Montague
John Druitt -- A graduate of Winchester College and an avid sportsman
who was discovered drowned in the Thames river on December 31, 1888. He
is considered by many to be the number one suspect in the case. Interestingly
enough, there is very little evidence with which to implicate his guilt.
Druitt was the second son of a medical practitioner, William Druitt,
born August 15, 1857 in Wimborne, Dorset. Researcher Peter Birchwood
allows us a glimpse into Druitt's family from his researches into the 1881
census:
Dwelling: Westfield House
Census Place: Wimborne Minster, Dorset, England
Source: FHL Film 1341505 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 2093 Folio 13 Page 19
William DRUITT M 60 M Wimborne, Dorset, England
Rel: Head
Occ: F.R.C.S.Not Practising
Anne DRUITT M 51 F Shapwick, Dorset, England
Rel: Wife
Georgiana E. DRUITT U 25 F Wimborne, Dorset, England
Rel: Dau
Edith DRUITT 13 F Wimborne, Dorset, England
Rel: Dau
Occ: Scholar
Ethel M. DRUITT 10 F Wimborne, Dorset, England
Rel: Dau
Occ: Scholar
Ann FLIPP U 35 F Spetisbury, Dorset, England
Rel: Servt
Occ: Cook
Edith DENNETT U 25 F Wimborne, Dorset, England
Rel: Servt
Occ: Parlour Maid
Sophia E. RIDOUT U 23 F Gosport, Hampshire, England
Rel: Servt
Occ: House Maid
Educated at Winchester and New
College, Oxford, Druitt was later to graduate with a third class honours
degree in the classics in 1880 (Sugden).
While at Winchester, however, Druitt was heavily involved in the debating
society, choosing mostly political topics for his speeches. He was known
to denounce the Liberal Party as well as Bismark's influence as "morally
and socially a curse to the world." His last speech contended that
while previous generations believed 'man is made for States,' it is a 'vast
improvement that States should be made for man, as they are now.'
As much a sportsman as a speaker, Druitt was granted a spot in the Winchester
First Eleven (cricket) in 1876 and was a member of the Kingston Park and
Dorset Country Cricket Club. He was noted to have had formidable strength
in his arms and wrists, despite his gaunt appearance in surviving photographs.
Druitt also became quite talented at Fives, winning the Double and Single
Fives titles at Winchester and Oxford. On March 9, 1875, he placed third
in a cricket ball throwing event at Winchester, with a toss of over ninety-two
yards.
Immediately after graduation, Druitt began teaching at a boarding school
in Blackheath. In 1881 Druitt was introduced into the local membership
of the Blackheath Hockey Club and later began to play for the Morden Cricket
Club of Blackheath.
The next year, in 1882, Druitt again decided to focus on a law career,
and was admitted into the Inner Temple on May 17. On April 29, 1885 he
was called to the bar. The Law List of 1886 places him in the Western Circuit
and the Winchester Sessions. The next year he is recorded as a special
pleader for the Western Circuit and Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton
Assizes (Sugden).
In 1885 his father passed away as a result of a heart attack, leaving
a total of £16,579 inheritance, but leaving Montague and his two
older brothers a slim cut. Tragedy struck again in July of 1888, when his
mother Ann (née Harvey) succumbed to mental illness and was confined
in Brook Asylum in Clapton. Yet through this tumultuous times it seems
as if Druitt had managed his affairs quite admirably.
He was nominated for membership of the Morden Cricket Club in 1883,
and elected on May 26 of the next year. His subscriptions (which were unenviable)
were nevertheless paid in full at the time of his death. Druitt was later
appointed treasurer and honorary secretary of the Blackheath Cricket, Gottball
and Lawn Tennis Company in 1885. His address was then given as 9 Eliot
Place, Blackheath.
And so it went that Druitt seemed to have been able to cope with the
loss of both his parents within the small space of three years. But in
late November of 1888, it seems that one final straw had broken the camel's
back, as Druitt was found on Monday, December 31, 1888 floating in the
Thames river.
