|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1155
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 8:59 am: |       |
On behalf of John Ruffles I have transcribed the article below for posting to the message boards. This was an illustrated article and I will be posting the illustrations separately in this thread. I asked John to explain the background of the provenance of this article and he has sent me the following:
The Press Report of the LLOYD'S WEEKLY NEWS article MY CRIME MUSEUM by
GEORGE R SIMS dated September 22nd 1907, has been transcribed for placement
on Casebook by Chris Scott. Thanks Chris. The illustrations too.
The original unearthing of this interesting, detailed and seemingly
well-informed article was made by STEWART P EVANS who tracked it down after
purchasing the Littlechild Letter.The second half of the article discusses
the Littlechild theory.
I am extremely grateful to Stewart for allowing me to release this gem into
the public domain. My major interest is to publicise the thoughts of a
London journalist who had the acquaintanceship of Sir Melville Macnaghten,
Assistant Commissioner at Scotland Yard, and others closely
connected to the Ripper investigations- albeit, here, after the fact.
Whilst many people may not agree with Sims' conclusions or some of the
allegations about the suspects, I believe his revelations concerning
Montague Druitt (incorrectly identified as a "doctor") whilst second-hand
hearsay, are the best we are going to get. And reveal some fascinating new
allegations about the Mysterious Montague.
JOHN RUFFELS. Australia.
The text of the article is as follows:
Lloyd's Weekly News
22 September 1907
My Criminal Museum
by George R. Sims
Who Was Jack the Ripper?
The deeds of darkness of this miserable wretch, cursed with one of the most terrible forms of blood lust, are known over the world. During his short career of carnage he built up for himself immortal infamy.
I have, while travelling abroad, purchased in various languages pamphlets and booklets on Jack the Ripper, more of less of the catch-penny order, and I have seen them eagerly purchased at country fairs on the Continent by the gaping village folks.
A year after the last of the murders I was in a little town in the South of Italy on market day, and I bought of a man who carried a banner on which the crimes of Jack the Ripper were gorily depicted, the last copy of the red covered penny dreadful he was selling. It was entitled:-
JACK
Il Terrible Squartatore Di Donne
and gave a detailed and lurid account in Italian of the crimes of the Whitechapel fiend.
Whenever during the last nineteen years a wholesale slaughterer of women has been brought to trial in this country the cry "Is he Jack the Ripper?" has been raised in the Press. Deeming Neil Cream, and Chapman were all in their turn brought into the controversy without the slightest justification. Their methods were entirely different to Jack's, and their motives were not the same.
From Germany, France, Spain, the United States, and South America there have come stories from time to time of women slayers whose deeds have led the local Press to revive the murder mysteries of the East-end of London.
A good many murders with which he had absolutely nothing to do have in this country been popularly attributed to the Whitechapel monster.
I have seen six, seven, and eight East-end murders of women debited to the Ripper, but, as a matter of fact, his murders were five in all, and no more. The other murders of women committed about the time were in a totally different "handwriting."
The crimes that brought him into public discussion were all committed in a limited area, and within a limited period. They were as follows:-
1. Mary Ann Nichols, forty seven, her throat cut and body mutilated, in Buck's row, Whitechapel, Aug. 31, 1888.
2. Annie Chapman, forty seven, her throat cut and body mutilated, in Hanbury street, Spitalfields, Sept. 8, 1888.
3. Elizabeth Stride, throat cut, in Berner street, on Sept. 30, 1888.
4. Catherine Eddowes, alias Conway, mutilated in Mitre square, Aldgate, also on Sept. 30, 1888.
5. Marie Jeanette Kelly, fiendishly mutilated, in Miller's court, Whitechapel, Nov. 9, 1888.
Most of the murders marked an advance in the disease from which the madman who committed them was suffering.
The mutilations in the last murder, that in Miller's court, were so ghastly that the full details were never made public. It was impossible for any journal of general circulation to describe them fully.
The mutilations were in all the cases, except one in which probably the murderer was interrupted, ghastly and revolting, and in one case an internal organ had been removed in a manner which showed beyond the shadow of a doubt that the miscreant was person of anatomical knowledge.
Maniacal as was the fury with which he hacked and ripped his unhappy victims, the instance in which he skilfully removed and carried away with him this internal organ must be borne in mind when discussing the identity of the monster.
Into the separate details of the murders which during the autumn of the year 1888 kept the public mind in a state of seething excitement, and caused a panic in the East-end and were undoubtedly the main cause of the resignation of the then Chief Commissioner of Police, it is not necessary to go.
The public indignation over this series of unparalleled atrocities vented itself upon the police authorities, and the Home Secretary by declining to offer a reward came in for a considerable amount of fierce criticism. But when all has been said the fact has to be admitted that the best efforts of the police were foiled not so much by the cunning of the murderer as by the conduct of the victims themselves. Being of the unfortunate class, they willingly accompanied the man who was to murder them into dark and hidden places where, at the hour of night selected by the fiend as the most favourable for his purpose, there was little chance of attention being attracted.
In no case except in the last, which was the only one that occurred inside a house, was the faintest cry heard.
In the last crime, the murder of Marie Kelly, in the house in Miller's court, two women living in the court declared that between three and four in the morning they heard a cry of "Murder!"
It roused them from their sleep, but it made no impression upon them, and they closed their eyes again.
Such a cry usually means nothing in such a neighbourhood. Some years ago I stood in a little room in a slum in the East of London. It was a room on the ground floor, and the window opened on to a back yard.
In this yard a woman had recently been murdered. The occupants of the room above had heard her shriek and call out "Murder!" but they had taken no notice. I asked the woman living in the room why she had not got up and given an alarm, or, at least, looked out to see what was the matter. Her reply was very much to the point.
"If we got out of bed in this street, sir, every time we heard somebody yell "Murder!" we should be in and out of bed half the night."
The cry to ears accustomed to it means nothing more than a quarrel and a fight.
The cry of Maria Jeannette Kelly, the most terribly mutilated of all the Ripper's victims, did certainly ring out upon the night, but the other victims were killed before they had time to utter a sound.
They were killed, hacked, hewn, and mutilated in the dark byeways in and around Whitechapel and left lying where they fell to greet the horrified eyes of the first person who should pass that way.
To realise the most remarkable feature of these maniacal deeds it must be borne in mind that the murderer, after cutting the throat of his victim and hacking the body about with maniacal fury, always, except in the last instance, in a dark place, left the scene of his butchery and walked home through the public streets,
He had a home somewhere, he slept somewhere, ate somewhere, changed his linen somewhere, sane his linen to the wash somewhere, kept his clothes and lived his life somewhere, yet never during the series of murders did he arouse the suspicions of any person who communicated with the police.
The first murder was committed on Aug. 31, and the last on Nov. 9 - the night of Lord Mayor's day - therefore, five times during three months did the Ripper rise from his orgy of blood and walk through the streets of London to his home without attracting the attention of one single witness who could be called upon to give evidence of any value.
One man only, a policeman, saw him leaving the place in which he had just accomplished a fiendish deed, but failed, owing to the darkness, to get a good view of him. A little later the policeman stumbled over the lifeless body of the victim.
