|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 669
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 12:22 pm: | 
|
One solution to this much disputed document is that it mistakenly refers to a broadsheet referring to Frederick Deeming. The account below, if true, places Deeming in the Dandenong region in the period between the Whitechapel murders and his arrest. The "Williams" referred to is Deeming, this being the name by which he was generally referred to at this period of press reports.
Chris
Port Philip Herald (Australia)
24 March 1892
REMINISCENCES OF A PIONEER
BY J WOOD PHILBY (?)
RECOLLECTIONS OF AN AMOROUS PRETENDER
COULD HE HAVE BEEN WILLIAMS OF WINDSOR?
Returning home from a visit to Melbourne a few years ago, being then resident on my small station between Dandenong and Carrum, and extending around Frankston, my wife met me at the entrance gate to tell me that a stranger, a young Englishman, recently come to the colony and very rich, was indoors. Further, that he had been attracted to the colony by hearing that the land thereabouts was charted for sale by the Crown, and he had come to see me and enquire about it, and had generously offered to purchase any of the sections I wished to retain, and give me my own time to repurchase them from him at moderate interest. I had been absent some days. It had been proposed, and he had acquiesced, that he should remain our guest until my return. With this prefatory statement I was introduced to the fellow, and noting that he, a thickset, short and brown haired man of fairly pleasant features, wore a rather shabby suit of tweed, and that he had no other change of linen than he might have carried in his pockets, I instinctively doubted his bona fides. However, the ladies of my household, including a lady help who had been with us some years, were credulous enough to believe in his asseverations respecting his own and his father's - an English squire - wealth. I forget the name he gave as his own, but he stated he had purchased a fine property on the Upper Plenty, where he intended breeding thoroughbred horses and shorthorn cattle, valuable sires having been sent him from his father in England. All he wanted to complete his felicity there was a wife, and he had made such good use of his opportunity that our young lady and he were all but engaged. He hadfascinated her with prospect of a life of wealth and wase for herself and her aged motherm for whom he said he had on his property a handsome carriage sent out, he said recently by his father to him, lined with white satin and drawn by the finest pair of carriage horses he had been able to purchase in Victoria. I reminded the lady that unless I was greatly at fault she was engaged already, and her reply was that engagement was only a dernier (?) resort, fearing she would otherwise be on the shelf for life, and no affaire de coeur. She had now written her former a lover a letter she asked me to post for her breaking off the match, as best for both parties. I was jusr riding off to our post office, at some miles distance, at first intending to merely write to some of the references our guest named to make enquiries, but on his stating that he had been shipping horses to New Zealand, through Campbell and Co., now of Kirk's Bazaar, I determined to start back at once to melbourne to interview these gentlemen. It was with difficulty I prevailed on the lady to await my investigations before committing herself. Perhaps ladies long resident in the bush are more credulous or more receptive to amorous wooing than city bred young damsels. I have been a recluse for so many years that I am not informed on such questions, but it was with difficulty that I obtained her permission to retain her letter, calculated to break her first suitor's heart, until I had sifted her second's pretensions. Alas! the result of an interview with Campbell and Co., Matthew McCaw and others, with whom the fellow stated he had been transacting business, demonstrated that he was a thorough impostor, and worse, for he had just served a sentence of three years in Pentridge. Prior to visiting my station he had been at the late Wm Lyall's Toocaulin (?) station, and his boldness of assertion there as to his intimacy with individuals in good position in the colony, and his and his alleged father's wealth, had so beguiled William Lyall that an agreement to sell his station and stock thereon to him was signed, the delivery to be effected on a stated day, when the cattle were being mustered before it was discovered that the proposed buyer is wanted. Consequent on this, Mr. Lyall's emissaries were searching for the pretender and had learned all his disreputable history, and when my description of my guest and his statements were recited I was at once informed of the full particulars. On my return home, nearing my homestead, I met the loving pair, and amking as if to avoid meeting, the lady left her companion's side and approached me. I took no notice of him, and that was the last I saw of him. I simply said: "I did not post your letter." She turned round as if to upbraid the fellow, but he was off through the tree scrub, and we heard nothing further of him. He took with him, however, as it was afterwards ascertained, a shepherd's Sunday unmentionables, containing his watch, for he was noticed as wearing them that day. Since date of this adventure, this man (if Williams) has had time to spend many years in Queensland and other places. It is a striking feature in the narrative of Williams's life history and his many successive efforts to entrap the fair sex into matrimony with him, their credulity in his protestations and actual standing so frequently manifested. But this is apparently no new trait in the fair sex. Many years ago I mentioned to mutual friends that a lady relative was about to be married to a gentleman in the Civil Service. They exclaimed at once that I must be misinformedm for her intended was a married man; and some few months, or year or two, previously had advertised that he would not be responsible for debts thereafter incurred by his wife. I spent days looking for this advertisement in vain and then offered a guinea for its discovery in the "Argus." When confronted with it the bigamous wooer made the trumpery excuse that his wofe being on Sydney streets was dead to him. This it would appear maids wishful to marry are too credulous.
