Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Druitt family

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tammy Green
    replied
    Thank you very much Adam,


    Originally posted by Adam Went View Post
    If indeed his own family did suspect him back in London behind closed doors, then I would argue that it was more a case of the combination of Montague quite possibly having some mental health issues, and his having committed suicide shortly after the murder of Mary Kelly, rather than any tangible evidence.
    The last thing a repectful family will do, is to suspect a member of them to be a Killer, this is not how reality goes, almost the other way around, they cannot suspect one of them, specially someone like Montague, to be a killer unless they saw what they cannot go around it and explain..

    If you have a brother with a mental issue, are you going to suspect him of being a secret sirial killer ?!

    Thanks,
    Tammy

    Leave a comment:


  • Jonathan Hainsworth
    replied
    No, you are right ...

    No, Tammy, you are totally on the right track - though just about everybody else here will say the opposite. Sometimes majorities are right, sometimes not.

    It's just my opinion, Tammy, but I don't think this subject is in fact a mystery at all, which is not the same as saying it is absolutely proven (as that is impossible at this distance). The solution was broadly revealed to the public in 1898, but forgotten after the Great War.

    So-called "Ripperology" is based on a foundation stone that is actually made of quicksand: that Macnaghten the police chief who advocated the Druitt solution, on file and in public, was ignorant and incompetent. So under-informed he mistook a barrister for a doctor, and so on. Therefore his choosing of Druitt is ipso facto discredited.

    I counter-argue that Macnaghten was competent, meticulous, hands-on, discreet, a desk-jockey who chose to prowl the streets of Whitechapel, night after night. Like many, he was obsessed with catching The Ripper. Instead he had to settle for the thankless job of "Clean-Up Man"; as the murderer was long dead, and the Yard had botched the investigation. They had arrested Druitt the night of the double murder and released him (perhaps with an apology?)

    It was not until Mac in 1891 discovered that Druitt was the actual "Jack" that he had to protect the Yard's rep from further humiliation. In his 1914 memoir he conceded that there had been two streams of intelligence about this suspect, and only in the second was the evidence decisive and definitive.

    Police chief Sir Melville Macnaghten, the famous writer George R. Sims, the Tory M.P. Henry Farquharson, and a North Country Vicar (whom I argue knew Montague Druitt and was related to the family by marriage, and who was repeating the confession Montie gave to his cousin: the Reverend Charles Druitt, who was himself the son of a very famous Victorian, the late Dr Robert Druitt) all shared their solution - e.g. the same solution - with the Late Victorian and Edwardian public (And all were upper class gents).

    The profile of Druitt had to be partially disguised; from a young, sporty lawyer to a middle-aged, reclusive doctor, for three reasons:

    1) to protect a respectable family, the Druitts. The killer was the nephew of a very celebrated physician who had helped turn the public towards lighter wines.

    2) Montague was also related, by marriage, to the family of a close and mutual friend of both the chief and the writer (the late Colonel Sir Vivian Majendie, the Chief of Munitions at the Home Office). This family had to be shielded too.

    3) to improve the dented reputation of Scotland Yard by inverting the embarrassing truth; as in, the real Druitt had been arrested and let go. This became, in Sims' telling, a "mad doctor" who was about to be arrested but he had killed himself. That's a much better story for the cops.

    But all these Gentile, Anglican gents did not shy away from the unwanted truth that The Ripper had been one of their own: an Englishman, a Gentleman, a Gentile, an Anglican and a professional, e.g. not foreign, not poor, not an immigrant and not Jewish.

    Considering how ruthless and unjust the English, upper bourgeoisie could be, these gents' decision not to deflect away from an English gentleman and suicide as the fiend is to be commended.

    I think that in 1891, Chief Constable Macnaghten listened to the Rev. Charles Druitt repeat Montague's confession from 1888. In that confession, perhaps to the chief's surprise, was information known only to the cops and the killer. At that moment "Mac", who as an Old Etonian outranked all other cops in his own mind, wondered how he would deal with this tar-baby ...

    This is the question I always put to those who disagree with my revisionist thesis, and who have every right to disagree.

    When Mac through Sims revealed to the public the identity of The Ripper the information [they] supplied was half-wrong, thus protecting the Druitts from social ruin.

    Was that just a lucky break for the Druitts?

    And for the Blackheath school that Montague had taught at part-time, which would have had to close if it became known that Jack The Ripper had resided there?

    Was it really just a fortuitous coincidence that the press, public, and even those who knew the Druitts, could not recognise their Montie in the Drowned Doctor solution?

    Leave a comment:


  • Adam Went
    replied
    Hi Tammy and Jonathan,

    Jonathan and I have debated at length the veracity of Druitt's candidacy as a suspect over the years, and I have no desire to do so again here. However, Tammy, I would ask you to take some of these allegations with a very large pinch of salt.