One other man believed that he had seen the Ripper soon after the double murders of Sept. 30, and he may have done, but there was no absolute proof that he was correct in his surmise.
This man was a coffee stall keeper. In the early hours of the date of these murders, between three and four in the morning, as far as I can remember, a man came to the stall and asked for a cup of coffee.
The customer stood drinking his coffee, and the stall keeper said, thinking of the murder of Sept. 8, that the Ripper had been quiet for a bit. "But," he added, "I expect we shall hear of another murder before long."
"Yes," replied the customer, "you may hear of two before many hours are over."
He put down the cup, took some coppers out of his pocket, and stretched his hand across the stall to give them to the stall keeper.
The sleeve of his coat was drawn up by the action and the shirt cuff came into view.
The cuff of the shirt was stained with blood.
the man saw the coffee stall keeper's eyes fixed on his bloodstained cuff, bade him a gruff "goodnight," and walked rapidly away, quickly disappearing into the darkness.
That morning the coffee stall keeper heard of the two murders, the one in Berner street, which was discovered about one in the morning, and the other in Mitre square, which was not discovered until nearly two o'clock.
The man with the bloodstained cuffs had suggested between two and three in the morning that "two" murders might be heard of in a few hours.
The coffee stall keeper gave his information to the police and to Dr. Forbes Winslow; who at that time was writing letters on the subject of the Ripper murders in the Press and expressing a very strong opinion that they were the work of a homicidal maniac, who had a trained knowledge of surgery.
What was the man with bloodstained cuffs like? That was the question. The coffee stall keeper described him from memory. A day or two later passing by a stationer's shop he saw exhibited in the window a sixpenny book entitled "The Social Kaleidoscope." On the cover was a portrait of the author.
"That is the living image of the man I saw," he exclaimed. He purchased the book and went off with it to Dr. Forbes Winslow. "That is the man I saw, or his double," he exclaimed, handing over my little book to the astonished doctor, who knowing me fairly well, assured the coffee stall keeper that it might be the double of the Ripper, but it certainly was not the fiend himself.
I present the portrait as one put forward by a man who had every reason to believe that he had seen and conversed with Jack the Ripper, as the "double" of the Whitechapel Terror.
Various witnesses who had seen a man conversing with a woman who was soon afterwards found murdered said that he was a well dressed man with a black moustache. Others described him as a man with a closely trimmed beard.
The portrait on the cover of the first edition of "The Social Kaleidoscope", a book which twenty years ago was in most of the newsagents' and small booksellers' windows, was taken about 1879.
There are two theories with regard to the identity of the Ripper. One has everything in its favour, and is now generally accepted by the high authorities who had the details of the various investigations gathered together and systematically inquired into.
It is betraying no state secret to say that the official view arrived at after the exhaustive and systematic investigation of facts that never became public property is that the author of the atrocities was one of three men.
Let us take them separately.
The first man was a Polish Jew of curious habits and strange disposition, who was the sole occupant of certain premises in Whitechapel after nightfall. This man was in the district during the whole period covered by the Whitechapel murders, and soon after they ceased certain facts came to light which showed that it was quite possible that he might have been the Ripper. He had at one time been employed in a hospital in Poland. He was known to be a lunatic at the time of the murders, and some time afterwards he betrayed such undoubted signs of homicidal mania that he was sent to a lunatic asylum.
The second man was a Russian doctor, a man of vile character, who had been in various prisons in his own country and in ours. The Russian doctor who at the time of the murders was in Whitechapel, but in hiding as it afterwards transpired, was in the habit of carrying surgical knives about with him. He suffered from a dangerous form of insanity, and when inquiries were afterwards set on foot he was found to be in a criminal lunatic asylum abroad. He was a vile and terrible person, capable of any atrocity.
Both these men were capable of the Ripper crimes, but there is one thing that makes the case against each of them weak.
They were both alive long after the horrors had ceased, and though both were in an asylum, there had been a considerable time after the cessation of the Ripper crimes during which they were at liberty and passing about among their fellow men.
The third man was a doctor who lived in a suburb about six miles from Whitechapel, and who suffered from a horrible form of homicidal mania, a mania which leads the victim to look upon women of a certain class with frenzied hatred.
The doctor had been an inmate of a lunatic asylum for some time, and had been liberated and regained his complete freedom.
After the maniacal murder in Miller's court, the doctor disappeared from the place in which he had been living, and his disappearance caused inquiries to be made concerning him by his friends who had, there is reason to believe, their own suspicions about him, and these inquiries about him were made through the proper authorities.
A month after the last murder the body of the doctor was found in the Thames. There was everything about it to suggest that it had been in the river for nearly a month.
The horrible nature of the atrocity committed in Miller's court pointed to the last stage of frenzied mania. Each murder had shown a marked increase in maniacal ferocity. The last was the culminating point. The probability is that immediately after committing this murderous deed the author of it committed suicide. There was nothing else left for him to do except to be found wandering, a shrieking, raving fiend, fit only for the padded cell.
What is probable is that after the murder he made his way to the river, and in the dark hours of a November night or in the misty dawn he leapt in and was drowned.
From this time the Ripper murders ceased. There have been no more. Women have been barbarously and mysteriously murdered since, but never with the unmistakeable "handwriting" of the Ripper upon the deed.
The other theory in support of which I have some curious information, puts the crime down to a young American medical student who was in London during the whole time of the murders, and who, according to statements of certain highly respectable people who knew him, made on two occasions an endeavour to obtain a certain internal organ, which for his purpose had to be removed from, as he put it, "the almost living body."
Dr. Wynne Baxter, the coroner, in his summing up to the jury in the case of Annie Chapman, pointed out the significance of the fact that this internal organ had been removed.
But against this theory put forward by those who uphold it with remarkable details and some startling evidence in support of their contention, there is one great fact. The American was alive and well and leading the life of an ordinary citizen long after the Ripper murders came to an end.
It would be impossible for the author of the Miller's court horror to have lived a life of apparent sanity one single day after that maniacal deed. He was a raving madman then and a raving madman when he flung himself in the Thames.
The fact that I had the unpleasant experience of having my portrait pointed out to the authorities as the portrait of the Ripper, caused me to take a keen personal interest in the East end horrors, and I have in my museum some curious documents and gruesome photographs connected with the crime. Two of them are unprintable. The photograph of the scene in Miller's court is not one to be looked upon except by those who have in the exercise of their calling to study all phases of human perversion.
But no one who saw that awful scene, or its reproduction in the photographic exhibits prepared for the coroner's jury, could possibly believe that the perpetrator of the horror could return to the quiet enjoyment of the rights of citizenship, or even change the methods of his consuming madness and become a Deeming, a Neil Cream, or a Chapman.
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1156
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 9:12 am: | |
The illustrations from the George Sims article. The captions are as they appear in the original article.
