Talk:Montague Druitt

Untitled

Autochthony writes: Suggest someone looks at the conversions of "£ then to "£ today". At least one - estate value - is at odds with the other estimates given. And wouldn't adding 'about' (or similar, more impressive, wording - circa perhaps) give a fairer idea that these conversions are over a century or more. For example, in 1888, it was not possible to go to your local T*%<o and get a TV with DVD Player for £1 - worth about £80 today. Autochthony wrote. 2 feb 2010 2123z 86.151.61.221 (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

They seem fine to me. DrKiernan (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Failed featured article candidate

Since the featured article discussion concluded that this should not be a featured article, the discussion on that page was closed and archived. I'd like to respond to some comments made in defense of this article on that page right before it was closed:

"I'd rather just give a brief outline here. The detail of the murders is in the main article: Jack the Ripper."

Yeah, no kidding. That's completing missing the point, though. My objection was that the brief outline of the Ripper murders here is highly misleading. As one major example, every time this article says that Mary Kelly was the last Ripper victim or suggests that Druitt died shortly after the last murder it's putting a huge amount of bias into the article. Nobody knows who the last victim was. Some people think the Ripper killed one or many more after Kelly, and some people think Kelly wasn't even a Ripper victim in the first place. And that's one of many examples of how someone reading this article gets entirely the wrong idea about the Ripper murders. We don't need to go into a huge amount of detail here, but the details we do include should not be slanted, misleading or outright wrong.

"Most authorities today do not consider him a likely suspect. How is that not factual?"

Because we need an actual reliable source to show that in a way that would back up a claim like that, not some author out of nowhere who threw a book together and who is trying to make some declaration for the majority of the field.

"We also have 100 other suspects, so that's at least 100 other authorities saying that Druitt isn't the Ripper in addition to those listed. That is a majority."

Many of those 100 (probably more like 200 now if you use the term "suspect" that loosely) have no reliable sources or reputable authorities behind them. They are listed as some sort of parlor game by people without any credentials, or were historical. On top of that, this hypothetical 100 authorities pointing to someone other than Druitt all point to someone other than EVERY suspect, so specifically presenting it as saying most authorities (allegedly) don't consider Druitt a good suspect is slanting things by leaving out the important point that the majority think ALL of the suspects are bad. I would think it's safe to say that the majority would conclude that he is a better suspect than 90% of the so-called suspects out there, if not necessarily much better. Context is important here.

"Sir Christopher Frayling is obviously a reliable source. I see no reason to qualify his opinions when they appear to be representative of the field as a whole and are not disputed in a reliable source."

In an encyclopedia article about a highly controversial topic, ALL opinions must be qualified instead of being listed as if they are facts. And Frayling is certainly not one of the better sources on this particular topic. His opinions are just opinions and not facts to be presented in the article.

"I've read Spallek's articles. I don't consider them reliable."

Oh, so you're the judge on who is reliable and who isn't? That's not how things work here.

"His articles are in a non-peer-reviewed magazine and are not the subject of academic discourse."

Wow. That's just wrong. His articles have appeared in more than one magazine, and they certainly are the subject of academic discourse. And, frankly, the magazines have more peer review than the vast majority of books on the topic (including ones you cite), because editors with a background knowledge on the topic have to approve them before they get published. Most books are published without anyone else in the field checking anything in them for factual errors.

"They are suffused with snippets hauled from the internet."

I don't think you've even read his articles if you are seriously trying to make this claim.

"His "evidence strongly suggesting who first thought up Druitt as a suspect" is the notorious Albert Bachert story told by "Dr Dutton"."

Yeah, you clearly haven't read his articles then. That's just wrong. He tracked down a politician who said he had information on the Ripper case and gave details that match up with the claims advanced in the later Druitt theory. You should really read it. That one was approved by the editors of two different journals before publication (again, more peer review than most books) and hailed by Stewart Evans as a great bit of research.

