for E.Hirst's XI. A surname familiar with our genre.


3) 6th July 1876. Winchester College v I Zingari, played at Winchester College Ground. Druitt played for Winchester.
1 day game. 1 innings per side. 11 players per side. I Zingari batted first. 4 balls per over.

I Zingari 1st innings 204 all out (Druitt did not take a wicket)
Winchester 1st innings 121 all out (Druitt batted at No. 9. He was out caught. He scored 0 runs)

I Zingari won by 83 runs.

Two names of note here. Viscount Lewisham played for I Zingari, as did one W.H.Grenfell, a relation of the famous comedienne and actress Joyce Grenfell.

4) 27th and 28th April 1877. H.E.Fowler's XI v E.Hirst's XI, played at Magdelen Ground, Oxford. This was the Oxford University Freshman's trial game. Druitt played for H.E.Fowler's XI.
2 day game. 2 innings per side. 13 players per side. 4 balls per over. E.Hirst's XI batted first.

E.Hirst's XI 1st innings 56 all out (Druitt took 1 wicket) His bowling figures were:- 8 overs ? maidens 5 runs 1 wicket.
H.E.Fowler's XI 1st innings 65 all out (Druitt batting at No. 11, was bowled after having scored 2 runs)
E.Hirst's Zi 2nd innings 82 all out (Druitt took 5 wickets) His bowling figures were:- 31 overs ? maidens 30 runs 5 wickets
H.E.Fowler's XI needed 74 runs to win
H:E:Fowler's XI 2nd innings 79 for 3 wickets. (Druitt batting at No. 3, was bowled after having scored 11 runs)

H:E:Fowler's XI won by 9 wickets.

Again E.J. Ruggles-Brise played against Druitt, this time for E.Hist's XI.

5) 4th and 5th May 1877. Oxford University v Oxford University Next XVI played at Magdalen Ground, Oxford. Druitt played for Oxford University next XVI.
2 day game. 2 innings per side. Oxford University 11 players, Oxford Unversity Next XVI 16 players. 4 balls per over. Oxford University Next XVI batted first.

Oxford University Next XVI Ist innings 122 all out (Druitt batting at No. 13, was bowled after having scored 2 runs)
Oxford University Ist innings 246 for 9 wickets. (Druitt took 1 wicket) His bowling figures 19 overs ? maidens 31 runs 1 wicket

Match drawn.

E.J. Ruggles-Brise played with Druitt in the same team.

6) 5th and 6th May 1879. H.Fowler's XI v A.Pearson's XI. Played at Magdalen Ground, Oxford. This was the Oxford university Seniors game. Druitt played for H.Fowler's XI.
2 day game. 2 innings per side. 12 players per side. 4 ball over. A.Pearson's XI batted first.

A.Pearson's XI 1st innings 55 all out. (Druitt took 3 wickets) His bowling figures were:- 14 overs ? maidens 20 runs 3 wickets
H.Fowler's XI 1st innings 216 all out (Druitt batting at No. 10, was bowled having scored 28 runs)
A.Pearson's XI 1st innings 109 all out (Druitt did not take a wicket) His bowling figures were:- 10 overs ? maidens 38 runs 0 wickets

H. Fowler's XI won by an innings and 52 runs


7) 15th, 16th and 17th May 1879. Oxford University v Oxford University Next XVI played at Magdalen Ground, Oxford. Druitt played for Oxford University next XVI.
3 day game. 2 innings per side. Oxford University 11 players, Oxford Unversity Next XVI 16 players. 4 balls per over. Oxford University batted first.

Oxford University 1st innings 94 all out. (Druitt did not take a wicket) His bowling figures were:- 18 overs ? maidens 27 runs 0 wickets.
Oxford University Next XVI Ist innings 191 all out. (Druitt batting at No. 15, was bowled after having scored 6 runs)
Oxford University 2nd innings 146 all out. (Druitt took 1 wicket) His bowling figures were:- 27 overs ? maidens 35 runs 1 wickets
Oxford University Next XVI 2nd innings 36 for 0 wickets (Druitt did not bat in this innings)

Oxford University Next XVI won by 16 wickets.

E. Hirst, H. Fowler and A. Pearson, all from the above games, were all in the Oxford University team.

8) 30th and 31st of July 1879. Gentlemen of Dorset v Gentlemen of Devon played at Sherborne School. Druitt played for the Gentlemen of Dorset.
2 day game. 2 innings per side. 11 players per side. 4 balls per over. Gentlemen of Dorset batted first.

Gentlemen of Dorset 1st innings 85 all out (Druitt batting at No. 11, was bowled after having scored 4 runs)
Gentlemen of Devon 1st innings 262 all out (Druitt did not bowl in this innings)
Gentlemen of Dorset 1st innings 113 all out (Druitt batting at No. 11, was not out after having scored 13 runs)

Gentlemen of Dorset won by an innings and 64 runs


9) 1st and 2nd August 1879. Dorset v Somerset played at Sherborne School. Druitt played for Dorset.
2 day game. 2 innings per side. 11 players per side. 4 balls per over. Somerset batted first.

Somerset 1st innings 155 all out (Druitt did not bowl in this innings)
Dorset 1st innings 321 allout (Druitt batting at No. 9, was out caught after having scored 6 runs)
Somerset 2nd innings 84 for 5 wickets (Druitt did not bowl in this innings)

Match drawn.

Neither Somerset nor Dorset, although fielding a County XI, were First Class Cricket Counties at this time. Somerset later became a first class team. Dorset are still not regarded as a First Class Cricket County.

10) 26th, 27th and 28th April 1880. C.E.Horner's XI v R.L.Knight's XI played at Magdalen Ground, Oxford. Druitt played for C.E.Horner's XI.
3 day game. 2 innings per side. 12 players per side. 4 balls per over. R.L.Knight's XI batted first.

R.L.Knight's XI 1st innings 213 all out (Druitt took 3 wickets) His bowling figures were:- 35 overs 19 maidens 43 runs 3 wickets
C.E.Horner's XI 1st innings 389 for 10 wickets declared (Druitt did not bat in this innings)
R.L.Knight's XI 2nd innings 229 for 8 wickets (Druitt did not bowl in this innings)

Match Drawn

Note that Druitt neither batted nor bowled again in the match after the first innings, which indicates he was unable to bat or bowl on days two and three of this match. Reason is unknown but indicates an injury. This possibility is also strengthened by the fact that in the 2nd innings of R.L.Knight's XI, a substitute fielder was used.

11) 22nd and 23rd August 1881. Wiltshire v Dorset played at Trowbridge Cricket Club Ground, Trowbridge, Wiltshire. Druitt played for Dorset.
2 day game. 2 innings per side. 11 players per side. 4 balls per over. Dorset batted first.

Dorset 1st innings 70 all out. (Druitt batting at No. 9, was bowled after having scored 11 runs)
Wiltshire 1st innings 52 all out. (Druitt did not bowl in this innings)
Dorset 2nd innings 93 all out. (Druitt was run out having scored 27 runs)

Match abandoned due to rain.

Wiltshire are still not classed as a First Class Cricket County to this day.

NB On the second day owing to heavy rain during the night, a fresh wicket was used for the third innings but at 3 o'clock the match was abandoned owing to the downpour.
This match was not published in any sporting papers.
As a professional played on both sides it was not it is perceived a match between the gentlemen of the counties, but between the whole county.


12) 9th August 1882. Devon v Dorset played at The Fortfield, Sidmouth, Devon. Druitt played for Dorset.
2 day game. 2 innings per side. 11 players per side. 6 balls per over. Dorset batted first.

