Druitt...WHAT went wrong????

[How Brown]

I certainly hope that people will take the time to read Adrian Morris's (in the JTRForums Archive) article on Montague Druitt and maybe participate in some discussion here.

Many know,but some don't,that back in 1987, Paul Begg revealed/discovered the fact that Druitt was a "special pleader",an individual who prepares and organizes briefs and opinions in court cases, one of which occurred during the Autumn of Terror that Mr.Morris discovered years ago.

The case was Black vs.Power,which took place in September of 1888 at the Old Bailey. Druitt was successful in getting his client's( Mr. Power ) charge established as "guilty,but through diminished responsibilty.." Druitt faced a formidable prosecutor in Charles F. Gill,by all accounts.

Mr. Morris argues that Druitt,while perhaps in internal torment,was actually ascending in his position as a barrister if we take the Black vs Power case as an example and from here,it appears that Mr.Morris is correct.

Anomic Suicide...Moonlighting...On Sacred Ground.

Mr. Morris presents the theory of French sociologist,Emile Durheim,who originated the theory of anomic suicide...which is suicide with social factors present in the suicide,not just intrinsic ones. Druitt's suicide,says Adrian,may have been a culmination of the social pressures and additional work ( his position at Mr.Valentine's school ) on a fragile psyche.

If you "look" at Druitt on paper...Druitt wasn't doing badly financially,which would be an externally based factor in an anomic suicide. Certainly,Druitt's finances aren't necessarily the reason he may have committed suicide,if it was an anomic suicide. However,his finances were as sound as most people's were.

His physical health,again a reason for an anomic suicide,doesn't seem to be a factor. He,by all accounts,wasn't a bad cricketer and participated in that sport in that time frame ( Fall '88)...so a debiliatating affliction wasn't present,which might give one reason to suspect someone to commit an anomic suicide.

We don't know at the present time if he was jilted by an unnamed female...and again,not to be redundant,his career was on the rise as Mr.Morris has demonstrated in his article. These two,combined with the two former,are usually among the primary factors of an anomic suicide.

1. Finances--not bad at all
2. Physical Wellness--good shape
3. Romantic Failure--unsure
4. Career direction--on the way up

Moving right along..........

One of the rules in many company "handbooks" or rulebooks ( as it is at my place of work ) is a stipulation against "moonlighting",which in case you are not aware,means working another job after or before coming to work at said firm. Often firms will fire individuals for "moonlighting" since the demands of the primary job require alertness and attention to detail and that one could get hurt at another job,but blame the injury on the firm with the superior insurance program and hike up the premiums for the firm that prohibits moonlighting.

Druitt obviously wasn't violating Mr.Valentine's insurance policy or handbook regulation for the school. However,he may have become more attentive to his legal ( and as Adrian demonstrates,it had to be somewhat intricate and laborious ) "moonlighting" career...and faced with the dilemma of which to ultimately choose and already of a fragile psyche...simply went off the deep end.

Before I forget....I wanted to mention this also....not that this is something unique...

Is it possible that in order for Druitt's body be interred in Wimborne Cemetery....that someone...maybe his brother...was successful in getting the cause of death determined as "suicide whilst of unsound mind..." in order that Druitt could be buried on consecrated ground? You see,Druitt couldn't be buried in Wimborne without the determination of "of unsound mind" since it was a suicide.

Thanks for your time...and please read Adrian's article whenever possible.

[Stan Russo]

How,

Maybe it wasn't a suicide after all.

Stan

[How Brown]

Stan:

I know buddy...If one looks at all the external reasons for an anomic suicide,its difficult to presume any one factor was at play here. Frankly,he's not doing bad on paper.

Its suggested that it was a combination of more than one and the pressure of having to maintain appearances. Factor in the trouble with Valentine and maybe the combination put him over the top. I don't think...and I don't think you do either....that Druitt committed financial improprieties.