1) "The portrait of Mr. G.R. Sims on the cover of "The Social Kaleidoscope" was decribed by the coffee stall keeper to Dr. Forbes Winslow as the living image of the man supposed to be 'Jack the Ripper'"
2) "Scene of the Berner street murder"
3) "Where the Mitre square murder occurred"
4) "Miller's Court, where Kelly was murdered"
 |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1160
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 10:55 am: | |
There was a map included in the article as well which, for the sake of completeness, I am posting:
 |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 674
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 6:25 pm: | |
Thanks for this article Chris-and John for providing the original.
The first thing that came to mind over what is clearly a reference to Druitt is the matter of him "immediately" committing suicide.We know it wasnt immediately but some three weeks later.
We know now that Druitt was present at a meeting of the Blackheath cricket club around the middle of November and that he paid his dues.But clearly Sims is "recollecting" so errors like this can be expected. Also Druitt was aware in his suicide note[if in fact it was he who wrote it and not his family]that his mind was going "like Mother"s
and we can work out that his mother suffered from paranoid schizophrenia [believing people were trying to electrocute her etc.].This illness IF he inherited it would be the one most likely to have affected the ripper whoever he was.
Best Natalie |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 173
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 6:26 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
A wonderful and informative article. Many thanks for posting it.
In the paragraph about the Russian Doctor, I think I detect the beginnings of what later became Donald McCormicks suspect, "Dr. Pedanchenko"
Best Regards
John Savage |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1161
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 18, 2004 - 9:18 am: | |
Hi all
Thanks for the comments but as I said above any credit goes to John and Stewart:-)
The layout of the article follows very closely the McNaghten memoranda and the following passages in particular interested me:
One man only, a policeman, saw him leaving the place in which he had just accomplished a fiendish deed, but failed, owing to the darkness, to get a good view of him. A little later the policeman stumbled over the lifeless body of the victim.
It is not made clear which murder this refers to but I would suggest that it is the Mitre square murder as this was the only case in which a police officer was the first to find the body and so the officer referred to should be Watkins. Although there is no recorded evidence of Watkins reporting a sighting of the alleged killer, it does tie in with the otherwise unexplained comment in the McNagthen memorandum that "no one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer (unless possibly it was the City P.C. who was on a beat near Mitre Square)..."
The third man was a doctor who lived in a suburb about six miles from Whitechapel
This comment in the section based on Druitt's suicide seems very specific. I must find out how far it is from Blackheath to Whitechapel...
The doctor had been an inmate of a lunatic asylum for some time, and had been liberated and regained his complete freedom.
An interesting comment - I know of no evidence that Druitt had ever been committed to an asylum but an interesting line for research.
I have in my museum some curious documents and gruesome photographs connected with the crime. Two of them are unprintable. The photograph of the scene in Miller's court is not one to be looked upon
Interesting that Sims had copies of the case photos - I presume he acquired these via McNaghten. The photo he described as not one to be looked upon I am assuming is the one of Kelly on the bed. But it is not clear which is the second photo he considers "unprintable." It could be the second Miller's Court photo of the bedside table or one of the Eddowes mortuary photographs.
All the best
Chris |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1162
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 18, 2004 - 9:24 am: | |
The picture of Berners Street puzzled me as I could not work out from which angle the drawing had been made and the gabled building at the end looked nothing like I have seen in any photos.
I thought at first that the terrace of two storey buildings right of centre were the run of buildings including Packer's shop that led from the corner of Berner Street to the entrace to Dutfields's yard but comparing them with the photo the configuration of the buildings is all wrong.
I think the most likely explanation is that this is a view actually into Dutfield's yard drawn from the gateway itself and showing the club wall on the right
Chris |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2366
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 18, 2004 - 9:43 am: | |
Credit to you too, Chris. Typing that lot out must have been a bloody long slog.
I've often wondered whether Harvey was the City PC who possibly saw the murderer, as he was dismissed the following year. But of course Harvey wouldn't have stumbled over the body. Maybe Watkins didn't have his lamp on after all.
Robert |
Paul Williams
Sergeant
Username: Wehrwulf
Post Number: 33
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 18, 2004 - 10:18 am: | |
Could the policeman mentioned be Stephen White? Another is Ernest Thompson, if Sims was confusing the Coles murder with the earlier killings. |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 281
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 18, 2004 - 11:33 am: | |
Chris Scott wrote:
The doctor had been an inmate of a lunatic asylum for some time, and had been liberated and regained his complete freedom.
An interesting comment - I know of no evidence that Druitt had ever been committed to an asylum but an interesting line for research.
Yes, and Sims repeats similar statements elsewhere in the extracts on the Casebook. I posted these extracts a while ago on the old boards:
The homicidal maniac who Shocked the World as Jack the Ripper had been once - I am not sure that it was not twice - in a lunatic asylum. At the time his dead body was found in the Thames, his friends, who were terrified at his disappearance from their midst, were endeavouring to have him found and placed under restraint again.
(February 16, 1902)
For a whole year at least he was a free man, exercising all the privileges of freedom.
(1906)
The doctor had been an inmate of a lunatic asylum for some time, and had been liberated and regained his complete freedom.
(September 22, 1907)
He was undoubtedly a doctor who had been in a lunatic asylum and had developed homicidal mania of a special kind.
(1917)
But it would be surprising if Druitt had been formally committed to an asylum and no one had found a record of it, though I suppose it's possible there could have been a less formal arrangement. I've thought in the past that perhaps Druitt's cricketing career could be a good pointer to this, although Rosenwater's published article on this didn't attempt a complete survey of the matches he played in.
However, my guess is it's more likely that someone - whether Macnaghten or Sims himself - was mixing up Druitt with another suspect here. A number of the suspects had been in asylums before or at the time of the murders - Puckridge, the "three insane medical students", Ostrog, the "City suspect". I have a note that Paul Begg, in Jack the Ripper: The Uncensored Facts, did suggest that the police confused Druitt with Sanders, one of the medical students.
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2369
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 18, 2004 - 12:27 pm: | |
Hi Chris
There was a John Sanders in the Devon County Lunatic Asylum, Crediton, in 1881. He was no occupation and aged 24 - Druitt's age.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1046
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 18, 2004 - 1:42 pm: | |
Just a tiny little thought.
'Young American medical student.'
I do know somebody of American origin who lived in Whitechapel in 1888 who was an extremely keen medical student. |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 282
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 18, 2004 - 3:01 pm: | |
Robert
Thanks for the details of the Devon John Sanders, but if the information given by Sugden is correct this can't be the same Sanders who was a suspect. He was younger than Druitt - born around 1862 - and was apparently not committed until later than 1881.
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2370
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 18, 2004 - 3:36 pm: | |
Yes, Chris, and the Devon Sanders was probably unlikely to have studied medicine between 1881 and 1888. Same age as Druitt, both from the west country...and one more strange coincidence!
PS I said the asylum was in Crediton, but Sanders was born there. The asylum was in Exminster.
AP, who could that be?
Robert
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 210
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 7:59 am: | |
Yes Robert,
I agree, Chris has been very generous with his technical knowledge AND his time in getting this tantalising item onto the Boards.
I was interested to see just which bits of the article other people picked up on.
Natalie was particularly quick with her pointing out that the evidence, thus far, appears to indicate Montague Druitt did not suicide immediately after the last murder(Mary Kelly ).