|
John Savage
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 116
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 2:37 pm: |
|
Hi All,
Whilst checking the National Probate Calendars today, I stumbled across the following reference to a Lionel Druit, and thought it may be of interest
 |
Severn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 4:06 pm: |
|
John Thanks for this piece of information. It may well prove very useful in time. |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 434
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 1:54 am: |
|
Chris,
Belatedly commenting on your very interesting story about a possible "Mr Williams"(Deeming)
with a Dandenong connection from the Port Philip Herald" of 24 March 1892.
There were countless stories in the Melbourne and regional Victorian (the state Melbourne is in)
newspapers at that time.To say most of them weren't sensational is an understatement.The key words in the above story are:"a few years ago".
The writer (Mr Philby??)seems to think Frederick Deeming enjoyed a rather elongated stay in Victoria prior to his capture.Of course, there must have been several English, and Australian con-men on the prowl in those days.This chap did not seem to flash the distinctive pair of unusual scissors made of silver, which the real "Mr Williams" invariably did, as part of his ploy to suggest wealth and sophistication to his targets.
As the father in this case was easily able to expose the con-man by speedily checking his bona-fides, this suggests that villain had been in Australia longer than Frederick Deeming.At least, in Victoria.
John Savage,
Thanks for posting that Probate Calendar entry concerning Lionel Druitt. ("All those years Ago..")..
Yes, it is THE Dr Lionel Druitt. My guess is this entry referred to the fact Lionel was a beneficiary in an estate containing English assets, thereby necessitating an English Probate.
Either that, or there was some requirement to prove Lionel had no remaining English assets liable to Death Duties.I'm not sure which.
The Emily Druitt referred to is his next closest,
(younger) sister. The one his daughters stayed with when they visited England.
There is a Dissertation about her by Stephen P Ryder on Casebook.
I have seen the Australian Probate document for Lionel Druitt and it made no reference to English assets.The Union Trustee Company dealt with the estate in Melbourne.Hope this belatedly helps. |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1328
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 3:34 am: |
|
John
The Emily Druitt referred to is his next closest, (younger) sister. The one his daughters stayed with when they visited England.
There is a Dissertation about her by Stephen P Ryder on Casebook.
I think Stephen Ryder has now concluded that Emily the bibliophile, in his dissertation, was one of the Mile End Druitts, not one of the Dorset family.
Chris Phillips
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 436
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 5:15 am: |
|
O.K. Chris,
I'm not so sure, I'll have to go back and read what Stephen has since said. I feel it is more likely to be Lionel's sister Emily. The daughter of a published medical man: (Editor of a Medical Journal and author of a much-reprinted book on the beneficial effects of wine); she, an unmarried but well-to-do resident of Strathmore Gardens.
There was something in the West Sussex Records which subconsciously confirmed my opinion that she was "the" Emily.
Emily Druitt was born on the 18th February 1856. Here home address would make her a likely
Art Student of South Kensington. The family's social network would have included educated people.(Given Montague Druitt's learned critique of a Druitt cousins Latin text contained in a letter to his uncle, Emily's father, this indicates a certain level of culture in the house).