Dorset 1st innings 110 all out (Druitt batting at No. 2, was out caught after having scored 17 runs)
Devon 1st innings 229 all out (Druitt took 3 wickets)
Dorset 2nd innings 81 all out (Druitt batting at No. 2, was out caught after having scored 0 runs)

Devon won by an innings and 38 runs.

J.S.Udal played for Dorset. The Udal name will be familiar with cricket followers as Sean Udal, the Ex England player is related to this man. Another co-incidence is that 3 more name relatives of Sean Udal played for Hampton Hill CC in the 1960's and 1970's, the same club as mentioned over in game No. 2. in connection with I.F.W. Bligh, Henry Bligh and George Morris.

13) 1st and 2nd August 1883. Dorset v Devon played at Sherborne, Dorset. Druitt played for Dorset.
2 day game. 2 innings per side. 11 players per side. 6 balls per over. Devon batted first.

Devon 1st innings 118 for 9 wickets declared (Druitt took 4 wickets)
Dorset 1st innings 43 all out (Druitt batting at No. 1, was out caught after having scored 13 runs)
Devon 2nd innings 96 all out (Druitt took 4 wickets)
Dorset needed 172 runs to win

Dorset 2nd innings 72 for 3 wickets (Druitt did not bat in this innings)

Match drawn.

14) 10th and 11th August 1885. Wiltshire v MCC (Marylebone Cricket Club) played at Trowbridge Cricket Club Ground, Trowbridge, Wiltshire. Druitt played for MCC.
2 day game. 2 innings per side. 11 players per side. 4 balls per over. MCC batted first.

MCC 1st Innings 266 all out (Druitt batting at No. 9, was out caught after having scored 0 runs)
Wiltshire 1st innings 79 all out (Druitt did not bowl in this innings)
Wiltshire 2nd innings 61 all out (Druitt did not bowl in this innings either)

MCC won by an innings and 126 runs

Here are are in with some big names. THE W.G.Grace played in this match foir the MCC. He batted as No.1, scored 53, and took 5 wickets and 7 wickets whilst bowling for MCC.
In addition, the great W.Gunn (Nottinghamshire), W.G.Gilbert, G.F.Hearne, J.R. Painter, R.J.Pope, W.A.Woof and W.Mycroft played for the MCC.
The name Mycroft is said to be the inspiration for the name of Sherlock Holme's brother in the books written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
Judging from his score of 0, the quality of his teammates and the fact that he didn't get a bowl, Druitt is in a league of players above his ability here.

15) 10th June 1886. Harrow School v MCC (Marylebone Cricket Club) played at Harrow School Cricket Ground, Harrow, Middlesex. Gruitt played for MCC.
1 day game. 1 innings per side. 12 players per side. 4 balls per over. MCC batted first.

MCC first innings 175 all out (Druitt batting at No. 5, was out caught after having scored 10 runs)
Harrow first innings 118 all out (Druitt did not bowl in this innings)

MCC won by 57 runs.

16) 29th, 30th and 31st August 1887. Bryn-y-Neuadd v Incogniti played at Bryn-y-Neuadd, Llanfairfechan, Wales. Druitt played for Incogniti.
3 day game. 2 innings per side. 11 players per side. 4 balls per over. Bryn-y-Neuadd batted first.

Bryn-y-Neuadd 1st innings 179 all out (Druitt took 6 wickets)
Incogniti 1st innings 184 all out (Druitt batting at No. 5, was out stumped after having scored 7 runs)
Bryn-y-Neuadd 2nd innings 154 all out (Druitt took 3 wickets)
Incogniti needed 150 runs to win
Incogniti 2nd innings 120 all out (Druitt batting at No. 5, was out caught after having scored 0 runs)


Bryn-y-Neuadd won by 29 runs.


17) 3rd and 4th August 1888. Bournemouth v Parsees, played at Dean Park, Bournemouth. Druitt played for Bournemouth.
2 day game. 2 innings per side. 11 players per side. 4 balls per over. Bournemouth batted first.

Bournemouth 1st Innings 56 all out (Druitt batting at No.5, was bowled having scored 12 runs)
Parsees 1st innings 61 all out (Druitt took 5 wickets)
Bournemouth 2nd innings 41 all out (Druitt batting at No.5, was out caught having scored 0 runs)
Parsees needed 37 runs to win
Parsees 2nd innings 37 for 4 wickets (Druitt did not bowl in this innings)

Parsees won by 6 wickets.

18) 8th September 1888. Blackheath v The Christophersons, played at the Rectory Field, Blackheath. Druitt played for Blackheath.
1 day game. 1 innings per side. 10 players per side. 5 balls per over. Blackheath batted first.

Blackheath 1st innings 115 all out (Druitt batting at No.4, was caught out having scored 2 runs)
The Christphersons 1st innings 93 all out (Druitt took 3 wickets) His bowling figures were:- 16 overs 4 maidens 38 runs 3 wickets

Blackheath won by 22 runs.

All 10 members of "The Christophersons" were actually named Christopherson.
(Listed as Stanley, Sidney, Douglas, Derman, Derman jun, P, K, C, M, H.)

And as if we needed an extra little twist in the oddities.. one G.R. Hutchinson played for Blackheath, scoring 44 not out.
I wonder......



The following is listed in cricket archive under Montague John Druitt

Full name: Montague John Druitt
Born: 15th August 1857, Wimborne, Dorset, England
Died: 4th December 1888, Brentford, Middlesex, England
Education: Winchester College; New College, Oxford
Biography: Barrister, Inner Temple (1885)
Relations: Brother: Edward Druitt


Please note the date and place of death.

According to the same source, Druitt's younger brother, Edward, played 28 registered games for 7 different teams 1875 to 1881.

The following list is a list of all persons with this name registered in the cricket archive.

H.Druitt's only game is from 1875, and at Oxford in a Freshman's trial, for A.J.Webbe's XI v H.J.B.Hollings' XI. I suspect this may well possibly be M.J.Druitt. Also in this game, by coincidence, is one G.S.Marriott playing for the opposition. Grenfell, mentioned above, plays in the same team as Druitt.

Edward Druitt played from 1875-1881

E.J.Druitt's only game is registered from 1911, for Downside School v King's School, Bruton
W.A.H. Druitt's only game is registered from 1926, playing for Edinburgh Acadamy v Trinity College, Glenalmond
W.H.Druitt's only game is registered from 1873, playing for Clifton College v Royal Agricultural College.
James Druitt is a current player, playing for Copdock and Old Ipswichonians 2006-2011.



My thanks go to :-

http://cricketarchive.com/

Roger Heavens for providing scorecards which was first published in Arthur Haygarth's Cricket Scores and Biographies Volume 16.

Wisden Almanac, various editions.




kindly

Phil

[How Brown]

Nice work Phil....

Quick question pertaining to the following :

The following is listed in cricket archive under Montague John Druitt

Full name: Montague John Druitt
Born: 15th August 1857, Wimborne, Dorset, England
Died: 4th December 1888, Brentford, Middlesex, England
Education: Winchester College; New College, Oxford
Biography: Barrister, Inner Temple (1885)
Relations: Brother: Edward Druitt


Please note the date and place of death.

Do you know whether the reference to Druitt's death was a contemporary one or whether the date has been influenced by modern research ?

Thanks again for the effort and list.

[Phil Carter]

Hello How,

Thanks How :-)
I can only answer your question with that I saw it in the archives on http://cricketarchive.com/

I will try to dig a little deeper and find out where they got their info from.

kindly

Phil

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

In the preface to his 1914 memoirs, Sir Melville Macnaghten, who adored the game of cricket, juxtaposes championship cricket with Jack the Ripper.