John Savage's perceptive point about the emerging Dr Pedachenko theory was interesting too.
Chris Scott picked most of the points out which I would have.
However, I would add the following:
Sim's comment Montague "lived in a suburb about six miles away, seems to confirm Montague definitely lived at, or near, the school. Most likely a Master in Residence would live "in"( the school) .
Sims alleges Montague Druitt suffered from a "horrible form of mania which leads the victim to look upon women of a certain class with frenzied hatred"...A very interesting statement.
I would be interested to hear from others just how they would interpret that phrase.
Thirdly, Chris Phillips wisely observes the mention of Montague having been an inmate of an asylum. I too, am sure he seems the likely "nervy" type who could have suffered previous breakdowns.
Further research (as Chris Scott said)would probably turn up more evidence of his terms in
asylums.
The fact Sims alleges Druitt's friends were alarmed by his disappearance from the school(?) causing those friends (who had their own suspicions about him: WHAT SUSPICIONS? )to conduct inquiries through the "proper authorities"... Hmmm. Surely there would be records of this? Why was this fact not put at the Inquest?
You can see why I feel this article provides areas for further inquiry.
However, I should point out later on in the article, Sims talks about the suspicion of Tumblety as "the other THEORY".
There is a lot wrong with Sims' facts in this article. But I still feel there are new germs of truth to be investigated.
That is why I have been exploring Druitt's cricket and school and legal career. To try to discover just who those "friends" might have been.
A favourite quote of mine:
"Foul deeds shall rise,
Though all the world o'erwhelm them
To men's eyes".MACBETH. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2378
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 7:10 pm: | |
Hi John
I suppose if I had to bet, I'd say that the horrible homicidal mania Sims had in mind was religious mania, the "women of a certain class" being prostitutes.
Just to say that I found a John William Sanders death for the first quarter of 1889, age 30, St Geo. East. I believe the middle initial of Sugden's Sanders was W. I know that this isn't Sugden's Sanders, but I'm interested in anything that may have confused the police at that time.
Robert |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 175
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 8:21 pm: | |
Hi John Ruffels
Going back to the point about the distance of Montague's residence, I have just done a quick check on my road atlas, which with the aid of a ruler, tells me that Blackheath would be six miles from Westminster, and about 4.5 miles from Whitechapel "as the crow flys"
Best Regards
John Savage |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 211
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 7:23 am: | |
Hello Robert and Chris,
Yes Robert, I think persuing the "young medical student" angle is a good direction to go, given the fact we do not know who all of them were. And the fact Macnaghten and Sims and their confidantes
all mention the Ripper as having been"a doctor".
John W Sanders is of great interest and anything you find about him could prove useful one way or another.
John Savage. Good practical test, using a ruler to check the distance of Blackheath from Whitechapel AND Westminster.
Did you know ,I think George R Sims mentioned,( in another publication - discussed on these boards by among others, Chris Phillips-) that his Ripper suspect lived at Blackheath? !!
I think this was another great find by Stewart P
Evans and his co-researcher, Nick(?).
|
Dan Norder
Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 20
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 7:52 pm: | |
One of my first thoughts was that a report that a police officer saw the Ripper leaving the scene of a crime (Mitre Square, from the descriptions) would make the alleged Seaside Home (retirement location for officers) identification make more sense than if it were Lawende or Schwartz as some people think.
One of the other articles (Feb. 25, 1911) by George Sims on the page http://casebook.org/press_reports/dagonet.html mentions the good old Lodger story. The person telling the story to Sims claims that she saw this former lodger (an American doctor) three years previous practicing in the northwest of London. Sims said he forwarded the top along to police, who ignored it, not interrupting his practice, thinking Jack was dead...
...so, has any named suspect been an American doctor who would have been practicing in London from at least 1908-1911?
That wouldn't be Tumblety, presumably... Anyone?
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 176
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 7:59 am: | |
Hi Dan,
Tumblety did of course die in 1903, according to Stewart Evans book "The Lodger"
Best Regards
John Savage |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1177
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 8:26 am: | |
The "young American medical student" mentioned in the article refers, of course, to Baxter's story of attemoted purchase of uteri as suppments to a publication.
The following article specifically about this may be of interest:
St James's Gazette (London)
29 September 1888
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS
THE MYSTERIOUS "AMERICAN STUDENT"
The Daily Telegraph says:
Assurances have been given by responsible officers of the medical schools attached to all the London hospitals, with two exceptions, that no such extraordinary application was ever made to them of the nature described by Mr. Wynne Baxter, the coroner, in his recent summing up/ At the schools of the University College Hospital and of the Middlesex Hospital the authorities, for some inscrutable reason, decline to give any information as to whether the "American student" did prefer his singular request to them or not. From certain admissions of the gentlemen concerned there does not appear to be reason to doubt that to one or other of these two institutions belongs the distinction of having given certain information to the coroner which he subsequently communicated to the Scotland yard detectives and upon which he based his theory which has caused such consternation. After Mr. Baxter had insisted that Mr. Phillips, the police divisional surgeon, should no longer withhold the most important part of his evidence respecting his post mortem examination of the body of Annie Chapman, and even when the report was published, it is clear that on the next day the coroner received a communication from an official connected with a leading London hospital, and that in consequence he attended at the pathological museum belonging to the institution, where some one made him acquainted with the outlines of a rumour which had circulated in the dissecting rooms during the past summer, and to which not the slightest importance was attached until the murder in Hanbury street occurred and the startling medical evidence was published. The rumour, at most, appears to have been an idel one, and in respect of the sum mentioned to the coroner - namely £20, as the price offered, and the object of the American as stated by him - the story is discredited. At the Middlesex Hospital the official, who on other points refused to elucidate the matter, characterised the tale, as far as the above details are concerned, as a silly story. Furthermore, at University College, where pains were taken to return an unqualified answer of "no information," it was hinted that the story as it has been made public had, in some way, become mixed with error, and that it was very certain that it provided no explanation of the motive of the crime. Those gentlemen who assert that they have "no information" somewhat indignantly repudiate the suggestion that it was a hoax, or that the matter has no importance. In fact they talk somewhat mysteriously about "the interests of justice" being imperilled by disclosure.
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 213
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 7:42 am: | |
Hello Everyone,
So, as we are beginning to see, several strands of
theories about various suspects are emerging from this fascinating article: Tumblety, Pedachenko, Sanders, other medical students, medical men. Even the old Steve White/Mitre Square
whisp gets another airing.
By strands I mean they add to the suspect theories, other than just the Montague Druitt one.
'Dagonet'(George R Sims), appears to have used his later articles to throw all the various rumours, theories and actual facts -gleaned from his several copper mates- into the one giant pot.
So that he can later claim, should the monster's identity be uncovered,that he knew it all along.
Following the mention by Dan Norder of the cache of "Dagonet" articles about the Ripper already on the Casebook site, perhaps I should point out that they are merely a summary, and not the full articles. (Thus the mention of "Blackheath" does not appear in the summaries).