Henry Winslade, a waterman on off Thorneycroft's Wharf in the Thames,
discovered the decomposed body around 1:00 PM that day, bringing it ashore
and notifying the authorities. Constable George Moulston 216T, made a complete
listing of possessions found on the then unidentified corpse:
- Four large stones in each pocket
- £2.17s.2d cash
- A cheque for £50 and another for £16
- Silver watch on a gold chain with a spade guinea as a seal
- Pair of kid gloves
- White handkerchief
- First-class half-season rail ticket from Blackheath to London
- Second-half return ticket from Hammersmith to Charing Cross dated December
1, 1888
According to his brother William's testimony (who identified the corpse),
Druitt was dismissed from his post at Blackheath School for some unknown
reason (some authors have taken to suggesting that Druitt was dismissed
for his homosexual tendencies, which caused him to molest his students.
This is pure conjecture). The date of his dismissal is ambiguous, as can
be seen in the only known report to survive of the inquest testimony, copied
in part below from the Acton, Chiswick, and Turnham Green Gazette
of January 5, 1889:
"William H. Druitt said he lived at Bournemouth, and that he
was a solicitor. The deceased was his brother, who was 31 last birthday.
He was a barrister-at-law, and an assistant master in a school at Blackheath.
He had stayed with witness at Bournemouth for a night towards the end of
October. Witness heard from a friend on the 11th of December that deceased
had not been heard of at his chambers for more than a week. Witness then
went to London to make inquiries, and at Blackheath he found that deceased
had got into serious trouble at the school, and had been dismissed. That
was on the 30th of December. Witness had deceased's things searched where
he resided, and found a paper addressed to him (produced). The Coroner
read the letter, which was to this effect: - "Since Friday I felt
I was going to be like mother, and the best thing for me was to die."
Witness, continuing, said deceased had never made any attempt on his life
before. His mother became insane in July last. He had no other relative.
As Sugden points out, the date given of December 30th is both ambiguous
and impossible. The wording alone makes it possible that it was in reference
to either William's inquiries or Druitt's dismissal. If it was in reference
to the former, it is doubtful that William would wait nineteen days after
receiving word that his brother was missing to inquire into his whereabouts
at Blackheath School. If it referred to the latter, however, it is impossibly
incorrect, as Druitt was discovered the day after the 30th of December,
and was estimated to have been in the water for upwards of three weeks
or more. Sugden concludes, with reasonable certainty, that December
30th is a misprint for November 30th, a date which makes much
more sense.
Assuming it was November 30th on which occurred Druitt's dismissal,
the few facts of the case fall nicely into place, assuming it was his dismissal
which finally prompted his suicide. The 30th was a Friday, which hearkens
back to his suicide note: 'Since Friday I felt I was going to be like
mother, and the best thing for me was to die.' Also, remember that
among his possessions were two cheques for £50 and £16, respectively.
They may have been settlement cheques of Druitt's salary written upon his
dismissal. Finally, there was also found an unused return ticket from Hammersmith
to Charing Cross dated December 1.
Still, another question arises: when did Druitt commit suicide?
His tombstone places the date at December 4th, most probably by William's
testimony that "on the 11th of December [the] deceased had not been
heard of at his chambers for more than a week." Yet notice the use
of the word more -- this suggests a date before the 4th of
December. Sugden places the date as December 1st, the day after his dismissal.
This paints a picture of a successful barrister, suddenly overwrought
by his dismissal at his second job in Blackheath. He accepts his two settlement
cheques from his former employer and sulks home, thoughts of suicide entering
into his mind. The next morning he writes his little note, walks toward
the Thames with four stones in each pocket, perhaps glances at his cheques
one last time, and throws himself into the icy water. It all seems to make
sense.
Everything, except for motive that is. Druitt was still a successful
barrister, and the school position was only a secondary means of earning
money. He was rather high and well-known in the social stratus, and could
easily have found another job if need be. So why the suicide?