I don't think that is a coincidence.

[Phil Carter]

Hello How,

I am not completely sure about the origin of the purported facts you asked about How, but there is a possibility that it comes from the article in "The Crickter".. something I have not seen, from a good few years ago. Perhaps this could be confirmed or denied by someone.

Otherwise perhaps someone else would know the origin of this comment. 4 th December seems like something possibly taken from a book, but I cannot recall for the moment which book, if any, this date comes from.

I wonder if the G.R.Hutchinson mentioned in the Blackheath team (game 18) could possibly be our Mr. George Hutchinson. Stranger things have happened in life.

kindly

Phil

[Nemo]

DJ Leighton's "Portrait of a Contender" contains loads of info about the matches derived from similar scorecards

I haven't read it in a while so I can't remember if there's anything extra to the info Phil has posted

[Stephen Thomas]

I wonder if the G.R.Hutchinson mentioned in the Blackheath team (game 18) could possibly be our Mr. George Hutchinson.


Nice one, Phil

Mary: Hutchinson, can you lend me sixpence?

George: Sorry, luv. I just spent all my money going down to Blackheath to play a cricket match

[Chris G.]

I wonder if the G.R.Hutchinson mentioned in the Blackheath team (game 18) could possibly be our Mr. George Hutchinson. Stranger things have happened in life.



Hello Phil

While it's interesting to entertain such a notion.... and I did a bit of searching to see if any G. R. Hutchinson might have turned up to enlighten us as to whom Hutchinson the cricketer was, with no success.... I find this to be, realistically, a bit of an outlandish and even ridiculous idea. The men playing with Druitt probably would have been all like himself -- young toffs. Meanwhile, a working man, such as the Hutchinson who figures in the MJK case, probably would not have been allowed within sniff of their cricket pitch.

All the best

Chris

[Adam Went]

Hey all,

Unfortunately the memory prevents me from being any more specific than this but I do recall G.R. Hutchinson being looked into before and it being found that it wasn't our George Hutchinson, though I had pondered the same thing before myself.

Jonathan:

Is it possible, just possible, to have ONE Druitt thread without any mention of Macnaghten, Sims, and co?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

To Adam

It's possible, but not preferable.

Montague Druitt does not exist outside those sources as the Ripper, and therefore the little we have, elsewhere in the extant record -- like his cricketing record -- has to be measured against Macnaghten (and his proxy Sims).

As this is, you know, a Jack the Ripper site and Druitt is probably Jack the Ripper ...

(I think the same could be argued for alternate police suspects: Dr. Tumblety, and Chapman, and Aaron Kosminski.)

[Adam Went]

Jonathan:

Given that the title of the thread is "Druitt, cricket and other statistics" , I think it's fairly clear that the primary focus of the thread is Druitt's cricketing career and similar cricket related tidbits of information - i.e. completely unrelated to anything regarding Druitt's candidacy as a Ripper suspect, Macnaghten, Sims, etc.

Whilst I appreciate that you can post what you like, where you like, you posted the identical thing on the same subject on the Casebook boards as well, and it reeks of overdoing the subject.

There are other facets to Druitt than just your own theories about him.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

They're not my 'own' theories.

[SPE]

...
I wonder if the G.R.Hutchinson mentioned in the Blackheath team (game 18) could possibly be our Mr. George Hutchinson. Stranger things have happened in life.
Phil

George Hutchinson was also an amateur artist who did a bit of press work on the side which led to him 'inserting' himself into the Kelly inquiry. He often did work for George R. Sims and here is a sketch of Sims that he did for a Sims piece.

9691

[Phil Carter]

While it's interesting to entertain such a notion.... and I did a bit of searching to see if any G. R. Hutchinson might have turned up to enlighten us as to whom Hutchinson the cricketer was, with no success.... I find this to be, realistically, a bit of an outlandish and even ridiculous idea. The men playing with Druitt probably would have been all like himself -- young toffs. Meanwhile, a working man, such as the Hutchinson who figures in the MJK case, probably would not have been allowed within sniff of their cricket pitch.

All the best

Chris

Hello Chris,

Yes, I agree. It would seem ridiculous..just that it never ceases to amaze me the amount of co-incidences in this case.

I played, many years ago as a teenager, against the Morden club of Blackheath.. they certainly did not have the "toffs" then. I also played at the Merton club (my first 2nd XI game for my club at the age of 13).. where the great John Berry (Jack) Hobbs was a member and played. They too had slipped in their "rank" by the early 1970's.
The school I attended used to have an annual first XI game against the MCC, but the MCC players in those days (the early to mid 1970's) rarely had a famous name of "toff" in their side.

kindly

Phil

[Phil Carter]

George Hutchinson was also an amateur artist who did a bit of press work on the side which led to him 'inserting' himself into the Kelly inquiry. He often did work for George R. Sims and here is a sketch of Sims that he did for a Sims piece.

9691

Hello Stewart,

Thanks for the sketch. As a matter of interest, do you happen to know how long this George Hutchinson worked for Sims?

kindly

Phil

[Adam Went]

Jonathan:

You mean to say that you've been spouting theories which were already in existence due to others, then? ;)

Cheers,
adam.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

To Adam

Yes, I'm afraid so mate:

You see, it was the Druitt family which, rightly or wrongly, began the theory of the late Montague's culpability as, of all things, being Jack the Ripper.

'(1) A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family ... He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.' (Macnaghten 'Report' -- Official Version, albeit in which Druitt is allegedly a minor suspect)


'A little more than a month later the body of the man suspected by the chiefs at the Yard, and by his own friends, who were in communication with the Yard, was found in the Thames. The body had been in the water about a month.' (George Sims, 1903, remembering that 'friends' stands in for family, eg. brother William, and that the monolithic 'chiefs at the Yard' stands in for just Macnaghten)

And,

'After the maniacal murder in Miller's-court the doctor disappeared from the place in which he had been living, and his disappearance caused inquiries to be made concerning him by his friends who had, there is reason to believe, their own suspicions about him, and these inquiries were made through the proper authorities.' (From Sims, 1907)

This extraordinary, and unlikely and unwanted tale reached the family's local MP, whom was a fellow Tory of the 'better classes', in 1891. Incredibly, he was convinced and so was everybody he told; you only had to hear the 'curious story' to, rightly or wrongly, be compelled to accept it as the appalling truth.

From 'The Bristol Times and Mirror, Feb 11th, 1891

'I give a curious story for what it is worth. There is a West of England member who in private declares that he has solved the mystery of 'Jack the Ripper.' His theory - and he repeats it with so much emphasis that it might almost be called his doctrine - is that 'Jack the Ripper' committed suicide on the night of his last murder. I can't give details, for fear of a libel action; but the story is so circumstantial that a good many people believe it. He states that a man with blood-stained clothes committed suicide on the night of the last murder, and he asserts that the man was the son of a surgeon, who suffered from homicidal mania. I do not know what the police think of the story, but I believe that before long a clean breast will be made, and that the accusation will be sifted thoroughly.'

That white-knuckle titbit contains a key element which turns out to be mistake -- if you have access to Druitt's name.

For Druitt did not have 'blood-stained clothes' when he was found dead, but rather water-logged ones. It means that if you repeat -- relentlessly -- that error you do not have to ever 'fear a libel action' as it not true.