Emily died at Folkstone on 22nd April, 1940, aged 85 years.Perhaps there is an obituary?
But I must get back on track. Thanks for telling me Chris anyway. |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 437
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 6:07 am: |
|
I have revived this thread because on the "Railway Tickets on Druitt" thread, a diverting debate about Farson's Dandenong Document and the mischievous Donald McCormick had sprung up.
One thing which has taken me aback is Stan RuSso's
extraordinary claim, repeated from the 2004 U.S. Ripper Conference, (and unchallenged till recently), that Donald McCormick STOLE fellow-author Daniel Farson's information.
This certainly has some bearing on the Knowles letter and the contents of THE EAST END MURDERER: I KNEW HIM document.
As far as I can see, Stan RuSso,is alleging proof that McCormick MUST have stolen Farson's information, (interestingly, Stan does not state clearly McCormick was the person who stole Farson's entire Ripper Dossier contained in large folders in his briefcase). Just that McCormick stole the Knowles' document revealing the names "Druin" or "Drewin".
Stan's apparent proof for that, is that the names
Drewin, Drewett or Druitt appeared in McCormick's 1970 reprint of his THE IDENTITY OF JACK THE RIPPER.
I have researched this period because I am very interested in Daniel Farson's search for the Dandenong Diocument, and just what information he received and/or revealed during his project to find that document.
I do know Farson invited McCormick to take part in a discussion on JTR on his second programme of FARSONS GUIDE TO THE BRITISH shown in mid November, 1959. Another appearing was Colin Wilson.
Farson, in deference to Lady Rose McLaren and her mother Lady Aberconway,(daughter of Sir Melville Macnaghten, the writer of the famous/infamous Macnaghten Memorandum), declined to reveal the full identity of his chief suspect on T.V. He wouldn't even tell Colin Wilson (so, presumeably,
neither would he tell McCormick). He merely held up a copy of Druitt's death certificate with only the initials showing, but with the rest of the certificate held aloft.
Farson was furious to return to his office, in the weeks prior to the final editing of the interviews of the three part programme, (the transcripts of all the interviews were in the stolen files, along with the most vital Macnaghten Memorandum).
Farson confided to colleagues who he thought had stolen his files, in fact, at a later date,he read an interview with the thief suspect, and Farson noticed the fellow quoted portions of an interview which were in the original film stock
(and stolen transcripts) but NOT in the three,
(subsequently reduced to two,television programmes) aired by Associated Rediffusion.
Farson contemplated legal action but for unknown reasons, did not pursue the thief.
Elsewhere on these boards, David Andersen, a colleague of Daniel Farson's in providing research,has offered a tantalising hint as to who the thief was......
And I can tell you, Stan, it was not Donald McCormick.
But I was impressed with your clever impersonation of Macnaghten on the other boards, when you proceeded to upbraid Chris Phillips for inaccuracies by reciting chapter and verse on some subject after all your notes were at home! Macnaghten was a great one for relying on his memory. Often, not always accurately.
The "A to Z" under "Dr Lionel Druitt" mentions "in 1903 he was living in Drouin". A town outside Melbourne. |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1330
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 6:09 am: |
|
John
Here's a link to a post by Stephen Ryder on this. It does seem that he has further evidence to back up the revision:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4924&post=123177#POST123177
Chris Phillips
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 805
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 12:59 pm: |
|
Hi all,
For many years something about THE EAST END MURDERER - I KNEW HIM bothered me. Judging from the amount of time spent recently arguing on a side issue (regarding Farson's stolen file and who stole it), I am curious regarding Druitt family values as suggested by Macnaughten. His memorandum suggests the information from the family of Monty was confidential. Why would his cousing publish an article regarding Monty being the Ripper? It would make more sense if the pamphlet or article or whatever was published to pin the guilt on another party - but risky. Suppose a copy got back to that party or his family, and they (in retaliation) published anything they knew about the odd death of Monty.
This was a rather tricky thing for a member of the Druitt family (no matter how distantly connected to Monty) to try out.