One "off the wall" thought I had when I read Adrian's article was that here was a man whose career was burgeoning....and maybe he got cocky from the success while at the school one day....made an advance on a student,got caught....and combined with the moonlighting ( which may have strained his position at Valentine's...), he had a moment of clarity....realized what he had done to this burgeoning career....and offed himself.

I hope you get the chance to amplify why you feel it may not have been a suicide. Thanks for suggesting that he may have been murdered.

[Stan Russo]

How,

Agreed that I believe it was not a financial matter that caused his dismissal from Mr. Valentine's School.

I think there have been a few articles written about MJD having been murdered rather than the accepted, but highly flawed suicide standard.

The arguments against MJD committing suicide have been stated again and again, yet even though it more than likely has nothing to do with the 'JTR' case, it is unacceptible to most to even consider those arguments.

And the merry go round just a keeps on going.

Stan

[Tom_Wescott]

Although Stan and myself have had many a heated debated regarding the Ripper case, one thing I believe he and I agree on is that Druitt's brother behaved in a very suspicious manner following Monty's death.

I recently got a chance to read Adrian's essay in the new WSJ and enjoyed it very much. While it's been common knowledge for many years now that Druitt enjoyed a more successful law career than previously thought, I had NEVER read that much detail about his career, particularly in the crucial months of 1888, so I hope Adrian's essay gets plastered in all the right places and read by everyone.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[How Brown]

Just a comment ...unless someone in the immediate family wrote the letter found in the personal effects ( not floating torso ),it has to be taken into consideration that had Druitt been murdered,the murderer would have to know of Druitts' mothers' mental status. So if he was murdered,the note was a plant and planted by the brother at the time of the rifling through Druitt's possessions at Valentine's school.

I mention this...as of course you two gents already know... as its highly unusual for someone to commit suicide....write a "goodbye" letter....and leave it elsewhere. They are usually found on the person or closely near by.

[Stan Russo]

How,

Not to mention buying a return trip ticket and then offing oneself halfway through the trip.

Not to mention placing stones in your pockets to weigh you down, which for someone of Druitt's reported strength and stamina would not have done the trick.

Tom,

You are correct in that we agree on this matter. There was some funny business with MJD's brother, which included his lying at the Coroner's inquest.

Speculation can be hazardous if it is done recklessly. However, foregoing all speculation about an over hundred year old murder case can also be detrimental to what should be the primary goal, finding the murderer. Without getting to much into why people are involved in this case and for what reasons, specualtion, when it is done carefully, can lead toward discovery.

Stan

[SirRobertAnderson]

Tom,

You are correct in that we agree on this matter. There was some funny business with MJD's brother, which included his lying at the Coroner's inquest.

Speculation can be hazardous if it is done recklessly. However, foregoing all speculation about an over hundred year old murder case can also be detrimental to what should be the primary goal, finding the murderer.

If he was murdered, we need to also speculate as to motive.

Is it feasible to suggest that his family indeed thought he was the Ripper, and dealt with him themselves ?

I can see one quick objection: they wouldn't have killed him and then later confided to the police their suspicions.

Or would they ?

[Stan Russo]

Robert,

I disagree with the specualtion that his brother murdered him because he thought he was the Ripper.

However, there is the possibility that his brother William may have told the police something to that effect, perhaps to deflect any suspicion off what he had done.

There is one major problem with that though.

We know that the police, in general, did not believe in Druitt as a suspect. It was primarily MacNaghten, who never actively worked on the case.

Therefore, the plausibility that William confided in MacNaghten, or someone close to MacNaghten, that MJD was the Ripper, around a year and a half at the minimum after the inquest was closed on MJD, seems highly unlikely. It is not out of the realm of possibility, but not tangible speculation, IMHO.

Stan

[How Brown]

We know that the police, in general, did not believe in Druitt as a suspect. It was primarily MacNaghten, who never actively worked on the case.... Stan

I'm sure Stan has pondered the following prior to this discussion.....but I get the feeling that the claim that Druitt was sexually insane with extenuating circumstances ( which resulted in the decision to declare him a "suicide, whilst of unsound mind") has much to do with his ability to be interred on consecrated turf in Wimbourne.