Two prominent possibilities arise -- first, the aforementioned implications
of his homosexuality. Still, only conjecture, but perhaps his vice was
discovered and he couldn't bear the embarrassment?
More plausible, however, was that Druitt's mind was slowly deteriorating.
The death of his father in 1885, and the committal of his mother only six
months before his death could very well have played a heavy part in the
matter. Furthermore, mental illness seems to have run in the Druitt family.
Ann Druitt, his mother, was later to die in the Manor House Asylum in Chiswick
in 1890, having suffered from depression and paranoid delusions. She once
attempted suicide by overdosing on laudanum. Her mother before her had
committed suicide, and her sister had tried to kill herself as well. Montague's
oldest sister killed herself in old age by jumping from an attic window.
And so it must stand -- suicidal tendencies ran in the Druitt family,
and it most probably was an overreaction at his dismissal which prompted
him to follow suit. Regardless, the inquest was held Wednesday, January
2, 1889 before Dr. Thomas Diplock at the Lamp Tap, Chiswick. It was concluded
that Druitt committed suicide 'whilst of unsound mind.' Unfortunately,
the coroner's papers no longer exist.
And so the story of Montague John Druitt ends, and his alleged involvement
in the Whitechapel Murders begins.
The brunt of the argument contending that Druitt was the Ripper lies
with a quote made by Inspector Macnaghten in his famous memoranda,
who was referring to Montague in the following quote:
I have always held strong opinions regarding him, and the more I
think the matter over, the stronger do these opinions become. The truth,
however, will never be known, and did indeed, at one time lie at the bottom
of the Thames, if my conjections be correct!
The description of this suspect differs slightly in
Macnaghten's memoranda and Scotland Yards public record files. The former
reads:
Mr. M.J. Druitt a doctor of about 41 years of age & of fairly
good family, who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder,
and whose body was found floating in the Thames on 31st Dec: i.e. 7 weeks
after the said murder. The body was said to have been in the water for
a month, or more -- on it was found a season ticket between Blackheath
& London. From private information I have little doubt that his own
family suspected this man of being the Whitechapel murderer; it was alleged
that he was sexually insane.
The Scotland Yard file reads:
A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family, who
disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body
(which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found
in the Thames on 31st December - or about 7 weeks after that murder. He
was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but
that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.
Evidence which supports Druitt's being the Ripper is all but non-existant.
In fact, his only true link can be made in his appearance and his likeness
to many witness accounts. All but one witness gave estimate of age close
to Druitt's (31): P.C. Smith (28), Israel Schwartz (30), Joseph Lawende
(30), and George Hutchinson (34-35). Elizabeth Long gave an age of forty,
but she admitted she did not see the suspect's face.
As for appearance, three major witnesses report the Ripper as having
a moustache (which Druitt had), although the color varies from "dark,"
to "brown," to "fair." Druitt was also of respectable
appearance, always known to have been well-dressed. All witnesses except
for Lawende (who said the suspect had the appearance of a sailor) support
this possibility: Long described a man of 'shabby genteel,' Smith and Schwartz
both labelled the man as respectable, and Hutchinson went so far as to
describe him as "prosperous-looking."
In
terms of build, however, Druitt falls short. He was a slender man, while
witnesses described the man as being from medium to heavy build, stout,
and broad shouldered. Almost unfailingly, the suspect was labelled consistently
as "foreign-looking" and "a Jew."
Other problems arise as well. It is generally accepted that the Ripper
was an inhabitant of the East End (Sugden), but Druitt had little or no
experience in or around the area of Whitechapel. He was living at 9 Eliot
Place, Blackheath during the murders. But could that address have been
used as a "base" for the murders?
Sugden cites contemporary train schedules in order to disprove this
theory. According to him, there was no all-night train service between
London and Blackheath. The last train leaving Blackheath in 1888 left at
12:25 AM and the earliest leaving London for Blackheath was at 5:10 AM.