Jeff |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1331
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 3:48 pm: |
|
Jeff
Yes. One certainly can't imagine Lionel publicly accusing his cousin of being Jack the Ripper, which is yet another puzzling feature of the story.
And it's scarcely easier to imagine that he'd publish an anecdote in which the names were suppressed in the approved Victorian manner:
"My acquaintance M---- resided at the time of the murders in the London suburb of B---- ..."
And how is it, anyway, that this published document could never be tracked down?
Either way, the story raises more questions than it answers.
Chris Phillips
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 696
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
Chris,
One certainly can't imagine Lionel publicly accusing his cousin of being Jack the Ripper,
Tell that to Tony Williams and all the others who have no compunction whatsoever about hanging the family linen out in public to make a few bucks. But, that may be a function of modern society and the Victorians had a greater sense of decorum.
Then again, why do we assume the killer had to be Montague? Who knows, perhaps the good Dr. Druitt knew a paint dauber back in London named Sickert and . . . no, I won't go there.
In fact, your points are good and, as ever with JtR, we are left with more questions than answers.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 807
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 7:41 pm: |
|
Hi Chris and Donald,
Actually Donald is quite right - my suspicion is that any proper Victorian writing an article like that would write about a convicted killer, or somebody who was less than likely to stick up for themselves. So I picture, if this document exists and Lionel wrote it, that it would be something like,
"When I lived in the East End, I knew a little chap of evil inclination, Mr. Myzpltlnck. Every evening when the murders occurred, I saw him return to his lodging house (he claimed he was a veterinary student) all covered in blood. He frequently talked about Black Magic, or about Lincoln's Assassination, or about certain French painters he liked, or about his unfaithful wife Flossie, or about being a Polish barber surgeon.
Once I asked him about cricket, but he said he would never be caught dead playing cricket, or (put another way) would like to play that game as much as, say, be a barrister or teach at a public school. He showed a curious interest in the American prisons in Illinois and the use of cement for kitchen floors. One day he just went poof, when I started discussing the latest theories of Nietszche about the Superman."
Well something - more subtle I would hope - along similar lines. Anything to take attention away from cousin Monty. Otherwise, I would start wondering why Lionel would hate his cousin's memory so much as to tell all to the public.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 457
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 8:01 pm: |
|
Hi John
I had quite forgotten about this entry from the National Probate Calendars. However it looks as though there may be a will, and if so copies can be obtained from the Probate Registry at York for a fiver.
Rgds
John |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 842
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 8:10 pm: |
|
Jeff....
"Mr. Myzpltlnck..."
Thats the guy from the old early 60's Superman comics,isn't it ? |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 809
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 9:34 pm: |
|
Hi Howard,
Yes, although the spelling was different.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 439
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 11:12 pm: |
|
Hello All Posters Above,
I have previously promised I intend publishing on
Dan Farson and his Dandenong Document(I think in 2003!).I am halfway there all I then need to do is line up RIPPER NOTES or RIPPEROLOGIST and see if they are interested. You see, I did a huge amount of researching on Dr Lionel Druitt and "Mr Fell","Mr Knowles" and "Mr Maurice Gould".
Plus Montague Druitt's younger brother Edward,who also came out to Australia.
Donald makes the sound observation it did not have to be Montague who was the subject of the alleged document.Others have also made that point.
Logic would indicate a smart fellow like Lionel
practising in country towns would rather have played his violin naked in the main street than drawn attention to himself with such a sensational story!
By the way, my article will even suggest what the real Dandenong Document is. An interesting denouement. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 958
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 12:25 pm: |
|
Jeff,
I'm not trying to criticize you but your post illustrates how we must take care to be precise and not jump to conclusions.
We don't know that MM's "private information" came from Druitt's family. He says only that he has private information (no source given) that leaves him "little doubt" that Druitt's family "believed him to have been the murderer." MM may never have spoken to or heard from any Druitt family member himself.
Also, while the whole content of MM's memo is labelled "confidential," no specific confidentiality is placed on this "private information" other than labelling it "private."
We just have to be careful about making assumptions.