Sibling rivalry,if money is involved, can be taken to extremes. Its not too far fetched to consider that someone would try to frame their brother or sister based on one charge ( the one at the school...) and weave a convoluted tale which declares that there was a "feeling" that the rest of the family had....which is also unproven....about Druitt ( how many family members? 1 ? 2? just William? ) as being a contender for JTR.

But then again as Adrian mentions in his article...there are links from Druitt to MacNaghten ( The Eltons,Mayos,W.H.Boultbee...) and the question is did any private information emanate from any of these people and not a closer relation,such as William?

And yet ! Damn it....William is responsible for the advancement of Druitt's fledging legal career....hiring him on to tackle the case of Black vs Power...a case which began the day after the Double Event. Clearly,if William had suspected Montague of any mental instability...any visible absence of self-discipline..focus and above all the ability to commit to the task...he wouldn't have hired him on in a million years to go up against Charles Gill, the "Vincent Bugliosi" of London's Old Bailey.

You can get a serious headache trying to figure out from whom the connotative aspersions to Druitt being the Ripper came from.

In addition...if it was William that passed on this information to or through an intermediary to MM, wouldn't William have worried that this fact below being considered by the police who surely would take such a remark seriously ? :

His efforts during the height of the Autumn of Terror towards Montague with the assignation of the Black vs Power case,as an example....after possibly 4 or 5 Ripper murders had been committed. Why come out so late afterwards with the "family feeling" remark....?

I need aspirin,gents...

[Chris Phillips]

We know that the police, in general, did not believe in Druitt as a suspect. It was primarily MacNaghten, who never actively worked on the case.
But Macnaghten himself, in the Aberconway draft of his memoranda, opens his account of the three suspects, Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog, by describing them as "three men against whom the police held very reasonable suspicion".

Just because our only early information about Druitt as a suspect comes through Macnaghten, it's not safe to assume that Druitt hadn't earlier been suspected by other police officers.

Chris Phillips

[Robert Linford]

If Monty was dismissed from the school on the Friday, then William was very fortunate that this convenient event should have occurred at the precise time that he had decided to bump Monty off. Of course, it's possible that William had learnt earlier of an impending dismissal scheduled for November 30th. But that would have been taking a bit of a risk - William wouldn't know if Monty had told other people that William had been apprised of the dismissal.

Robert

[Stan Russo]

Chris,

If we are going purely on what we know and what we can document, then MacNaghten's claim that MJD was a prior suspect is unfounded.

There has never been another police officer who worked on the case, to my knowledge,who advocated MJD as a likely suspect. Major Arthur Griffiths wrote about Druitt as a likely suspect, but that is not only tainted in and of itself but also does not come from a police source who actually investigated the murders.

There is so much error and misrepresentation within MacNaghten's writings that it is foolhardy to take his words as absolute fact. Remember, this comes from a source who got his own preferred suspect's age, occupation and first name wrong initially.

Stan

[Chris Phillips]

There is so much error and misrepresentation within MacNaghten's writings that it is foolhardy to take his words as absolute fact.
No one is doing that, as far as I know.

But you were the one making an assertion - that "the police, in general, did not believe in Druitt as a suspect". I think the argument from silence would at best be unsatisfactory, given the incomplete nature of the records that have survived. But the fact that Macnaghten did class Druitt among those who had been suspected by "the police" makes it even weaker.

Chris Phillips

[Stan Russo]

Chris,

Your counter-argument is that because there are incomplete records, it is erroneous to make the blanket statement that the police, in general,did not suspect MJD as the Ripper.

Fair enough.

However, considering that Druitt's sole "suspecthood" comes from MacNaghten and that MacNaghten got the most basic of facts wrong about his own preferred suspect, I tend to disagree with the notion that he was previously suspected.