An argument can be mounted that Macnaghten met not only with Farquharson but also with the Druitts, or a Druitt, as every other element of Sims' tale can be traced back to some kind of historical reality, but veiled in the 1900's via melodramatic exaggeration:

This is arguably confirmed by Macnaghten's 1914 memoirs in which the theory -- and certainty -- of Druitt's guilt is claimed, rightly or wrongly, and that it was Macnaghten who, by implication, laid to rest this troublesome ghost:

'Although, as I shall endeavour to show in this chapter, the Whitechapel murderer, in all probability, put an end to himself soon after the Dorset Street affair in November 1888, certain facts, pointing to this conclusion, were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer ... Not infrequently the maniac possesses a diseased body, and this was probably so in the case of the Whitechapel murderer ... I do not think that there was anything of religious mania about the real Simon Pure, nor do I believe that he had ever been detained in an asylum, nor lived in lodgings. I incline to the belief that the individual who held up London in terror resided with his own people ; that he absented himself from home at certain times, and that he committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888, after he had knocked out a Commissioner of Police and very nearly settled the hash of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State.

In the previous year Macnaghten had announced that he believed in the un-named Druitt's guilt, and that no other suspects were worth a damn:

Washington Post (Washington, D.C.)
4 June 1913
FATE OF JACK THE RIPPER
Retiring British Official Says Once Famous Criminal Committed Suicide
London Cable to the New York Tribune
The fact that "Jack the Ripper", the man who terrorized the East End of London by the murder of seven women during 1888, committed suicide, is now confirmed by Sir Melville Macnaughten, head of the criminal investigation department of Scotland Yard, who retired on Saturday after 24 years' service.

Sir Melville says:

"It is one of the greatest regrets of my life that "Jack the Ripper" committed suicide six months before I joined the force.

That remarkable man was one of the most fascinating of criminals. Of course, he was a maniac, but I have a very clear idea as to who he was and how he committed suicide, but that, with other secrets, will never be revealed by me."


Of course, they could all have been mistaken; the family, the MP, the police chief, or even have fallen for a grotesque delusion begun by Montie Druitt himself -- which the family could have proved was a delusion if only he had not taken his own life.

Whatever, the theory of Druitt's culpability as the fiend begins in the primary sources (as do competing theories, arguably stronger theories, about other contemporaneous police suspects).

The breakthrough in my understanding of the 'mystery' -- for what it is worth -- was to grasp that Macnaghten was not 'six months too late' to investigate Druitt, as he had been on the Force for nearly two years when the MP's posthumous revelation arrived.

[Chris G.]

Hello Phil

While it's interesting to entertain such a notion.... and I did a bit of searching to see if any G. R. Hutchinson might have turned up to enlighten us as to whom Hutchinson the cricketer was, with no success.... I find this to be, realistically, a bit of an outlandish and even ridiculous idea. The men playing with Druitt probably would have been all like himself -- young toffs. Meanwhile, a working man, such as the Hutchinson who figures in the MJK case, probably would not have been allowed within sniff of their cricket pitch.

All the best

Chris

Hello Chris,

Yes, I agree. It would seem ridiculous..just that it never ceases to amaze me the amount of co-incidences in this case.

I played, many years ago as a teenager, against the Morden club of Blackheath.. they certainly did not have the "toffs" then. I also played at the Merton club (my first 2nd XI game for my club at the age of 13).. where the great John Berry (Jack) Hobbs was a member and played. They too had slipped in their "rank" by the early 1970's.
The school I attended used to have an annual first XI game against the MCC, but the MCC players in those days (the early to mid 1970's) rarely had a famous name of "toff" in their side.

kindly

Phil

Hi Phil

It might be worthwhile to research the social background of Druitt's fellow cricketers. I have the feeling that at the time there might have been a social barrier or an unwritten rule that might stop a working class chap from playing with a bunch of fellows who had gone to public schools (i.e. private schools to our American brethren) and universities such as Oxford and Cambridge, or else were the sons of the upper crust. In the latter category would be W. G. Grace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._G._Grace), arguably the most famous cricketer of the day, who though he was said to be "notoriously unscholarly", was the son of a doctor and was himself a doctor with a practice in Bristol.

All the best

Chris

[Adam Went]

Jonathan:

No, because there is no direct linkage of Druitt's suspect candidacy to a statement or statements by any member of his family, it all comes through other sources which have been shown in the past to be, at best, avoided.

It is still beyond me how you could put any weight into statements years later from people including a journalist and a politician, two of the occupations most likely to deliberately fib in order to embellish a good story at the expense of a dead man. Not to mention the use of press statements to aid your case, quite possibly the worst of all.

So which member/s of the family made these statements, and where is the concrete proof? Is there a signed affidavit somewhere? Why do none of the Druitt family descendants seem to know anything about it either? Do you suspect they were never informed that their ancestor was a notorious serial killer or would you accuse them or carrying on the secret as well?

The Druitt family was, after all, a large and well known one, and secrets always come out eventually.

123 years and counting....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

Adam

No, you are confusing legal evidence with historical evidence. They are quite different.

Plus you are falling back on empty cliches about the unreliability of 'journalists' and 'politicians'.

I'll tell you this though which might appeal -- because it is so black and white, rather than frustrating shades of grey.

I don't think there is actually a Ripper 'mystery'.

In 1898 Macnaghten, via Griffiths, announced to the public that the case was probably solved. Then with Sims he went even further, dropping the 'probability' factor to close to zero (Anderson, of course, does the same dance, and thus an historical argument has to convincingly explain why they chose diametrically opposed suspects).

Mac was certain and his memoirs reflect that certainty. Could he have been wrong?

For sure.

That is where you and I, on opposite sides of the Druitt spectrum, agree.

Where we diagree is the origin of the theory of Druitt as the fiend at all. I think that it clearly came from the family, or it would never have arisen at all.

[Adam Went]

Jonathan:

Everybody knows that journalists and politicians are amongst the least trustworthy professions on the face of the planet (along with used car salesmen), that's not changed since 1888. Look no further than the last few months with Rupert Murdoch and the News Of The World scandal, or to our own backyard, Jonathan, with our current batch of "politicians" with their broken promises and false statements.

Macnaghten is far from being the only police officer who later claimed that the case had been solved. The difference is, of course, that Macnaghten wasn't involved with the original case in 1888, whereas the others were. Which should immediately give their views more weight (though I don't like Kosminski as a suspect either.)

No doubt at all that we agree on some points, strangely enough. But be more specific about the alleged family suspicion - which family members? What exactly did they say? How did they come to be aware of him being a suspicious character? Why is it that photographs of Montague still exist in family albums (yes, it's true) - if you knew your ancestor was Jack the Ripper, would you want photos of him adjoining those of other members of your distinguished family?

It is very much a grey area.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

Adam

I'm afraid you open with entrenched cliches about politicians and reporters and now used-car salespeople.

Look, I subscribe to the theory that the 1899 Vicar tale is about Druitt. That he confessed to a priest, before killing himself. This person told the family or, like his cousin the Rev. Charles, were one in the same: clerical and familial.

The veiled version of this element arguably begins in 1902, in Sims, with the long unemployed doctor having confessed to wanting kill harlots to doctors, who sectioned him into a madhouse -- 'twice'.

On the other hand, also in the veiled version by Sims in the 1900's, it is William Druitt ( the frantic 'friends') who knew, or came to know (or believe -- perhaps quite wrongly) in his brother's guilt after trying to find him after he vanished.

The belief in Druitt's guilt does not begin with Macnaghten in the extant record in 1894, but in Dorset, along the Tory grapevine, in the 'West of England' MP story of early 1891.

You are absolutely right that other significant police figures of the day disagreed, and thus it is a perfectly legit position to take that they all cancel each other out.