"If I recall correctly, Evans, Skinner and Rumbelow, among others, suspect that the story was either made up by Donald McCormick for his 1959 book when he constructed his false "Dr Dutton" source or made up by "Dr Dutton" when he fooled McCormick into believing his fictions. These sources are no longer reliable and are rejected by the field at large."

That whole bit is not really relevant to what you were trying to argue -- but, as far as it goes, it's not nearly as cut and dried as that. The story is not generally deemed reliable, but some have endorsed the idea that parts of it did come from reliable sources through a filter of misinformation, as there are other sources besides McCormick who say related things. But that's all too complicated to get into right now, especially since the only reason you're even talking about it was because you thought it was the person "who first thought Druitt up as a suspect", which Spallek never said even when he did bring the story up in an early article. You can disagree with Spallek's conclusions but you ought to pay more attention to what he was saying before trying to dismiss him out of hand.

"It might I suppose be used in the article in that context: explaining why the accusations about Druitt gained hold after 1959 and why they are now rejected. DrKiernan (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)"

More context is good, but it has to be overall context. It sounds like the context you want to go with is largely colored by your overall conclusions about sources. From what you've said and the way the article reads right now there is clear favoritism toward some sources who aren't generally considered reliable (or not as reliable as others) and a complete lack of mention of the most recent relevant information.

DreamGuy (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Out of Curiosity, how can anyone call Mr. Spallek's articles unreliable? His work in the Ripper field, and on Druitt in particular, is highly respected. I've never once heard anyone suggest that his efforts are "unreliable". In fact in the Ripper field, I'd hazard to say that Mr. Spallek is in that highly rarified stratum of the "universally respected". For shame! Revmagpie (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Macnaghten Memoranda

The article complete misrepresents both the nature and importance of The Macnaghten Memoranda by referring to the Aberconway version as if it was a) the only one and b) had no official standing. There are in fact two memos, one of which is part of the official police reocrd of the case.Revmagpie (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, the statement " Macnaghten evinces his reliance, at least in part, on Farquharson's accusation by his incorrect belief that Druitt disappeared at the time of the final murder (9 November) and his attempt to reconcile this with the fact that he knows Druitt's body was found on 31 December after being in the water only about one month." is unabashedly a statement of opinion.Revmagpie (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost "Choice of the week"

Dear editors, The Signpost's guest judge this week chose this article as the best promotion to featured status. Congratulations! Tony (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Dismissal and death

"In November 1888, he lost his post at the school for reasons that remain unclear. One month later his body was found drowned in the River Thames." Presuming that there is a link between the first event and the latter, and given the nature of the time, it would be far more likely that he was homosexual rather than the Ripper. Once 'discovered', he lost his post and took his own life. I would imagine that this conclusion has been drawn by some authors? OldSquiffyBat (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Just about EVERY one that doesn't think he was the Ripper and has written a book. The note found says that he was afraid of "becoming like Mother", and I really don't think his mother was accused of being a homosexual (although in Victorian Times, it's possible). CFLeon (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

But then, would the school sack him for being a homosexual or for being a serial killer? If the latter, they might just have done a little more than merely sack him. Like send the evidence to the police, for example... OldSquiffyBat (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Graffitti

Section "Jack the Ripper suspect" has graffiti at the end, some kind of hidden characters that don't appear in the edit window. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.2.143.28 (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Actual Graffiti

Others may not think this is encyclopaedic, hence adding it on the talk page rather than directly to the article:

Montague Druitt's name is graffitied on the wooden panelling in the 'School' building of Winchester College, just on the left of the door as you come in. The graffito has been covered with a portrait of a former headmaster. (I forget which one - maybe James Sabben-Clare?) This is in contrast to Anthony Trollope whose graffitied name (on an external wall) has been 'framed' with a perspex cover to protect it from the elements. Gingekerr (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Montague Druitt and Basil Thomson, Fellow New College Students

The August 2012 edition of 'The Journal Of The Whitechapel Society" carries an article by Thomas Toughill which reveals that Montague Druitt studied at New College, Oxford alongside Basil Thomson, the man who replaced Melville Macnaghten as Head of CID at Scotland Yard in 1913. Erdbeben (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)