So today I got obsessed with this question: Was Montague Druitt actually Jack the Ripper? Honestly, it sounded kinda wild, but I kept seeing his name pop up. Had to dig in myself.
First thing, fired up my laptop. Typed “Montague Druitt Jack the Ripper” into the search bar. Man, the results hit like a tidal wave. Tons of websites, forums, whole books written about this guy being the Ripper. Seems like a big deal in Ripper lore.
Okay, needed to understand why people pointed fingers at Druitt. Grabbed my headphones, found a couple podcast episodes talking about him. Kept hearing this name: Sir Melville Macnaghten. He was this high-up cop in London back then. Apparently, years after the murders stopped, Macnaghten scribbled down some private thoughts. He basically said, “Hey, we kinda thought Druitt might be our guy.” That memo? It’s the biggest reason anyone even knows Druitt’s name today. Crazy how one note can spark a hundred theories!
So why did Macnaghten point to Druitt? Time to crack open some books (well, scroll through some online chapters). Summarized the main points people throw around:
- Druitt worked as a schoolteacher and was also a barrister – apparently did some law stuff.
- His family supposedly had mental illness. People whispered “insanity.”
- He got fired from his teaching job. That happened shortly after the last Ripper murder.
- Then, about a month later, he was found dead in the River Thames. Looked like suicide.
See the supposed timeline? Fired -> Murderer? -> Suicide? Macnaghten and others later suggested maybe the firing triggered him, he went on his killing spree, then drowned himself in guilt. Makes a neat little story, right?
But here’s where my research hit a wall. I started asking questions Macnaghten’s memo didn’t answer:
- Real evidence? Like anything? Letters? Confessions? Stuff he actually owned? Seemed super thin.
- Why did nobody notice him near the murder sites? Whitechapel wasn’t his usual hangout.
- Those dates are kinda messy. He died weeks after Mary Kelly. Why wait?
Went looking for what actual Ripper investigators thought back then. Dug into online police reports and books written closer to the time. Hit a dead end. Couldn’t find any mention of Druitt being a suspect while the murders were actually happening. Not by the guys running the case on the ground. All this suspicion seemed to bubble up way later, years after he was already dead.
Then I hit the big one: alibis. Or rather, the complete lack of proof putting Druitt in Whitechapel on the murder nights. It’s all “maybe” and “could have.” No train ticket stubs found. No witness placing him there. Nothing solid linking him directly to the crime scenes.
Plus, that thing about his family’s “insanity”? Started digging into his relatives… Found articles about his mom. She was definitely institutionalized, sounds rough. But is that proof Druitt himself was violent or unstable? Or just unfortunate? Big difference.
At the end of this rabbit hole? Honestly, I’m skeptical. Montague Druitt as Jack the Ripper feels like a theory built on shaky ground. It starts with that one memo written years later by someone not directly involved at the time. The supposed motive (firing) is weak. The timing is awkward. There’s zero concrete evidence placing him near the murders. And those rumors about insanity aren’t proof he committed these specific, brutal crimes.
Most Ripper experts seem to agree – Druitt is a fascinating suspect born mostly from speculation. Is it possible? I guess anything’s possible. But is it likely based on real evidence? Doesn’t seem like it to me after looking. Crazy how a story like this sticks around though!