One would imagine that if he was previously suspected, by the police, that MacNaghten could have found out his correct occupation (lawyer and schoolmaster - not doctor), date of death (approximately December 3rd - not immediately after the Miller's Court murder), age (31 - not 41) and his actual first name (Montague - not Michael).

With all those mistakes in MacNaghten's writing on the Ripper, it makes no logical sense that the police suspected Druitt. If they suspected him, then they would have investigated him and found out those basic details, which MacNaghten definitively got incorrect.

That is why I stated that no policeman actively working the case during the murders believed in Druitt as a suspect. Other than MacNaghten, there was no other policeman who pushed for Druitt as a suspect. Then there is also the Littlechild Letter, where he states that he had never heard of a 'Dr. D', an obvious reference to MacNaghten incorrectly identifying MJD as a doctor.

Stan

[Chris Phillips]

However, considering that Druitt's sole "suspecthood" comes from MacNaghten and that MacNaghten got the most basic of facts wrong about his own preferred suspect, I tend to disagree with the notion that he was previously suspected.
I know some people think he wasn't suspected. What I wasn't happy with was the statement that "we know" he wasn't suspected.

One would imagine that if he was previously suspected, by the police, that MacNaghten could have found out his correct occupation (lawyer and schoolmaster - not doctor), date of death (approximately December 3rd - not immediately after the Miller's Court murder), age (31 - not 41) and his actual first name (Montague - not Michael).
Evidently Macnaghten made mistakes, but to be fair to him he correctly uses Druitt's initials, "M. J.", in both the surviving versions of the memoranda, rather than calling him "Michael". So I don't think Macnaghten can be accused of getting that wrong on the basis of Philip Loftus's recollections years later.

Then there is also the Littlechild Letter, where he states that he had never heard of a 'Dr. D', an obvious reference to MacNaghten incorrectly identifying MJD as a doctor.
But as Druitt wasn't a doctor, that's scarcely evidence that Littlechild had never heard of him. Of course, Abberline claimed he "knew all about" the "medical student" who was drowned in the Thames, and even implied that the police were aware of him within months of his death (though Macnaghten elsewhere implies it was much later).

Chris Phillips

[Stan Russo]

Chris,

First of all - I'm not sure how to respond to your comment "what I wasn't happy with" - but I will give it a shot.

I don't really offer my thoughts on the case, which is based upon my research, to make anyone "happy". I'm not really here to make with the "happy".

However, getting back to the point, I say "we know" because I think people who understand the complexities of the case should be able to make assertions when they are based upon logical conclusion and investigative deduction. You, obviously, disagree. That is fine. You seem to feel that it is a course of action that would make you "unhappy", or more to the point, that it would be erroneous to make such an assertion about Druitt, yet most people who feel as you do never seem to provide the necessary backing to justify your statements.

I will ask you a straightforward question - Can you please name 1 policeman, other than MacNaghten, who worked on the case and suspected Druitt?

You cannot, yet you will still hide behind the unfounded veil of "it must be in the lost files".

MacNaghten made more than just mistakes, he got almost all the basic information on his own preferred suspect wrong. Saying that MacNaghten made mistakes is the absolute understatement of the year.

I know Druitt wasn't a doctor. You know Druitt wasn't a doctor. MacNaghten did not know that and how do you think G.R. Sims knew Druitt as a doctor? He knew him as a doctorbecause he got his information from the papers written by MacNaghten. That is not speculation. That is proven fact, taken directly from Sims' writings, which eerily echo the "confidential" words of MacNaghten.

Littlechild never heard of him because Druitt was not a suspect at the time of the murders. If he had been, Littlechild, the "'Special Branch's' Swanson", would have heard of him. The 'Dr. D' reference came from Sims, which he found out about from or through the writings of MacNaghten.

Abberline also stated that it amounted to nothing. He gave no credence to that story. Why do you think that was? Plus, there is no proof that the story ever refers to Druitt. At his inquest, there was no mention of MJD being a doctor, or a medical student. I think assuming that that story definitively refers to Druitt is actually tantamount to engaging in the same activity that made you so "unhappy" when I did it.