Where I disagree with the conventional wisdom is that Macnaghten was too late not only for the murders -- obviously he was -- but for investigating Druitt too. The latter did not come to posthumous police attention, or how about just Mac's attention, until the MP tale, nearly two years after he became a police officer.

This is, at least, what he candidly claims in his 1914 memoirs.

[Adam Went]

Jonathan:

I'm afraid you open with entrenched cliches about politicians and reporters and now used-car salespeople.

I'm afraid that unless you have your head buried in the sand, then it is in most cases the truth. They can be pathological liars and embellishers. Will you honestly admit here in public that you would fully trust a journalist and/or a politican to always tell the complete truth all the time?

The veiled version of this element arguably begins in 1902, in Sims, with the long unemployed doctor having confessed to wanting kill harlots to doctors, who sectioned him into a madhouse -- 'twice'.

Yeah, sounds like a dead ringer for Druitt right there.

Do we know whether Sims, Farquaharson, etc ever actually met or knew anything of Druitt when he was alive? Because if they didn't, as I suspect is the case, then all of their information is coming from second, third, fourth hand sources, decades after the fact - rich ground for misinformation, as we've found out many times before in similar instances.

Where I disagree with the conventional wisdom is that Macnaghten was too late not only for the murders -- obviously he was -- but for investigating Druitt too. The latter did not come to posthumous police attention, or how about just Mac's attention, until the MP tale, nearly two years after he became a police officer.

By which time Druitt was long dead and therefore easy pickings as a suspect, as indeed were Kosminski and Ostrog.

This is, at least, what he candidly claims in his 1914 memoirs.

Macnaghten of course visited here in Australia in 1912 I believe it was, around the time of his retirement and shortly before the publication of his memoirs. Despite being questioned several times, he refused point blank to say anything about the JTR case. And yet a very short time later we've got his memoirs released to the public, which are, as you said, "candid".

Hmm. Makes me wonder if, like possibly a few of his colleagues, he wasn't in it for the $$$$ or the fame. At the expense of somebody who couldn't defend himself, of course.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

Adam

I would argue it this way.

Historical methodology teaches that if a source goes aginst its expected bias, and its own interests, then the chances are it is reliable -- unless something else turns up which suggests that it is not.

Henry Farquharson, an upper class landed aristocrat, andTory MP would be expected to dimsiss such nonsense as that the fiend was a fellow gentleman and Tory -- that the Ripper had probably voted for him!?

Instead, whatever info he picked up in Dorset, he found so devastating that it became his 'doctrine' and he blabbed, indiscreetly, to others.

We might have expected the un-named London reporter to have fun with this story; to lambast the un-named MP as an idiot, an amateur Sherlock, who could convince nobody. Whose 'loose lips-sink ships' blundering was putting the Conservative government in some potential peril, if the unscrupulous tabloids could launch a 'Jack the Tory' scandal?

Instead, the reporter is also impressed with the full details of the tale, which are sadly denied to us. He acknowledges that when people hear the full version they too are impressed, and that it should be examined by the police. The full version he witholds because it is so 'hot' it could trigger a libel suit (from whom? Over what? Over knowing in advance, of Montie's suicide, that he was the Ripper -- or had claimed to be?)

The famous writer-reporter-'criminologist', George Sims, was unreliable about the Ripper and 'Dr D', though he may not have known it -- and neither could his readers.

Yet each exaggerated, melodramatic element of his 'Drowned Doctor' tale can be traced back to the historical Druitt, the tragic young barrister.

- a couple of generous cheques and Jack becomes fabulously wealthy.
- sacked for a few days from the lesser of his two vocations and he bcomes totally unemployed for years.
- the youngish son of a surgeon becomes a middle-aged doctor.
- a season railway pass and he becomes a rich relcuse who does little else but ride around on public transport (no cricket).
- he drowned himself in the Thames calmly and methodically three weeks after the Kelly atrocity, becomes he did it the same morning: a 'shrieking, raving fiend' (all the way to Chiswick?!)

Therefore, I theorise that the confession to a priest after the Kelly murder (the 1899 Vicar's Ripper profile, which better fits Druitt) becomes a confession to doctors that he wants to kill harlots, now years before the murders. Sims harrumphs in 1902 that the ill doctor should never have been let out of the madhouse by the penny-pinching state.

You are right that Macnaghten might have been in it for ego, for the fame, maybe even the money. But this line of thinking, to me, goes against what other primary sources write about him. There 'Mac' comes across as a compassionate person who would have done anything to get the late Druitt, a fellow gent, 'off the hook', if he could have been shown to have suicided for other reasons -- any other reason.

Instead, like Farquharason, and the family -- or brother -- before him, Mac, once exposed to the full version, was committed for the rest oif his life.

As you write, and as Sims writes in 1917, the police should not point to a dead man and say here is the fiend for 'the dead cannot defend themselves'.

No they can't. But the guilty who cheat justice can be obscured, and fictionalised, to the point where they don't have to.

[Chris G.]

Do we know whether Sims, Farquaharson, etc ever actually met or knew anything of Druitt when he was alive? Because if they didn't, as I suspect is the case, then all of their information is coming from second, third, fourth hand sources, decades after the fact - rich ground for misinformation, as we've found out many times before in similar instances.

Hello Adam

Frankly, I think the truth of Druitt being Jack the Ripper resided in Macnaghten's mind just as it today resides in Jonathan Hainsworth's mind. Jonathan is determined to keep hammering away at the same points as he has for some months but I think you are right that Jonathan is constructing somewhat of a fantasy just as Macnaghten did.

Despite what Jonathan thinks might have happened, I am not sure that Sir Melville Macnaghten actively investigated Druitt beyond convincing himself that Druitt was the guy. Well you know that really isn't good enough. Jonathan can theorize that Macnaghten had evidence that Druitt was the murderer but it would appear to me it is more a case of having three "likely" candidates: Ostrog, Kosminski, and Druitt, as he expressed in the 1894 memorandum, and later on deciding that Druitt of those three was the most likely.

We know that the 1894 memorandum was written three years after Farquaharson's 1891 revelation that family information revealed that Montague John Druitt was the killer -- but Macnaghten did not say that in 1894 did he? Why was that?

As far as the information Sir Melville prepared for the Home Office in 1894 went, all three men were as likely to have been the killer, weren't they?

Something must have happened then between the time Macnaghten wrote the memorandum and the time he wrote his memoirs, The Days of My Years. I would suggest that the difference might be that he simply decided, for some reason known only to himself, that Druitt was the guy. Mmmm maybe he liked him because he was an Englishman? Certainly that's part of Jonathan's argument as well, that there is a compelling argument for Druitt, because why else would Macnaghten go for an English gentile. But truthfully, chaps, isn't that kind of perverse reasoning?

Best regards

Chris

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

To Adam

I think what I find so surprising about the arguments put by some people like Christopher T. George is how weak they are. I would expect quite a robust, thought-provoking, experienced, judicious response and instead I get these cliches.

I have had such debates with Evans, Begg, Palmer, and others.

But this ...?

eg. The Macnaghten 'Report', official version, proves that Macnaghten originally had three minor suspects, one of which he later enlarged, for mysterious reasons of fantasy or self-aggrandisement perhaps.

Is that really it ...?

Mac chose three unlikely suspects and so Druitt is really nothing much? (news to Anderson and/or Swanson who thought 'Kosminski' was the Ripper?!)

First of all the very same conventional wisdom claims that the Aberconway 'draft' came first.

Written hours, or days, before the official version.

So, in the first version of the same document Druitt is the chief suspect, at least to Mac.