But the fact Sims asserts his Druitt suspect had been locked up in an asylum at least once, and that he suffered from religious mania or somesuch,
and that his own friends had asked the authorities to locate him urgently, provides new
direction for research.
There must be a record of one of these facets somewhere. |
Dan Norder
Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 28
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 6:24 pm: | |
John,
Yeah, it's certainly good info to pursue. The main problem will be sorting truth from fantasy. This doctor who drowns in the Thames in November who had been institutionalized once or twice and so forth seems more and more like a composite of several different people as well as information dreamed up out of thin air. Still, it's something to start from...
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 214
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 3:32 am: | |
Yes Dan. I agree. What is really beginning to exercise my brain, is George R. Sims' very strong reliance on the JTR's final murder being of such horrific ferocity and abandon, that Jack must have been unable to function properly thereafter. And Sims' assuming the Ripper committed suicide immediately after the Millers Court murder.
It is quite obvious Sims plumps for Druitt to be his preferred suspect, but if Montague was the Ripper, he certainly appears NOT to have caved in immediately after the last Ripper murder.
If we believe the account of Blackheath Cricket Club meetings and "The Times" accounts of successful legal cases Montague participated in.
I agree Sims looks like he has got a lot of suspects mixed up.
BUT, given his close association with Macnaghten and other police and justice high-flyers (all essential for a very successful crime journalist)
surely, some of what he says about his Druitt suspect must be true?
Sims mentions, in his private criminalia collection, he has photos of two of the Ripper victims; he even alleges he has a clay pipe from one of the Ripper's murder sites. So he must have been in close contact with police and civil servants directly connected with the murder investigations.
I think one thing which needs further clarification is whether other London - or even Dorset- newspapers record Druitt's successes in the two court cases. I think we need verification of Druitt's court-room involvement.(And his demeanor). Particularly since, in one case, Druitt is alleged to have used proof of insanity to plead one case.(Not his own I hasten to add).
Most criminal mysteries usually stem from the imperfect gathering of clues and statements during the crucial first days after a crime.
It is pretty obvious both Sims and Macnaghten did not have a complete picture of Montague Druitt's
movements and activities in the period immediately prior to, or just after, the murders.
They do not appear to have read the Coroner's report.
The Coroner at Druitt's inquest Dr Diplock, probably stored his Inquest files at the closest hospital with which he was connected: This was the Lock hospital.
Has anybody checked? |
David Andersen
Police Constable
Username: Davida
Post Number: 5
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 6:15 pm: | |
Can somebody help me with this. Has anyone actually seen 'The Times' article on Druitts court appearance. If so could you show me where. I have heard of it and searched for it but,so far, I haven't actually seen it. Please Help. |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 306
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 7:11 pm: | |
Hi, David
Chris Scott posted a partial scan of an article back in Feb 2003 on the old boards regarding Druitt and a breach of promise case, Mildon v Binstead, May 1886. (For anyone with a copy of the archives on CD-Rom, see Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Contemporary Suspects [ 1888 - 1910 ]: Druitt, Montague John: Archive through 03 February 2003).
David, I don't know which paper this is from, or if this is what you're looking for. If I remember correctly, Druitt won the case.
I used to have the full scan, but lost it a couple of weeks ago when my old computer crashed. Perhaps Chris still has a copy of the full account?
Hope this helps,
Dave
PS Sorry if I've thrown the thread out of alignment with the scan. Didn't we use to have a place for Pictures From Various Threads? I can't seem to find it.
(Message edited by oberlin on May 23, 2004) |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 11:38 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
The above picture of Sims looks a little like Francis Thompson.
All the best,CB |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1221
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 4:38 pm: | |
Hi dave
The case you mention re the Druitt case was reported in The Daily News of 22 May 1886
The extract you posted above was the beginning of thet report
All the best
Chris
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 222
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 6:45 am: | |
Prompted by further pondering about George R Sims (the author of the LLLOYDS WEEKLY NEWS article published above) and his close contacts within the Scotland Yard heirarchy. a couple more questions suggest themselves:
1. Stewart P Evans and his colleagues appear to have made a thorough examination of , and search for, the papers of journalist George R Sims.
Why did Sims not drop everything and make a thorough investigation into Druitt's background
once he knew his identity?
2. Sims hints in later articles about some intimate knowledge of Druitt which is not on the official record: ( Druitt's being locked up in an asylum; his serious dislike of lower class women of the streets );..
Where are his private notes on all this?
3. Why have plays or books on this major suspect not emerged from his knowledge of Druitt's identity? After all, Sims was a noted writer and playwright?
4.We know Sims was close to Macnaghten, the (later) Assistant Commissioner for the CID.
Which other senior police or Home Secretary's Office Civil Servants was Sims close to?
5.It is almost as if a bureaucratic vacuum cleaner has been run through the Home Office records to eliminate any mention of Montague Druitt's name. Why? |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1222
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 9:41 am: | |
Hi Dave
Here is a full transcription of the Druitt case mentioned above. It shows a characteristic we don't usually assocaite whith MJD - a sense of humour. He certainly knew how to "play to the gallery."
Chris
Daily News (London)
22 May 1886
AN AMUSING BREACH OF PROMISE CASE
In the Middlesex Sheriffs' Court, Red Lion square, before Mr. Under Sheriff Burchell and a Common Jury, yesterday, the case of Mildon v Binstead was heard, it having been remitted from the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice for purpose of assessing the amount of damages, if any, to which the plaintiff was entitled, the defendant having allowed judgement to go by default. Mr. Montague Druitt, who was counsel for the plaintiff, said that this was an action for recovery of damages for a breach of promise of marriage. His client, Miss Marion Mildon, when she first made the acquaintance of the defendant was a lady's maid in the service of a titled family near Selborne, and the defendant was employed as a draper's assistant in a neighbouring town. In September, 1883, she was walking out one evening, and she met the defendant, who seemed fascinated y her good looks, and he asked her if she would allow him to accompany her for a short distance. She assented, and from that time forward he paid her the most marked attentions; he wrote her a number of letters, breathing sentiments of undying love and attachment, telling her that her darling image and lovely form occupied his waking hours and sleeping dreams. (Laughter.) She had so bewitched him that feared he was rather negligent in the performance if his duties as a draper's assistant, for it was Cupid, and not calico or cambric, that was uppermost in his mind. (Renewed laughter.) The correspondence that passed between them was voluminous, but the learned counsel said that he should content himself with a few samples. Writing from Odiham on March 8th., 1884, he says:-
My dearest Marion, - You can hardly imagine how your lovely letter of this morning relieved my poor dull brain of all the weary thoughts that generally occur in bachelor solitude. (A laugh.) But thanks, darling, your sweet, loving,. little epistle has acted as an emetic, and has carried the black bile off. (Roars of laughter.) You must always allow me to think about you in my daily work, but do not be afraid that I shall omit doing my ordinary duties; it will be the reverse, for in having your loving angelic face always in my memory it will inspire me with the everlasting hope of gaining my chief desire on this earth - namely, darling, your own sweet self. (Laughter.) With you, my lovely one, my honeysuckle, my incomparable "Maid Marion", as my wife and partner in all my joys and sorrows, I will be an English Ajax, defying the thunders and lightnings of mundane tribulation. (Continued laughter.) In our wedded life, darling (and oh!, do I not wish the happy auspicious day of our nuptials was now at hand!), I hope sorrows will be, as the poet says, few and far between. I suppose we must wait a little while longer for that glorious day which will consummate all my thoughts of terrestrial bliss.
