Puzzling Items & Stuff ©

Of course the biggest puzzle is, unless there is some sort of miracle finding we will never know, who was Jack the Ripper? There is a slim, very slim, possibility (keep reading).All authors of all articles may only put forward theories based on circumstantial evidence + some logic. As I have also done.

This article firmly points at Montague John Druitt to the exclusion of all other candidates simply based on the prior sentence.

Why did MJD's name come up in the first place?

Considering in 1888 London was the world's largest city in terms of physical size & population; that population being continually swollen by immigration from mainland Europe, thus dissolving the anglo saxon mix with a large Jewish contingent plus other (non-jews) fleeing the intolerable & dangerous conditions prevalent plus the chance to benefit from the ever expanding trading empire of Victorian England.

So why did MJD's name come to the attention of the Authorities?

Clearly the answer must be "because somebody close to MJD carried out that action". So far as we know he had no Police Record, was not witness identified, was 99.99% certain of not having been detained (and released) in Whitechapel at the times of any of the murders.

There are a number of clues & theories to throw into the mix:-

1) I am most puzzled about the behaviour of his brother, William, in particular. The evidence to hand, for all to see, is he lied to the inquest and, in my theory, he also mislead the inquest.

2) I am certain in my own mind the brother also concealed, tampered with or destroyed evidence.

3) What was NOT said by William. Of course, this is open to interpretation.

William Harvey Druitt was Montague's older brother - being born in 1856; a year & few months before Montague. He was the only family member to be present at the Inquest and presumably in dealings with the Police.

Why is he suspicious? Firstly he told a blatant lie at the Inquest. He stated on the record he was Montague's only sibling. Of course we know there were, at this time, five other living siblings.

He produced, presumably, at the Inquest a suicide note he found at Montague's lodgings and stated the note contained the now famous phrase Montague was afraid of going insane, like his Mother. The verbatim words are published in all Ripper books. What is never said is WHERE these kodgings were. Every book/article I have ever read simply assumes William visited Valentine's School and "found" the note there. To my knowledge nobody, in our lifetimes, has ever seen the note. It is unclear whether the suicide note was entered into the Inquest proceedings and retained as record. It would be a wonderful find should this note ever be found/produced. Could it even be in the Druitt family possession still?

Fifty percent of me is certain William never quoted from any note Montague left. In other words William simply invented/forged the suicide note quoted at Inquest. The other fifty percent of me feels Montague left a confessional note + evidence which showed to William Montague was indeed Jack the Ripper. If one reads Donald Rumbelow's article of how he came about what he believes is one of the postmortem knives will, a little at least, give some credence to my assertion.

Of course the biggest question is why, in William's shoes would you do anything other than simply destroy all and any incriminating documents and artifacts? This in itself leads me towards that Montague's lodgings being spoken of was NOT at Valentine's School. Else it would almost certainly have been discovered earlier i.e. before William's arrival. I prefer this assumption. However a logical contrary view could be Valentine was the one who contacted William after discovering the evidence in Montague's room. William, I surmise, likely paid off Valentine in return for his silence. Montague's body then being pulled from the Thames a couple or three weeks later gave William the method of "cleanly" disposing of why Montague killed himself. Just write a small" I'm afraid of going mad" suicide note. QED!