Stan

[Chris Phillips]

First of all - I'm not sure how to respond to your comment "what I wasn't happy with" - but I will give it a shot.
All I meant by that was that I disagreed with what you said. Maybe it's one of those English idioms that loses something in the Transatlantic passage.

However, getting back to the point, I say "we know" because I think people who understand the complexities of the case should be able to make assertions when they are based upon logical conclusion and investigative deduction. You, obviously, disagree.
Of course I don't disagree, if the evidence is there. The problem is that you haven't shown us any evidence that Druitt wasn't suspected by anyone other than Macnaghten. All you've said is that - if you first discount the statement of Macnaghten's that I quoted - then we don't know of any evidence that he was suspected by others.

Similarly, you repeat your claim that Littlechild had never heard of Druitt. You have shown us no evidence at all that that's the case, because - as I pointed out - Druitt was not "Dr D".

The argument from silence is a very weak one. The surviving files are chock-full of people who were suspected by the police at one time or another. How many of those people are mentioned in police memoirs and the like? There are probably dozens of people who were suspected by the police at the time, whom we've never heard of.

Anyhow, from your post, it seems I'm not making myself clear. I'm not asserting that Druitt was suspected by others before Macnaghten. I am questioning your assertion that he wasn't. It's not up to me to disprove anything.

Chris Phillips

[Stan Russo]

Chris,

Maybe it is the translation between the Redcoats and the Revolutionaries. My apologies.

You should know that it is impossible to prove someone was not suspected, because you can't disprove something like that. There could have been a guy who was a beat constable who believed it was MJD and never wrote about it, but no can actually prove it. Until there is a policeman who actually worked on the case, I feel that since not one actively working policeman mentions Druitt, this is a clear sign that he was not suspected at the time. The onus should be on those who believe he was to actually find the info and show that he was suspected. Yes, MacNaghten's memo states that, yet we both know that his memo has become highly unreliable regarding its veracity, along with his credibility.

I could list the policeman who worked on the case during the murders and list who their suspect was - none ever mentioned Druitt. I could also make a list of every suspect ever mentioned by the police at the time of the murder investigation - none ever mentioned Druitt. If he had been suspected at the time, as MacNaghten declares, where is that piece of evidence? We have significant and insignificant files on almost every communication to the Home Office and Scotland Yard - not one mention of Druitt.

Where do you think Littlechild got the moniker 'Dr. D'? That comes directly from the man he was corresponding with, George Robert Sims. We know, or I'll say, it has been determined by historians studying the case the Sims arrived at his information from MacNaghten, or from Major Arthur Griffiths (1898 book), which gets its info from MacNaghten's memo. One could logically deduce that Sims asked him about a 'Dr. D', which Sims obviously believed to be Druitt, to which Littlechild replied that he had never heard of a 'Dr. D'. It is not so much that we currently know Druitt was not a Doctor, but in specific regards to what Sims believed and what Littlechild said regarding that belief, which casts further doubt upon Druitt having been suspected.

As for your final sentence, regarding my assertion and your requirement not to disprove anything - you are right - my assertion was erroneous. Druitt could have been suspected. There is not one single piece of credible evidence to back that up, yet it still could have happened. I personally deal in moving forward, rather than that stagnancy that comes with supposing that there are lost files containing the police's beliefs about Druitt as a suspect.

You also do not have to disprove anything, yet you must not understand that I cannot disprove a negative.

Stan

[Chris Phillips]

Stan

I think we'll have to agree to differ on this. But I think it is easy to forget how gaping are the holes in our knowledge about who was suspected by the police.

After all, you could just as easily argue that Ostrog was never suspected by anyone but Macnaghten, because he isn't mentioned in connection with the Whitechapel Murders in any surviving document except the Macnaghten Memoranda. If the Swanson Marginalia hadn't turned up, you could make the same argument about Kozminski. Tumblety isn't mentioned in any official document at all, and it's only because of Stewart Evans's chance discovery that we know of Littlechild's suspicions about him.