In another of these effusive epistles. glowing with the tender and rapturous feelings of love, he wrote:
The 8th. March was your birthday, and strange to say I was wondering and thinking about you all the way along the road from Alton, whilst I was driving in the low backed car. I kept looking at my watch every ten minutes or quarter of an hour, wondering if you had got home in time ..... Sorry you were so awfully hungry! What a pity you had not some of those apples I had with me! Would I not be superlatively pleased to present, like another arbitrator of beauty, on a Hampshire Mount Ida, the prize to the fairest goddess on earth - my own darling Marion. (Laughter.) I had a favourable reply from Yateley yesterday, and I am very glad of it, because now I shall not be so far from you. I shall try and get the chance to see you often, as it is a beautiful road for walking along. Indeed, I do not know of any more secluded or appropriate promenade for two find hearts to coo and bill in. (Laughter.)
During his holidays he took her, said the learned counsel, to the home of his parents, by whom she was accepted and treated as their future daughter in law; she was the honoured guest of his numerous friends and relatives in Hampshire and Sussex, who invited her to balls, dancing parties, penny readings, and other forms of mild dissipation in which unsophisticated country folks like to indulge. He told her his wages amounted to £2 a week, besides commission on whatever sales he effected, and these latter, according to his own representation, were occasionally very considerable. In addition to these brilliant prospects he assured her that his father and mother were thrifty people, the former being for many years a coachman in the service of the Right Hon. George Sclater-Booth, and the latter a housekeeper to a nobleman in Hampshire; and at his mother's death, he told Miss Mildon, he would be entitled to a large sum of money. In the first week of March, 1884, with the full approval and sanction of his parents and friends, he solemnly ratified the promise he had previously made to her, by giving her an engagement ring, and telling her that she might regard herself as his betrothed wife. He removed from Selborne to Petersfield, and from the latter place he wrote her a letter in which he stated that his life was incomplete, cheerless and melancholy, because she was not near to solace and soothe the weary, languid hours. (Laughter.) "Marion," he gushes forth -
My Sweet and darling Marion, - When I take my solitary walks abroad I am ever fondly thinking of you. (Continued merriment.) At church yesterday, when the parson preached from the old familiar text, "Love one another," my thoughts were wandering from the subject of his discourse, and where were they? Aye, where? They were nestling in your fond bosom. (Roars of laughter.) Life has lost its charms for me; and why? The response is, because my darling is away. Some moonstruck poet once wrote, "Absence makes the heart grow fonder," and I have bitterly realised the full truth of that assertion, for without you I am pining and wasting away. (Laughter.)
This letters concluded, said the learned counsel, with 60,000 kisses, and with a number of geometrical figures which he understood were, in the language of love, emblematic of undying attachment and perennial love. (Laughter.) In a subsequent letters, dated from Yateley and addressed to his "Darling Marion," he beseeches her to remember him in her prayers, and at the same time, while he is at Pulborough, near Brighton, to send him some of those amatory notes that she had lately been in the habit of writing to him. Away from her, his lovely, idolised one, he felt disconsolate and lonely, for without her he often thought he was like a ship without a captain or a boat without a rudder. A very short time after these gushing letters were written the plaintiff received a letter from the defendant expressing sentiments the reverse of those which characterised his previous communications; and in this note he coolly informed her that he must break off the engagement, as his parents did not approve of the intended marriage. Miss Mildon was naturally horrified at this sudden and astounding revulsion of affection on his part, and, as might be expected, she indignantly wrote back, asking for an explanation, but (said the learned counsel) the quondam amorous swain did not deign to give any excuse or exculpation for his despicable treatment of this poor young woman, and for such disgraceful trifling with the affections of a chaste and virtuous woman he hoped the jury would award his client not a vindictive or an immoderate amount of damages, but such a sum as would be some solution for her wounded feelings and the wrong done to her womanly pride.
The plaintiff gave evidence in support of the opening statement of her counsel.
The defendant did not appear nor was he legally represented.
The jury assessed the damages at £50.
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 307
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 10:14 am: | |
Hi, Chris
Many thanks for taking the time to transcribe and post this.
It's good to have this lively picture of Druitt to contrast against his later suicide and the allegations and innuendos made against him.
Best,
Dave |
David Andersen
Police Constable
Username: Davida
Post Number: 9
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 1:51 pm: | |
Thank you Chris & David for the above info re: MJD in court. I had heard, from a long-forgotten source, that Montague had appeared in court the day before he was sacked by Valentine. This was allegedly reported in The Times. Any thoughts?
Regards
David |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 276
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 5:53 pm: | |
If Druitt had spent time in a lunatic asylum because he had homicidal mania, would he have been hired to teach children? |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 312
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 6:15 pm: | |
David Andersen wrote:
I had heard, from a long-forgotten source, that Montague had appeared in court the day before he was sacked by Valentine. This was allegedly reported in The Times.
Apparently he appeared in an electoral registration case before the High Court on 22 November, and this was reported in the Times on 29 November. (I'm not sure where this was published, but those dates are according to a post by R. J. Palmer on the old boards.)
Chris Phillips
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 310
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 11:48 am: | |
Hi, David
I don't have access to the issue of The Times in question, or I'd look it up for you. I wouldn't be surprised if someone else around here did.
Here's a long shot you might not find worthwhile--I'm not sure if records of civil court dockets exist at the PRO. Probably not much detail there, but it might be worth an inquiry.
On a side note (and probably only of interest to me), I wonder if this registration case had anything to do with the Local Government Act, which I think was passed earlier that year. I read up on it a few months ago, and I want to say that the end of November 1888 was the deadline for county elections (I might be wrong).
Not much help, I'm afraid.
Dave
|
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 190
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 1:45 pm: | |
Hi All,
The Times of 29th November 188 page 13 column C contains the following reference, which I will post in two parts
Part 1
 |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 191
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 1:56 pm: | |
Here is part 2. With apologies for the poor re-production
 |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 311
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 2:29 pm: | |
Well, there you go  Thanks, John. If you don't mind, I'll transcribe this for easier reading. But it looks like there's more to the article, maybe a third column?
Dave |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 313
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 4:54 pm: | |
John Savage
Many thanks for posting those scans. It seems MJD must still have been in possession of his faculties in November 1888 - or at least, as much in possession of them as I am right now.
From a practical point of view, is there anything outside the portions posted to confirm that the case was heard a week earlier than it was reported, as posted previously?
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1230
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 11:44 pm: | |
John
The Druitt article is very interesting ideed.
I have done some digging around and the St Michael's Vicarage mentioned was in fact in Holdenhurst, Bournemouth and was run as a small school by the Hake family. In the 1891 census, three members of the family are listed as living there. The headmaster was Edwin Hake aged 35, also listed as living there are Louis Hake aged 33, Clerk in Holy Orders, Edwin's brother, and their sister Mary aged 26. Five male pupils, all boarders, ranging in age from 9 to 13 are listed and two servants.