Although for the Nichols (3:40 AM), Chapman (5:30 AM) and Kelly (4:00 AM)
murders the Ripper may have been able to jaunt over to the station and
take a train back to Blackheath with very little time wasted waiting for
the first train to arrive, this does not hold true for Stride (1:00 AM),
Eddowes (1:44 AM) or Tabram (2:30 AM). If the Ripper had killed them and
needed to take a train back to Blackheath, Sugden claims, he would have
to remain in the area for "perilous hours" just asking to be
detected. Still, he admits, the killer could have remained in a common
lodging house for some time, although a respectable man such as Druitt
in such a place would seem suspicious.
Tom Cullen, noted Druittist, argues that Druitt's known chambers at
9 King's Bench Walk could have been used, as they are within walking distance
of the East End. Yet Sugden again refutes this, citing the Ripper's known
movements on the night of the double murder. King's Bench Walk was west
of Mitre Square (site of the second murder), and yet the killer is known
to have gone north-east directly after killing Eddowes and dropped
her apron in Goulston Street. Would the killer have risked detection by
entering the lion's den northward if he had indeed planned to find refuge
to the west?
One of the most often quoted sources of evidence against Druitt,
however, is his documented cricket schedule during the murders. On Friday
and Saturday, August 3 and 4, Druitt was in Dean Park, Bournemouth. He
was there again on August 10 and 11 playing the Gentlemen of Dorset. Tabram
was killed on Tuesday, August 7. Would it not make sense that Druitt would
have stayed in the region of Bournemouth if he was playing two consecutive
weekends?
Furthermore, Druitt was known to have played for Canford, Dorset, against
Wimborne at Canford on September 1st, the day after Nichols' murder. On
September 8th (day of Chapman's murder) Druitt played at 11:30 AM against
the Brothers Christopherson on the Rectory Field at Blackheath. This provides
no conclusive evidence against Druitt, but it does seem unlikely
that he could have killed Chapman at 5:30 AM and had time to catch a train
to Blackheath, remove his bloodied clothes, was up, eat breakfast, and
be on the field by 11:30. Especially considering that he would probably
have been prowling the streets the entire night before (Sugden).
And so goes the arguments of those who believe Druitt could not have
been the Ripper. But how could Macnaghten have made such a seemingly groundless
claim? Some contend that it was because he was horrendously underinformed
of the case, and based his theory on mere memory.
When Macnaghten says in the memoranda, "from private information
I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the
murderer," one must look closely at the diction of that statement.
Notice how he has little doubt but not absolute evidence.
We have no clues as to who the informant was whom Macnaghten refers to,
but from the way he words his statement, it would seem as if it would have
been a Druitt family member. And yet if one of Druitt's relations had informed
Macnaghten that they believed he may have been the Ripper, would Macnaghten
not rather have said he has evidence that Druitt's family believe
him to be insane? This leads one to believe that perhaps Macnaghten was
basing his claims on hearsay and rumour, rather than actual private information
he himself received.
Another statement made by Macnaghten was that the Ripper's brain, "after
his awful glut on this occasion (Kelly's murder), gave way altogether and
he committed suicide; otherwise the murders would not have ceased."
And yet there is still, to this day, no evidence which shows that serial
killers can not simply stop killing. According to Sugden, "more
recent experience ... seems to demonstrate the contrary."
Furthermore, there are other reasons besides suicide which could have
prevented the Ripper from continuing his crimes after Kelly, such as incarceration
(in prison or an asylum), emigration, accidental or natural death, or even
a bout of sickness. Even more damning is the statement that "despite
the dramatic increase of such crimes in recent decades, no major offender
is known to have committed suicide. (Sugden)"
What's worse are the many errors in Macnaghten's notes regarding Druitt.
He stated that Druitt lived with his family, but records show that he lived
alone at 9 Eliot Place. He stated that Druitt had committed suicide around
the 10th of November, three weeks before it actually occurred. He stated
that Druitt was about 41 at the time of his death, overestimating by ten
years. Finally, he mentions Druitt as being a doctor, when he was a barrister
and schoolmaster.