But Mac watered his opinion down for the Home Office of 1894, in the subsequent rewrite, and then resumed the original opinion in 1898, with Griffiths, and Sims in 1899, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1906, 1907, 1911, backed by Mac's press comments of 1913 and Mac's memoirs of 1914 (and Sims again in 1915 and 1917).

Thus the 'draft' version is arguably the true and original opinion, and the official opinion is the anomaly; in a document, so far as we know, sighted by nobody (certainly not Douglas Browne when he finished 'The Rise of Scotland Yard' in 1956.)

Macnaghten did not reveal the source of his 'private info' because it would have embarrssed a fellow Tory, by then a backbench MP. Why reveal it at all? A police chief known for his discretion, reticence and ability to deflect is acting in character.

In both versions, for example, it is veiled that Druitt was an entirely posthumous suspect, which Mac did reveal in his cagey yet more candid memoirs -- the only document about the case in his own name for the public. In effect, the de-facto third version of the 'Home Office Report' (a document which he never bothers mentioning in his memoir chapter at all).

And Adam, I might be mistaken but what I am actually arguing is that Macnaghten, an English gentleman, went for a member of his own class not because he was a member of his own class but in spite of it. In spite of his natural prejudice to not want to believe it was a member of his own class, and race, and religion, and political party (this factor was a slo true of the MP and the fiend's own family).

I wish, Adam, he could hear himself when he writes such drivel about Macnaghten 'for some reason ...' conjured up Druitt as the fiend -- out of his imagination.

And I'm the fantastist?!

In the extant record Druitt does not start with Mac but in Dorset, where we glimpse the same certainty about his culpability.

Macnaghten, far from being an idle and callous fantasist, was considered a very effective, feet-on-the-ground police administratorl; good at his job, diligent and dedicated, successful and hands-on at major crime scenes.

What I find 'perverse' is both the casual slander against Macnaghten --regularly caricatured as Scotland Yard's Constable Magoo -- and for myself to be a pariah on a Jack the Ripper site because I believe the sheer heresy that a major police suspect of that era is probably the fiend.

But he's got what he wanted, Adam, make no mistake. He's acheived his objective.

Good luck in your, I think fruitless, endeavours to prove Druitt innocent. If you pull it off, Adam -- say a photo of Montie at some event which conincides with a murder -- I'll be the first to congratulate you and say: I was wrong in my interpretation of the limited data.

[Chris G.]

Good luck in your, I think fruitless, endeavours to prove Druitt innocent. If you pull it off, Adam -- say a photo of Montie at some event which conincides with a murder -- I'll be the first to congratulate you and say: I was wrong in my interpretation of the limited data.

I suppose we should be looking for a photograph of one of those midnight cricket matches, say while Monty was batting a century and he and his fellow cricketers elected to play through the night? :becky:

[Adam Went]

Jonathan:

I would be more inclined to believe in your ideas about Druitt if there was some shred of historical evidence to back it up - and I mean from the family. It is too much of a coincidence to me, as i've highlighted in previous posts, that we have mentions of friends and family from outsiders of the case but not a thing from the family themselves. Secrets don't keep forever Jonathan, somebody always blows the whistle eventually, yet we still have nothing.

What was to be gained by the family to admit their relative's guilt after he was already dead? He couldn't be brought to justice, the family had nothing good to bring upon themselves by admitting it....so why?

This of course goes even further if you want to start including other nameless people like doctors and priests.

In short, I think that there is a fine line between genuine belief in an idea and obsession with an idea, and you may well have crossed that line, Jonathan. I'm not sure what it is that makes you so determined to keep Druitt's name in the headlines, Jonathan, or even if there is any evidence which Chris G or myself or anybody else could produce, short of a midnight photo as Chris said, which would have you admit once and for all that the Druitt theory is a false one.

So it is for this reason that I WILL keep my eyes open for new evidence but sadly, it's always been easier to keep a suspect's name in the mix than remove it once and for all, that's the nature of the beast. Druitt was and still is an easy target, simple as that.

Chris:

I'm in complete agreement with you. Not that it's anything like a personal vendetta against Macnaghten - i'll confess that I don't even know that much about the man - but I do know that the versions of what he wrote as they appear in their original forms are ridiculous to say the least, and they became no less ridiculous in his press interviews as far away as here in Australia followed almost immediately by his other-end-of-the-spectre autobiography, as I mentioned in an earlier post.

Seems to me to be simply a case of involving as many people as possible, because every new person who "knows" Druitt's guilt makes it that much harder to untangle the myth and disprove it - at its core, I genuinely believe, it's actually unbelievably simple, the case against Druitt: and misinformed.

There's no doubt that theories which abound including those Jonathan preaches could make an excellent, best-selling novel, or a new Hollywood movie, but as far as historical fact is concerned, they come up empty, even from those who expound them.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

The knee-jerk reactions of Buffs, whether the 'obsession' is Crashed Flying Saucers or everybody-did-it-but-Oswald, are always the same.

1. Abuse and smug ridicule of the 'heretic'.

2. Projection of their own obsessions and doctrine onto the unbeliever.

I have written a manuscript for a book, and thus defend my argument. Because I will not be swayed by anemic counter-arguments I am a candidate for a madhouse. I have tried to show why I think it makes sense of all the disparate and limited data.

I have enjoyed some excellent debates with certain people on these boards, who do not agree with my [provisional] conclusions at all. Those debates have enriched my research, and I thank them -- particularly Debra Arif.

Furthermore, I have published an article arguing that Anderson may have been correct about his chief suspect after all, and another that Littlechild is the most reliable police source from that era, and so on.

Right from the start, several years ago, I was warned that there would be an element on these sites who would be relentless in their abuse because I was proposing Druitt as the Ripper.

This warning was backed up by other posters writing to me privately to say that these entrenched elements were ferocious in their anybody-but-Druitt attitude because the idea that the case would revert back to 1965, or 1959, was too wrenching, and too disappointing, and too humiliating.

I had had a taste of this jihad attitude years before, regarding proposing Oswald as JFK's killer at a conference on the JFK assassination, really a Conspiracy convention.

I was warned hat to propose Tumblety or Kosminski would invite exasperation and dismissal, but Druitt ...? That would provoke the Furies.

On the other hand, the latest lunatic, discourteous posts are confirmation, albeit shallow, of my own theory -- for to be embraced by certain people here would be a guarantee that you were barking up the wrong tree.

I exit asserting that my discovery that the frantic friends of Sims, in 1903 and 1907, matching the Druitt brother trying to find his missing sibling -- and thus showing knowledge on Mac's part about the drowned barrister outside of PC Moulson's Report -- is my most significant contribution to the varied literature on this subject.

[How Brown]

Right from the start, several years ago, I was warned that there would be an element on these sites who would be relentless in their abuse because I was proposing Druitt as the Ripper.

Jon...

I don't see why it's difficult to simply accept counter ideas to the Druitt-as-Ripper theory....and just maintain your position. Druitt is one of the few suspects worth pursuing in my opinion and if some don't see it that way, then I respect their opinion.

[Monty]

Don't you just love the Martyred Ripperologist?

And the Wormtongues who sit on their shoulders praising them, warning them and then ridiculing them behind their backs.

Praise be.

Monty
:)

[Chris G.]

Chris:

I'm in complete agreement with you. Not that it's anything like a personal vendetta against Macnaghten - i'll confess that I don't even know that much about the man - but I do know that the versions of what he wrote as they appear in their original forms are ridiculous to say the least, and they became no less ridiculous in his press interviews as far away as here in Australia followed almost immediately by his other-end-of-the-spectre autobiography, as I mentioned in an earlier post.