Distinct echoes of Valentine's establishment in Blackheath.
Chris
(Message edited by Chris on May 26, 2004) |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1231
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 11:47 pm: | |
Here is the listing for 1891 showing pupils and domestics as well:
 |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 192
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 5:08 am: | |
Hi Chris Scott,
Many thanks for the information on the Hake Family of Bournemouth, I get the feeling that Montague got this brief as much by his local connections as anything else. I must admit that the legal phrases used in The Times report leave me a little confused.
Chris Phillips
This report was of one of several cases heard in appeal by the High Court, I will check the full article again, and try to give more information.
David O'Flaherty
Transcribe away my friend, I hope your eyesight is better than mine! If you need a clearer copy let me know and I will e mail to you.
Best Regards
John Savage |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 193
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 2:12 pm: | |
Hi All,
I have had a chance to have another look at the article in The Times for 29th. November 1888. This page 13 is taken up completely by Law Reports and it would not be possible or relevent to post it all here. Therefore I have made a note for my own files and placed it below. I hope this clarifies matters, but will be pleased to try and answer any questions; (the conclusions at the end are only my opinions - please feel free to comment)
THE TIMES NOVEMBER 29TH. 1888
LAW REPORT NOV. 28
High Court of Justice
Queens Bench Division
(Before Lord Coleridge, Mr. Justice Hawkins and Mr. Justice Manisty)
The Court, as constituted sat yesterday to hear registration appeals, of which there were only four entered, the first was
SMITH v CHANDLER
2nd JONES AND OTHERS, APELLANTS – KENT AND OTHERS,
RESPONDENTS
3rd HARTLEY, APELLANT – HALSE, RESPONDENT
4th DRUIT, APELLANT – GOSLING RESPONDENT
5Th NEWELL v HEMINGWAY
At the end of the fourth case Mr. Justice Hawkins must have left the bench, as the fifth and subsequent cases, were heard by only Lord Coleridge and Mr. Justice Manisty.
The final wording of the report of the case in which Druit appeared is as follows:
LORD COLERIDGE – There is nothing in any of these objections. Appeal dismissed with costs.
The Case sent to be amended will, his Lordship said, be taken on Saturday.
CONCLUSIONS
Attention must be given to the phrase “ the court thus constituted sat yesterday”. As the report is dated 28th. November, I take this to mean that the hearing took place on the 27th., the Law Report was written on the 28th and published in The Times on 29th
This would mean that we have firm evidence that Montague was working normally up until 27th November, and I believe this to be the latest date we have firm evidence of his being alive. (The date of 30th November given by many authors is only an assumption, based on interpretation of an inaccurate newspaper report.)
Also some writers have been of the opinion that Montague was a failure as a barrister and never practised, or was only a “special pleader” with no right of audience in the courts, this report shows that to be untrue .
Best Regards
John Savage
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 312
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 2:59 pm: | |
John, thanks very much for that last bit, and for providing this article to us. A transcription follows:
The Times {London}
29 November 1888
DRUITT, APPELLANT—GOSLING, RESPONDENT.
This case, reserved from Christchurch, Hampshire, raised a question as to joint occupation of a dwellinghouse. The case stated that two claimants of the name of Hake claimed in respect of “a house and land joint.” It turned out that they occupied a dwellinghouse, St. Michael’s vicarage, and there was no land except the garden. The vicarage was let to both of them (the vicar residing elsewhere), and the value was far over £20, the rateable value being £72; but only one of them was rated. It was contended that the case came within the definition of a £10 qualification, a house being a tenement. It was objected that use of the claimants was already on the overseers’ occupiers’ list for the same house, and that the alleged joint occupation was in respect of the same house, and that two persons could not have a joint occupation qualification under 30 and 31 Vic., e. 102, a. 3. The Barrister was of that opinion and disallowed the claims. The claimants appealed.
Mr. M.J. Druitt appeared for the appellants and argued on their behalf that both were entitled to be registered, not, indeed, for a “dwellinghouse,” but for a house or “tenement,” if the value is sufficient. The main objection, he said, was as to the joint occupation of the dwellinghouse, though there were two subsidiary objections—one as to misdescription of the qualification and the other as to one of the claimants being already on the overseers’ list of occupiers for the same house. He urged that the claimants came within the definition of the borough household qualifications in the Reform Act, the value being amply sufficient for both claims. {MR JUSTICE MANISTY.—One only of the claimants was rated.} That is not material; the rating of one is sufficient, the rates being paid by either of them; and that is not an objection taken. {LORD COLERIDGE.—What is the objection?} It is difficult to say.
Mr. ROBSON, who appeared for the respondent, said it was certainly difficult to make out from the case as stated. {LORD COLERIDGE.—What objection can you suggest?} It is impossible to rely upon the objection taken as to joint occupation. That qualification exists. {LORD COLERIDGE.—I should say so.} There is no doubt an enactment that no one shall claim is respect of the joint occupation of a dwellinghouse. {LORD COLERIDGE.—The claimants do not claim for a “dwellinghouse.”} That is so, no doubt; but section 27 of the Reform Act is repealed.
Mr. DRUITT pointed out that in the 48 Vic., e. 3, a. 5, it was in substance re-enacted. {LORD COLERIDGE.—Subject to the like conditions, i.e. MR. JUSTICE MANISTY.—That would require rating, would it not?} Then in section 7 it is enacted that the borough occupation franchise shall be doomed to be that defined in section 27 of the Reform Act. And that section, coupled with section 29, confers the occupation franchise for the joint occupation. {LORD COLERIDGE.—So it should seem, certainly, what can be said against it?}
Mr. ROBSON said he confessed he hardly knew that anything could be said against it. {LORD COLERIDGE assented and asked what other objections there were?}
Mr. ROBSON urged that one of the claimants being already on the overseers’ list of occupiers, both could set claim for the same qualification. {LORD COLERIDGE.—He did not put himself on the list, the overseers put him there; and that does not preclude them from making a joint claim.} There would be duplicate entries for the same qualification. {LORD COLERIDGE.—The Barrister should have struck out the entry in the overseers’ list.} There is a misdescription of the qualification. {LORD COLERIDGE.—There is nothing in any of these objections. Appeal dismissed with costs.}
The Case sent to be amended, will, his Lordship said, be taken on Saturday.
(Message edited by oberlin on May 27, 2004) |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3104
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 10:31 pm: | |
Thanks to John and David for the above Druitt article - its now lodged on the Casebook proper under Press Reports > Times, and appropriately cross-referenced with our other Druitt material.
Thanks again!
Stephen
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 313
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 11:25 pm: | |
Thanks, Stephen
Transcribing is easy--finding the stuff in the first place is the hard part. Thanks once again, John. |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 223
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 7:11 am: | |
I wonder if the bound volumes of printed Law Reports contain any more detail of the first part of the case (heard in Christchurch, Hampshire)?