Andy S. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 845
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 1:59 pm: |
|
Hi John,
Sounds quite interesting. Feel free to contact me through the email link on my signature or through the Ripper Notes web site. I can give you basic submission guidelines, info on contributor copies and so forth.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 813
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 9:25 pm: |
|
Hi Andrew,
No offense taken. Actually I have to reread the memorandum several times - but the wording is so ambiguous: "From private information I have little doubt that but that his own family suspected this man of being the Whitechapel murderer...." Does he mean he got the information from the family or from an acquaintance or friend of the family? I still feel the family might have been less willing to reveal any such information because of possible scandal. But again, that leaves us with wondering about Lionel's content in his article.
I can't see him bragging that cousin Monty was the biggest serial killer of the 19th Century.
On the other hand, a general statement of confidentiality would suggest that whatever he is talking about (not only on Monty but on Osrog and Kosminski) should be considered confidential.
And the reason, I would suggest, is that the
since the evidence was still shaky for all three of the proposed suspects. If the information was released, two of the suspects (Osrog and Kosminski) might bring libel suits. Druitt's family could not - he was dead. But with their connections they would probably make things hot for Scotland Yard officials spreading rumors about Monty.
Jeff |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 963
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 9:59 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
"Does he mean he got the information from the family or from an acquaintance or friend of the family?"
I don't see how the statement could in any way imply that Druitt's family was the source of the information -- although it doesn't exclude that possibility either. MM's statement merely says that he had "private information" from some unnamed source regarding the Druitt family's suspicions. Also, I believe I read somewhere that under British law it is possible to bring a libel suit on behalf of a deceased individual, but I may be wrong.
The fact that MM regarded this as "private" information could explain why he could have this information while "the police" did not possess these "certain facts" until some years later.
Andy S. |
Restless Spirit
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 95
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 6:30 pm: |
|
Jeffrey & Andrew
I have a lot of reservations when I read a statement that says: from private information, I have no doubt that his own family believed (suspected) him to be the Whitchapel murderer.
Doesn't sound very conclusive to me, especially when you consider the fact that he said "I have no doubt but". This seems to be more of a guess than anything else, especially since this statement was made after the fact (after the suicide). You could say what you want once a person is dead and not able to defend themselves. The family, especially one of culture, prominence, would be the last to respond that it is possible that one of their own, especially family, could possibly be the fiend that has haunted whitechapel for such a time. I reject Mcnaughton's opinion of Druitt due to these obvious assumptions , not FACTS!!
regards
Restless Spirit
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 815
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 9:46 pm: |
|
Hi R.S. and Andy,
Have either of you ever seen any similar type of article (written in the 19th Century) regarding a criminal event and a killer (it does not have to be about the Whitechapel Murders). There are some pieces I have come across, but nothing like this. For example, I once started doing some research about Percy Lefroy Mapleton. I came across an article by a clergyman who seems to have been (or claimed to have been) on the Brighton train that Lefroy killed Frederick Gold on in June 1881. The article seemed to be honest, but one can't really tell. Certainly it's intention was not to rehabilitate Lefroy's reputation, but to fill in some background about the events of that day.
Can anybody recall a 19th Century article (that can be pinpointed) that would either be about a relative of a homicide case defendant defending his or her relative, or one where the relative denounced his or her relative?
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 968
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 12:19 am: |
|
First, let me reiterate my position regarding Druitt. I do not know whether he was the Whitechapel murderer or not. While I retain my belief that he is still our best suspect I am less than 50% convinced that he is the killer. that's how much uncertainty there is in this case.
When someone writes, "I have no doubt but that..." he is saying "I am certain that...." If he were not certain, he would write "I have little doubt but that...." I believe that MM was certain that those close to Druitt believed him to be (or suspected him of being) the murderer. That does not necessarily mean MM was correct, only that in his mind he was certain. Regarding his own convictions with respect to Druitt, MM is a bit more cautious -- at least at the time of the memo (1894) but he clearly believes Druitt is the strongest suspect (not merely the strongest of the three he mentions), unless the whole memo is a "red herring."
Jeff, I can't say that I am familiar with the document you mention or any like it. I will have to go out and try to find some for the sake of comparison.
Andy S. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