Seems to me to be simply a case of involving as many people as possible, because every new person who "knows" Druitt's guilt makes it that much harder to untangle the myth and disprove it - at its core, I genuinely believe, it's actually unbelievably simple, the case against Druitt: and misinformed.

There's no doubt that theories which abound including those Jonathan preaches could make an excellent, best-selling novel, or a new Hollywood movie, but as far as historical fact is concerned, they come up empty, even from those who expound them.

Cheers,
Adam.

Hi Adam

Thanks, Adam, for your kind words of agreement with my comments.

I would suggest that Macnaghten and Anderson were in the exact same boat. They each wanted to write their autobiography. So they had to choose a candidate as Jack the Ripper from among the very poor crop of suspects that the Yard knew about who possibly could have been the killer.

So Sir Robert and Sir Melville each chose their man, to stake their claim that the big case of 1888 that seemed such a glaring failure for the Yard really was solved if the public only knew it.

Isn't it highly significant though that both of these top Scotland Yard officials, the guys who were supposedly in the know, each chose a different guy????? Hmmmmm.

By the way, the police of the day were much lampooned for their inefficiency, Warren as a bumbler and so on. In choosing two different men as being definitely Jack the Ripper these two chaps only perpetuated the Keystone Cops aspect of the Yard's Ripper investigation.

Best regards

Chris

[Chris G.]

Don't you just love the Martyred Ripperologist?

And the Wormtongues who sit on their shoulders praising them, warning them and then ridiculing them behind their backs.

Praise be.

Monty
:)

Sorry, Monty, your meaning eludes me here. Could you explain what you mean?

Thanks

Chris

[Adam Went]

Jonathan:

I suppose next thing you will be suggesting that Chris and I are in on the conspiracy to cover up the truth about Druitt? (I think he's onto us, Chris...crap...)

Look, seriously though Jonathan, I have tried - and I mean genuinely tried - to be anything but abusive towards your ideas on this particular thread. I know I may have been, er....forthright....in my views on the subject in times gone by, but on here I was trying to have something resembling a decent conversation with you about it, and yet just the same you've levelled accusations of abuse and tactical isolation and god knows what else at us.

Like you, we want the truth. We just don't believe that the truth involves creating an idea to suit something which was built upon false grounds in the first instance. If you build a house without a foundation, Jonathan, the house will collapse.

You are more than welcome to your views and I know you'll keep on keeping on with them regardless of what we say to you, I just hope that one day you'll be able to provide us with some genuine source, some contemporary document, some witness statement - SOMETHING that we haven't seen before, and then people really will sit up and take notice.

As it is, we've heard it all before and for most of us the Druitt theory has been dead in the water for a long time and when it has had a spark of new life every now and then over the preceding decades, it's been through false avenues of hope and misleading information.

Chris:

Very good points, and again I agree with you - the voice of reason!

It's always seemed an odd coincidence to me that Macnaghten chose suspects (as did Anderson for that matter) who were not in a position to defend themselves or through which there could be any retribution for the comments being made about them, be that either because they were dead or incarcerated.

No mention of Tumblety or Klosowski or any of the other leading suspects.....no, they went for the soft targets, the ones they knew they could name without having much, if any fear of being shown up to be spectacularly wrong, at least not in their own lifetime.

The real shame in all of this is that so many people have had to have their names dragged through the mud over the decades for their association with Druitt (or alleged association), with little or no evidence to back it up, only the tunnel vision approach of some historians.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Chris G.]

As it is, we've heard it all before and for most of us the Druitt theory has been dead in the water for a long time and when it has had a spark of new life every now and then over the preceding decades, it's been through false avenues of hope and misleading information.

Hi Adam

With due respect, I do think that although the Druitt theory was as you say "dead in the water" for some time, I think the suspect's candidacy has in a lot of ways improved. The identification by Andy Spallek of Henry Richard Farquharson as the West of England MP who spoke of a Jack the Ripper suspect who was suspected by his family has strengthened his candidacy because it shows there really was some idea in Druitt's family that he was the murderer. So it goes beyond him dying at the right time to have been the killer or the idea that Druitt thought he was going mad as he said in his note to his brother. Also we know more about him, that as Martin Fido demonstrated, he was not, as had been thought, a "failed barrister" but was actually quite a successful barrister arguing cases up until his death, and that he did, despite claims otherwise, have a link to the East End because his name is on a subscription list for the People's Palace. Andy Spallek's research on Druitt at Winchester College, including his photographic finds, also show that Druitt appears to have been a powerfully built man and not the aesthete that some of the portraits of him might have led us to believe.

It's also possible that the enigmatic letter found by Stephen Ryder from the Earl of Crawford to Sir Robert Anderson talking about a woman who thought a relative might be the killer is about Druitt, although that remains to be proven.

What I think is the bugbear and the problem for Jonathan or anyone who advocates for Druitt is to know what the quality of the evidence about Druitt being the killer might have been, and this is what is uncertain. To Jonathan, that evidence must be solid because as he argues, Sir Melville Macnaghten must have investigated it and so it has to be convincing to have persuaded such an eminent Scotland Yard official. Well, not necessarily. What if for instance much like his note to his brother that he felt he was going like mother, i.e., going insane, he had written a note to his brother that said, "I think I may be the Whitechapel murderer." Well, the family might have thought that was the case, and Macnaghten might have thought, well that proves it. But no it doesn't, it just shows that Druitt was afraid he could have done the murders... maybe for example he had blackouts and didn't remember what he had done on certain nights. A possibility is that he might have been in various scrapes in the East End (say, woman trouble, drugs or alcohol, gambling, been mugged, had blood on clothes, etc) but not have done the murders, although couldn't remember exactly what had happened.

Ultimately, the power of the Druitt candidacy still comes down to the fact that he died at the right time, but that in itself might be misleading, although it is possibly what "sold" the story of him being the murderer to Macnaghten and Sims and others. We do know that Macnaghten certainly gilded the lily in first indicating in the famous memorandum of 1894 that the suspect disappeared right after the Kelly murder, indicating that he thought that Druitt killed himself then, immediately after the Miller's court crime, which was not the case, and that he was "said to be a doctor." If Macnaghten really had the evidence on Druitt, how on earth could he get these things so wrong?

All the best

Chris

[Adam Went]

Chris:

I understand where you're coming from and while I do appreciate all the Druitt discoveries which have been made in recent decades which you mention - and there are some good ones - to me, his candidacy as a serious suspect never really got off the ground in the first place, even in the 1800's, and so there's not a lot that can be done for it from then on.

A plane which has no wheels is made no better by the addition of a few seats in the cabin.

Macnaghten did the case against Druitt no favours from the start, which means that theorists like Jonathan then have to come up with elaborate scenarios intended to explain away the mistruths, if not downright lies which have been made about Druitt.

I don't mean to take the moral high ground but I do genuinely believe that it's just such a real shame that so many perfectly decent individuals have had to have their name dragged over the coals throughout the course of time in order to benefit a theory for which, at its very core, there's no actual historical evidence in support of. Just more supposition.

At least there was some circumstantial evidence against the likes of Tumblety, Kosminski, Klosowski, etc. For Druitt, there is nothing more than that he lived in London at the time, vaguely fits certain witness statements, committed suicide soon after the murders ceased and that he was having issues in his life at the time.....well, him and probably 50,000 other blokes!

Cheers,
Adam.

[Chris G.]