    For instance, Jonathan refers to a police chief suspecting Druitt. He is of course referring to Melville Macnaghten, who was in fact not involved in the original investigation and only came into his position after the fact. He wrote an extremely erroneous memorandum detailing the cases against three suspects. To put this into some sort of context, Severin Klosowski (AKA George Chapman) was the preferred suspect of Frederick Abberline, George Godley and Superintendent Neil. However, in recent years the case against him has largely been debunked, and I say that as somebody who was once an avid believer in Chapman as a prime suspect. The "famous writer" was also a journalist, need I go on?

    I've spent some considerable time looking over what's left of the correspondence between the Druitt family around the time of the Ripper murders and into the 1890's (there's quite a considerable amount in the archives), and the JTR case isn't mentioned once. If indeed his own family did suspect him back in London behind closed doors, then I would argue that it was more a case of the combination of Montague quite possibly having some mental health issues, and his having committed suicide shortly after the murder of Mary Kelly, rather than any tangible evidence the family may have had against him. These were panicked times and as we know, not much of a reason was needed to suspect somebody, especially if it was seen as an opportunity to take care of a vendetta.

    Anyhow, I don't wish to confuse the issue too much and I would encourage you to do your own independent research into Montague and his family - they were quite a well known family and there is no shortage of material on them, unlike many other suspects. Just be aware that there is much more to the Druitt case than meets the eye.

    Cheers,
    Adam.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tammy Green
    replied
    Thank you Jonathan for the excellent post.

    Then when Druitt's own respectful family suspected him of being nothing other than Jack the ripper back then, who are we after 130 years and without all the informations they had , not to suspect him too ?!

    I don't have a suspect by the way, but when a respectful family like Druitt's introduce one of their members to me as being Jack, I find myself automatically suspecting him too, until of course they are doing that for fame and glory, which is completely not the case here.

    When I look at Druitt's photos, I could swear this is not a face of a killer, but then again, wasn't that also the victim's feelings when they accompanied their killer to the last spot ? Didn't Kelly allow him to enter her room and sleep on her only bed ?! I find the man described by Hutchinson a perfect match to Druitt with the information we still have in hand.

    If his family suspected him, we MUST suspect him too.

    Am I totaly out of track here?!

    Thanks!
    Tammy

    Leave a comment:


  • Jonathan Hainsworth
    replied
    Yes they did

    Yes they did. Otherwise the idea of M. J. Druitt as the Whitechapel murderer would never have gained currency - because the young and successful barrister had killed himself too early to be the fiend (e.g. December 1888, the murders lasted, albeit with decreased frequency and savagery, until Feb 1891).

    Even better specific family members not just suspected, they "believed" their Montague was the "The Ripper" - even after other women were murdered in Whitechapel and the press and police thought this was by the same killer.

    The difference between the Druitts and other families, who also had this extraordinary - and socially ruinous - notion about one of their members, is that this belief was shared by non-family members, in fact by people who had a bias towards the solution not being true.

    This is according to sources by the family and by others about the family: including a police chief, a member of parliament, a famous writer and an Anglican clergyman (two priests in fact).

    Leave a comment:


  • Tammy Green
    replied
    Yes or No!

    I have one question, a simple and direct question, and I would like to read a clear and simple answer to this:

    - Did Druitt's family suspect him of being Jack the Ripper ?!

    Yes or No ?!

    Thank you, Tammy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Adam Went
    replied
    Hey How,

    My apologies, the article was in #6. Don Souden and the editors had neglected to include some of the images I sent with the article in issue #6. After pointing this out, they then published them in the following issue, so that would be #7. I have the original copies on a USB somewhere around here....

    Cheers,
    Adam.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Adam:

    You had me flippin' like a flag on a pole when you said your article in Examiner # 8.

    There was no issue number 8.

    Your article was in number 6.

    By the way....there aren't any photos of Lionel Druitt in the issue.
    See for yourself, buddy
    www.rippercast.com/mp3/EXAMINER%20Issue%206.pdf

    Cheers

    Leave a comment:


  • Adam Went
    replied
    I had a couple of photographs of Lionel Druitt (Montague's cousin) published in issue #8 of Casebook Examiner some years ago. I won't post them here again as they aren't mine, they were lent to me. He of course emigrated to Australia and was living and practising as a doctor in Victoria at the time of the Ripper murders.

    There's a number of files relating to the family, including correspondence, at he archives of West Sussex.

    Cheers,
    Adam.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynn Cates
    replied
    nice

    Hello Debs. Nice find.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • John Savage
    replied
    Hi Debs,


    This is certainly new to me.


    One little coincidence I noticed regarding Alan Druitt, also of Christchurch, who was co author of "The Assessment and Rating Manual", London 1901.


    Monty's last known case was an appearance in the High Court were he dealt with an appeal on a rating case, which he won.


    Rgds
    John

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Looks like you had it right Debs....I saw the word 'father' and there's where I goofed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    Whoops !

    Thanks for the correction, Debs....
    I'm hoping I've got it right, How.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Whoops !

    Thanks for the correction, Debs....

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    The photographs on this thread are of Montie's uncle James and his wife Matilda and in the book there is a photograph of Montie's father, William.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X