Are there any British lawyers out there, with access to 1888 Law Reports?
Of course, Montague Druitt's brother, William and cousins (the sons of Montague's Uncle James Druitt) were partners in a firm of solicitors (Druitt & Druitt) in Christchurch.
I think two members of their family were Registrars or court officials in Christchurch.
I wonder if the printed, bound,volumes of Law reports indicate the solicitors who instructed Montague Druitt in the case?
(In English courts a barrister cannot appear in court unless he is "advised/instructed" by - that is, given instructions in the case by -that is, has seated next to him in court- a solicitor ).
Thank you for sharing, David O'Flaherty and John Savage. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 282
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 11:16 am: | |
I got to wondering the other day if we've always had the Druitt thing backward. Somebody nutty enough to have done Kelly would not then be functional enough to have performed as astutely and professionaly as these documents seem to suggest.
We know there was insanity in the Druitt family. Suppose one of the other family members was JTR and suppose (somebody's going to jump me for speculating)MJ found out. Then MJ's death would have been murder, not suicide. Then JTR goes to the authorities and says that MJ was sexually insane. By doing so he gets himself off the hook and disposes of someone that could incriminate him. Didnt at least one of MJs relations move to Australia? The only thing that doesnt fit is the dismissal from Valentine's. |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 194
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 7:49 pm: | |
Hi John Ruffels
I think that finding more information about the original hearing of the Hake case may be difficult. The All England Law Reports may well contain details of the appeal, but for the original hearing in Bournemouth I would suggest that the local papers might contain some information. Other than that the Hampshire Count Council archive contains the Quarter Sessions Records up until 1889 (www.hants.gov.uk). It would really need to be researched by someone local to that area, and as I live some 250 miles from Bournemouth I regret I cannot help.
Best Regards
John Savage |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 559
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 1:01 pm: | |
I just discovered this thread today and find it very interesting.
Now we know that Druitt is alive and functioning "normally" as late as Tuesday, November 27 (though the rail ticket found on his corpse implies that he was still alive on Saturday, Dec. 1).
I am confused as to the outcome of the case, however. I need some help here. It appears from the transcript that Druitt won his point and with it the case. But the final wording is confusing. "Appeal dismissed with costs" sound to me as though Druitt lost, he appearing for the Appellant. Clarification?
Also, what does "The Case sent to be amended, will, his Lordship said, be taken on Saturday." mean? Is it significant that Saturday is the probable date of Druitt's suicide? In other words, is there something about the outcome of this case that could have prompted Druitt's suicide?
Finally, might it just be possible that the "serious trouble" that Druitt had got into at the school was taking too much time pursuing his legal career and neglecting his teaching duties? Appearing in court on Tuesday, November 27 would have taken him away from the school.
Andy S. |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 221
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 8:21 pm: | |
Hi Andy,
I can understand your being confused by this law report, me too!
However as Monty was appearing for the appellant and the appeal was dismissed I think we can only conclude that he lost his case.
Regarding the words " the case sent to be ammended, will, his lordship said, be taken on Saturday". When I read the full page of the Times in the library, it was apparent that there were many other cases heard that day, and my interpretation is that Lord Coleridge was referring to a differnt case altogether. (please see my earlier post of 27th. May)
I doubt if taking time off from Mr. Valentine's school would have been serious enough for Monty to have been dismissed, as they would have been aware of his occupation of barrister, and would have fitted in court apearences regularly. Also he would have had previous notice of when a case was to be heard, and would have been able to give the school notice.
Best Regards
John Savage |
David Andersen
Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 49
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 9:01 pm: | |
I agree with John. It is also quite likely that then, as now, the school would have been shut for the summer vacation.
Yes Druitt does ap-ear to have won the point though not the appeal. The judge has commented that the problem is one of a misdescription on the papers and, as such, has sent it back to the barrister who, presumably acting as the rating officer, would now be required to amend the record. The barrister may well have been a sort of Town Clerk in the area of the rating authority.
Regards
David |
Simon Owen
Police Constable
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 9
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 9:14 pm: | |
" One man only, a policeman, saw him leaving the place in which he had just accomplished a fiendish deed, but failed, owing to the darkness, to get a good view of him. A little later the policeman stumbled over the lifeless body of the victim."
Surely this must refer to Stephen White ? |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 560
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 2:19 pm: | |
Hi John,
Thanks for your clarification. I, too, assumed that Druitt must have lost the case -- though it is confusing as he clearly won the one and point point that seems to have been discussed. Regarding the last sentence, after reading the scan of this article in the Druitt thread it still seems to me to be talking about Druitt's case being taken up (again) on Saturday, though this would appear to be impossible if the appeal was dismissed. Could someone check the Times of December 3 or 4, 1888 and see if there was any activity regarding this case on Saturday?
I tend to agree that Druitt's legal pursuits were probably not the cause of his dismissal from the school. This not so much because his employers already knew about his legal career (for there could have been a significant, unforeseen increase in demand for his legal services), but because it is unlikely that such a conflict of time would be described as "serious trouble."
Now we know conclusively that Druitt was alive and well on November 27 and functioning normally -- even putting forth a competent argument before the Bench. We surmise from the date on the railway ticket that he was still alive on December 1 and we conjecture that this was the date of his suicide. We might cautiously speculate that the dismissal from Valentine's coupled with a disappointing legal defeat were the immediate causes of his suicide. I would really like to have known the date on the two cheques found on Druitt. That would have helped us pinpoint the date of his dismissal.
Andy S.
(Message edited by Aspallek on August 11, 2004) |
Jim DiPalma
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 94
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 11:23 am: | |
Hi All,
Simon, good to see you back!
>Surely this must refer to Stephen White ?
Well, I wouldn't use the word 'surely'. It's really nothing more than conjecture that the passage refers to Stephen White. It's entirely possible that the event never occurred at all.
As Chris Scott pointed out, the only case in which a police officer was the first to find the body was the Mitre Square murder, and there is nothing in the record that indicates Watkins saw the killer. There is a possible connection with the statement in MacNaghten's memorandum that "no one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer (unless possibly it was the City P.C. who was on a beat near Mitre Square)..."
It has been suggested by some that this passage is a confused amalgamation of two different murders,
Stride's and Eddowes, committed on the same night, and that MacNaghten confused Lawende's sighting
with that of PC Smith. Given that MacNaghten was known to rely on his memory rather than take written notes, that he wrote the memorandum six years after the murders, and that the memorandum itself is rife with demonstrable errors (e.g., Druitt's age and occupation), this is an entirely plausible interpretation of that passage.
Sims and MacNaghten were very close, and it is clear that Sims obtained most of his information about the crimes from MacNaghten. The 1907 article that is the subject of this thread clearly refers to the memorandum almost in its entirety.
I can't help but wonder if the genesis of the 1919 People's Journal article was this garbled memory, conveyed by MacNaghten to Sims, embellished by Sims and published in 1907, further embellished by the unknown author in 1919, naming White as the policeman and including a pat description of the classic stage villain. I won't say that's what "surely" happened, it's also conjecture, but at least it's conjecture that's supported by the known facts.
Cheers,
Jim |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