Then there is the City suspect (or suspects) mentioned by Sagar and Cox. If this isn't Kozminski, then again no official documentation about this suspect has survived - we don't know his name, and if it weren't for these officers' reminiscences we wouldn't even know he existed. But if Cox's account is to be believed he was suspected strongly enough to merit three months' surveillance.

Where do you think Littlechild got the moniker 'Dr. D'? That comes directly from the man he was corresponding with, George Robert Sims. We know, or I'll say, it has been determined by historians studying the case the Sims arrived at his information from MacNaghten, or from Major Arthur Griffiths (1898 book), which gets its info from MacNaghten's memo. One could logically deduce that Sims asked him about a 'Dr. D', which Sims obviously believed to be Druitt, to which Littlechild replied that he had never heard of a 'Dr. D'. It is not so much that we currently know Druitt was not a Doctor, but in specific regards to what Sims believed and what Littlechild said regarding that belief, which casts further doubt upon Druitt having been suspected.
Yes, I agree that Sims almost certainly got Druitt's initial, and the erroneous belief that he was a doctor, from Macnaghten.

The point I'm making is that Littlechild, if he was simply asked about "Dr D", would have had no reason to connect him with Druitt (unless he shared Macnaghten's misconception). So the fact that he replied "I never heard of a Dr D" isn't proof that he'd never heard of Druitt, any more than "I never heard of a Dr K" would be proof that he hadn't heard of Kozminski.

Chris Phillips

[Stan Russo]

Chris,

Remember, Druitt's name was never revealed by Griffiths in 1898. Sims may not even have known the name, or if he did, which may be the case, he may have wanted to see how much Littlechild knew about it.

I agree with you 100% that there are gaping holes in the case. I do think there are times when we can be a bit more aggressive in our forward movement. I am not arguing for making up evidence, yet I do not think there are many who would disagree with moving forward based upon analysis of available evidence.

Of course, there must be tangible evidence as well, which we both know is sorely lacking.

And I do think that Ostrog was simply pulled from the police blotter that mentions him under an unrelated charge. Remember, we are dealing with MacNaghten's memo here. There is a reason why he was chosen to write the 1894 memo, which all relates back to the conversation we are talking about.

Stan

[aspallek]

Several things here. First, I read with interest Adrian Morris' article in the JWS. I have written a reply which Adrian says he will publish. Adrian made some very good points but overstated others. For example, "anomic suicide" was just one of several categories of suicide identified by Durheim. There is no reason to identify Druitt's suicide with this category rather than one of the others.

I wrote two years ago that Druitt's dismissal may have had something to do with his paying more attention to his legal career than Valentine wished. This is nothing new.

(the following do not pertain to Adrian's article):
I do not think there is any reason to believe Druitt was murdered. It's not an impossibility but it's not likely.

William Druitt's actions are rather suspicious, but this is explainable by his desire to protect his family. What is more puzzling is why Valentine apparently was not called to testify at the inquest. I have speculated that since it was between terms he may have been away.

I believe that at some point some within Scotland Yard suspected Druitt. This is what Macnaghten says and we really don't have any good reason to doubt him. Macnaghten's mistakes concerning Druitt in the memorandum are understandable. Mistaking him for a doctor is a reasonable gaff given the family history. Getting his age wrong may have originated with Macnaghten's source since an early news report identified the victim (i.e. Druitt) as being "about 40." I believe that Macnaghten was asked to write this report but didn't really want to. As it was a bother to him, he didn't bother looking up the correct sources but instead wrote from memory.

Whether Simms knew Druitt's name or not I don't know. He certainly did possess enough information to find it out had he really wanted to. I take the rather uncommon view that it was Littlechild who initiated the exchange with Simms. A careful reading of the Littlechild letter suggests this. Littlechild perhaps broached the suspect and Simms responded with the suggestion of a "Dr D" which reminded Littlechild of Tumblety.

Andy S.