Still, Macnaghten was an intelligent man, and it is doubtful he would
have placed such merit in a suspect without due cause. Perhaps more evidence
or documents will be found in the future which may shed some light on Macnaghten's
motives behind Druitt.
Regardless, the case for Druitt being the Ripper seemed almost cemented
by Dan Farson in 1959, upon his discovery of a man who claimed to have
remembered a pamphlet being distributed in Australia around 1890 entitled
"The East End Murderer -- I knew him." It's author, claimed Mr.
A. Knowles (Farson's informant), was Lionel Druitt, Drewett or Drewery.
The fact that Lionel Druitt, who was Montague's cousin, had left to live
in Australia in 1886 only excited the investigators more, and they left
to research the possibility.
The men were horribly disappointed. All they found was a shoddy story
of a Mr. W. G. Fell of Dandenong who claimed to have definite proof of
the Ripper's identity, but refused to give it out unless he received a
£500 reward. No one by the name of Fell was ever recorded in Dandenong
in 1890.
And so it appears that the pamphlet memories of Mr. A. Knowles was just
a confusion of facts between Druitt and Deeming.
The Melbourne Evening Standard of April 8, 1892 carried the headline;
"JACK THE RIPPER: DEEMING AT ALDGATE ON THE NIGHT OF THE WHITECHAPEL
MURDERS." This was denied by Deeming's attorney, who rightly proclaimed
that he (Deeming) was serving a sentence in South Africa during the fall
of 1888. Nevertheless, it was found that Deeming assumed the name of Druin
or Drewen shortly after arriving in Australia in 1891. Although there is
no proof, it is most likely that Knowles' memory confused Deeming's aliases
with Druitt's name, and that either the aforementioned headline or a similar
one (of which there were many in those days) had prompted belief in a pamphlet.
Also of interest is an occurrence which happened in March, 1889. According
to Dr. Thomas Dutton, Albert Backert, a high-standing member of the Whitechapel
Vigilance Committee, had set forth his displeasure that "there seemed
to be too much complacency in the force simply because there had been no
more murders for some months."
The senior officers responded to his complaint, and was told that if
he were to swear to secrecy he would be given information about the case.
In his own words, he explains:
Foolishly, I agreed. It was then suggested to me that
the Vigilance Committee and its patrols might be dis-
banded as the police were quite certain that the Ripper
was dead. I protested that, as I had been sworn to
secrecy, I really ought to be given more information
than this. 'It isn't necessary for you to know any more,'
I was told. 'The man in question is dead. He was fish-
ed out of the Thames two months ago and it would only
cause pain to relatives if we said any more than that.
Dutton's source on this is unknown, but if true, this is of
extreme importance -- if this happened in March of 1889, then it suggests
police interest in Druitt as a suspect before Macnaghten, who didn't
join the force until the summer of 1889: two months after this alleged
incident.
Abberline himself didn't acknowledge the fact, as others such as Anderson
have so famously done, that the Ripper was known to have been dead
soon after the autumn of 1888. In his interview with the Pall Mall Gazette
in 1903, he is quoted:
You can state most emphatically that Scotland Yard is really no
wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago. It is simple nonsense
to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always
have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been
next to impossible for me not to have known all about it. Besides, the
authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery,
if only for their own credit.
And so remains the case of Druitt. His acceptance as a Ripper suspect
must lie in the belief that Macnaghten had more information than he wanted
others to know -- information which he claims he destroyed so as not to
cause an uproar. One must also contend that Druitt could have fit committed
the murders in time to return to his cricket games, especially in the cases
of Nichols and Chapman. If those two queries can be answered in the positive,
than Druitt deserves recognition as a leading Ripper suspect. If not, his
inclusion as a suspect must be attributed to the sole opinions of Macnaghten,
based on hearsay and memory.
