Druitt family

[Adam Went]

Hi Jonathan,

I shall keep this brief as this will be my last contribution to this thread (and I mean it this time!)

Take a closer look. I have already responded to both Paul and Tammy's posts.

What you are only "vaguely recalling" is that your very first responses to me and my theory, way back when, were so ugly and so personal that my students noticed it and followed it. They found your manners, or lack of them, the shocker, more so than the argument and counter-argument. You were posting in a public forum, e.g. it was not private correspondence, so people had a right to read it. In effect, you "mocked" yourself.

This in a nutshell is the issue with debating the matter with you, Jonathan. The goalposts constantly shift. Every time somebody brings up a FACT which is inconvenient to your theory, out comes the victim complex and off you go with another long, rambling post which doesn't really address any of the issues that I made in my last post, or any of the posts before that - uncomfortable questions like just how close William Druitt was to Montague in 1888 given the dividing up of their fathers will in 1885, and how he or any other members of the Druitt clan could have had information that Montague was JTR and just what that information was which could be so conclusive (a confession? More hearsay), and whether or not such an accusation could lead to trouble with the very likes of Macnaghten for keeping such vital information hidden in the first place - before he had even committed suicide, according to you and the confession story. Your whole response, as usual, is just one long non sequitur - half your post is dedicated to playing the man rather than the ball, as I say - yet it is I who is the fool for not answering questions or understanding you. I asked for a list of questions you wanted answering, and it's not been forthcoming. Okay...

(Incidentally, I never did hear from any of those students of yours who were apparently so mortified at the treatment of their beloved Mr. Hainsworth.)

I want you to understand, Jonathan, that Druitt's guilt or innocence in its own right is of little consequence to me. I have no personal connection to him or vested interest in clearing his name. It makes no difference now anyway, does it? But what I simply cannot stand is this trend in 21st century Ripperology to throw anyone and everyone under the bus in the name of having a theory that stands out. There is no moral compass, everyone is fair game. Granted, Druitt is one of the oldest suspects, but as you've pointed out yourself this most recent incarnation of the case against him is quite recent - since 2007, correct? Yet it is just another theory that, as has been shown again and again, is light on facts and heavy on supposition. That so many people swallow such tales hook, line and sinker is even more disappointing (this is a general observation, i'm not referring to just Druitt). To be honest, it is a big part of the reason why I have largely stepped away from the case and keep my contributions to a minimum these days - after 15 years of being involved, you realise there are more important things in life and those things are usually less stressful!

The floor is yours, and all the best.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

No worries, Adam, and all the best to you.

I disagree with every single thing you wrote in that last post, some of it kind of crazy, but by all means have the last word since we are both heading for the exit.

I'm in Tasmania for a [non-Ripper] conference in June. We'll try and catch up then at the best Indian restaurant you can recommend (at least we have that taste in common).

[R. J. Palmer]

I don't follow Adam Went's argument about the terms of the 1885 will. Why would this lead to a falling out between Monty and William? Or is that not what he is suggesting? Wasn't it a fairly standard settlement? And has it not been shown that Monty previously borrowed against his legacy to fund his education/law practice? And further, that William and Monty worked together on legal matters both before and after 1885? And that Monty stayed with William in the summer of 1888? What exactly is being argued here?

I also don't like the underlying philosophy. We are almost entirely ignorant of the 'case' against Druitt (or Kosminski or Tumblety). Perhaps less so in regards to Cutbush, Klosowski, and Sadler, where the historical 'witnesses' were more forthcoming. Went seems to be implying that because WE are ignorant ('where are the facts?') the Victorian police were similarly ignorant.

I don't see it.

Hainsworth, Fido, and similar theorists are merely testing the legitimate premise that perhaps the police WEREN'T as ignorant about the murderer as so many assume.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

Druitt died at the wrong time

Thanks R.J.

To be spoken of in the same line as Fido is a big, big compliment! It's not accurate - but I'll take what I can get.

Adam had asked, essentially, if Montague Druitt had not died just after Kelly would he have ever been considered a suspect by anybody, let alone a chief at the yard.

If he had died say before Kelly was killed he would, by implication, never have come across anybody's radar as the Fiend, not unless you were willing to detach Miller's Court from the list for The Ripper.

In fact, this is almost exactly what happened.

Druitt did die at the wrong time. He killed himself before the Mylett, McKenzie and Coles murders, one or two by Jack it was initially believed, and mostly still believed until 1898 (and he died before the the Pinchin St Torso too).

If timing is all there was to it then Druitt was exonerated.

In his report(s) Macnaghten deliberately fudged this is by giving the entirely false impression that the police, at the time, knew that Kelly was the last murder by that particular murderer - because what had been done to that victim was so horrendous nobody could function for long without killing themselves or being sectioned.

From the primary sources alone between 1888 and 1891 it can be seen that this "awful glut" template is propaganda, and melodramatic propaganda at that. Mac did this to hide, awkwardly, the fact that two streams of information had arrived at the Yard about this suspect several years apart: in the first he was nothing and in the second he was everything.

How mortifying and embarrassing is that for the Yard?

Tory Mac's glut litmus test was an attempt to force the two streams together for the Liberal Home Sec. in order to pretend there was only ever one stream; that the hardy Yard, with its Tory hold-overs still in charge, were closing fact and efficiently on this sexual maniac.

As Macnaghten fessed up in his 1914 memoirs, twenty years later, it wasn't timing that made this suspect the best. It was bombshell information received about a formerly minor suspect that elevated him to no less than the likeliest solution - albeit it would never go to court.

It was the timing of Druitt's suicide that - rightly or wrongly - created the so-called "canonical five"; with Kelly replacing Coles as the final victim of the same killer.

I would also counter-argue that we can see glimpses of why Macnaghten, Sims, two clergymen, an MP and members of the man's family "believed", rightly or wrongly, that Montie was the killer. We have the gist, which is not bad considering they wanted the gist never to come out.