At least there was some circumstantial evidence against the likes of Tumblety, Kosminski, Klosowski, etc. For Druitt, there is nothing more than that he lived in London at the time, vaguely fits certain witness statements, committed suicide soon after the murders ceased and that he was having issues in his life at the time.....well, him and probably 50,000 other blokes!

Cheers,
Adam.

Hi Adam

With Druitt as for Kosminski, the argument is rather an argument for a negative, in that Anderson/Swanson and Macnaghten must have known something because they were the top guys, and must have had the goods to know there was a case against the suspect. Is that really sufficient?

But actually in regard to Kosminski or Klosowski what evidence is there, circumstantial or otherwise, other than they might have fitted the suspect description? Is that evidence or is it just more of a vague possibility?

In regard to Druitt, Kosminski, Tumblety, or Klosowski, does it make them valid suspects if a senior policeman thought they could have been the killer? I don't think so. That doesn't make them any more persuasive, I don't think, than another possible suspect, except that their names are mentioned by someone who should know something... yet perhaps all those former policemen really had was a name and a suspicion and no tangible proof that the man could have been the killer.

All the best

Chris

[Jeff Leahy]

Right from the start, several years ago, I was warned that there would be an element on these sites who would be relentless in their abuse because I was proposing Druitt as the Ripper.

This warning was backed up by other posters writing to me privately to say that these entrenched elements were ferocious in their anybody-but-Druitt attitude because the idea that the case would revert back to 1965, or 1959, was too wrenching, and too disappointing, and too humiliating.

I was warned hat to propose Tumblety or Kosminski would invite exasperation and dismissal, but Druitt ...? That would provoke the Furies.

.

Really?

Surely Druitt is considered in the top five best suspects. He sat at number two in Definitive story and is my third personal favourite suspect.

Indeed I felt you had alot of support for favouring Druit as there was general thought that a new champion was required following the loss of the previous expert.

Indeed I'd say that the controversey you caused was more to do with your interpretation of Anderson Swanson and McNaughten, which largely went against what everyone else beleived.

But lets face has there ever been a thread involving Anderson that is not.

Yours Jeff

[Nemo]

That Druitt was considered sexually insane is a major point

That doesn't sound like compulsive masturbation does it?

[Chris G.]

That Druitt was considered sexually insane is a major point

It's a major point made by Macnaghten and, I would suggest, another part of his gilding of the lily to make Druitt, "said to be a doctor", sound as if he could have been the killer. But what did that really mean? If the family suspected him of being the killer what could they have known about his sexual life that made them think he was "sexually insane"? If indeed they did think that.

Macnaghten wrote in the memorandum, "He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer."

Or could it be that the suicide at the right time led to the conclusion that the reason he killed himself was because of the murder -- and that he must have done the murder because he was sexually insane. Because no one who was sane could have done a murder and mutilation like that. It stands to reason, doesn't it? Well, doesn't it? I see you shaking your head. In other words, we might not be dealing with actual facts, as Macnaghten makes them sound, but faulty supposition.

Best regards

Chris

[Phil Carter]

It's a major point made by Macnaghten another part of his gilding of the lily to make Druitt, "said to be a doctor", sound like he could have been the killer. But what did that really mean? If the family suspected him of being the killer what could they have know about his sexual life that made them think he was "sexually insane"?

Macnaghten wrote in the memorandum, "He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer." Or could it be that the suicide at the right time led to the conclusion that the reason he killed himself was because of the murder and that he must have done the murder because he was sexually insane. Because no one who was sane could have done a murder and mutilation like that. It stands to reason, doesn't it? Well, doesn't it? I see you shaking your head. :shakehead: In other words, we might not be dealing with actual facts, as Macnaghten makes them sound, but faulty supposition.

Hello Chris,

I totally agree.

1) MacNaghten was not a qualified doctor of any mental illness, and has no professional basis to declare a person sexually insane or otherwise.

2) His opinion is an opinion of a policeman, without any known medical proof.

3) His logic, in ascertaining that Druitt was a sexual murderer, based on private information, is unsubstantiated. (The comments by a West of England MP do NOT qualify Mac's amateur interpretation of a mental illness in the slightest, as the MP wasn't qualified in that field either!)


kindly

Phil

[Adam Went]

Chris:

Well, Klosowski, Tumblety and Kosminski all had high ranking officers who were involved in 1888 name them as their preferred suspects. Furthermore, they were known to have issues - Tumblety the quack doctor who supposedly collected specimens, Kosminski the insane young man and Klosowski who would become a known multiple murderer with a vicious violent streak. They too also had reasons for why the murders may have stopped after MJK.

Druitt was none of these - I know of nothing which suggests he was violent. There's no evidence other than his own suicide note that he was suffering, or beginning to suffer, from any sort of mental illness. Certainly, given his various commitments in late 1888, one would suggest that the opposite was the case. And the officer who put his name to paper afterwards, Macnaghten, was not involved with the case in 1888.

That immediately, I should think, lifts those 3 suspects to a more likely bracket than Druitt, just to cite a few examples of what I was talking about. We could go into more details about where they lived and witness statements and what not, but for the sake of brevity, to me the most important thing is how they came to be a suspect in the first place, and in Druitt's case it is on completely false, misleading grounds.

But then again, I think Druitt is one of the worst suspects ever named. Jill the Ripper is a better suspect.....and i'm not even joking about that.

Nemo:

"Sexually insane" was of course used a euphenism for homosexual, though i'm not sure why the need for euphenisms if the memorandum was destined to remain private.

Again it's just supposition, though it is plausible that Druitt was homosexual, given the status of his relationships over the years, or seeming lack thereof.

But then again, he could have just been an introvert, which is just as likely....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Nemo]

That's what I've always thought it meant Adam, but does sexually insane = homosexual?

Is there any other example in which someone is described as sexually insane?

How would he be described if he found sexual pleasure at the sight of blood for example?

I think there is a distinct possibility it related to the suspicion of his being involved in the Ripper crimes as Chris describes - he was sexually insane to have carried out the murders

[Jeff Leahy]

Macnaghten wrote in the memorandum, "He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer."

Surely that is the beef. As Begg is fond of pointing out 'We just dont know why he thought that' the importance is that he did.

It's MacNaughten's importance as a senior police officer that makes that statement so important and places Druits consideration in the major league of suspects.

If Druit were homosexual it would again distract, in my opinion, from his candesy, but again we just don't know.

Personally I struggle with a commuting serial killer using the junction of Brick lane and Osbourne Street as the epicentre for the attacks. But as has been pointed out there are rare examples of commuting serial killers (Incidently Caroline I thought of another possibility 'Bible John').

As for insanity per ce I think we should all be careful what we assume, the recent mass killings by Anders Breivik should make us all stop and think about what we mean by insane?

Yours Jeff

[Adam Went]

Nemo & Jeff:

Yes, as Jeff said, we just don't know exactly what was behind Macnaghten's comments, especially regarding his being supposedly "sexually insane". Certainly there's no evidence of anything which could allude to it and it's a shame that Macnaghten didn't elaborate on that aspect.

Personally I do believe the implication is that Druitt was supposed to be a homosexual, in which case for Macnaghten's benefit, it could have been little more than a case of Victorian-era homophobia. On the other hand, if there was any truth to it, it could explain Druitt's leaving Mr. Valentine's and may even have contributed to his suicide, the fear of it becoming public knowledge, made potentially worse by his also being a sportsman - i'd imagine there would have been some uneasy, awkward situations in the cricket change rooms at Blackheath if word spread that Montague batted for the other team.

But that's all speculation, and we know already that Macnaghten shouldn't be taken at his word about anything.

Without further evidence, it's simply a case of: we don't know.

Cheers,
Adam.