| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 363
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 10:44 am: |       |
Suppose Diemschutz and Mrs. Diemschutz are not getting along too well. Stride has just been attacked by broad shoulders and thrown into the yard. She's lying there semiconscious. The pubs are closing and Diemschutz had a few before heading for the working mans club. He goes in the gate and finds this woman. The light is not real good and he mistakes her for his wife. He slits her throat in a rage and then looks closer. The light begins to dawn in his sozzled brain. He rushes into the club to see if his wife is there. |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 129
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 11:08 am: | |
Makes a lot more sense than Sickert.
Mags |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 239
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 7:10 am: | |
Hi Diana,
The problem with this scenario is understanding what happens when people act in a 'rage'.
Imagine a boiling pot with the lid welded shut. sooner or later tha vessel will explode. That is a rage. Diemschutz approaches in his cart, he is not in a rage, he gets down from his cart, still no rage, finds a woman still no rage, but then thinks it might be his wife and all of a sudden rage?
This hound won't hunt!
Bob |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1530
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 10:51 am: | |
Hi all
Good points here I suppose..Still think that Mr Diemschutz just came poddling back with the pony to find the body etc etc sees the body and being thoroughly knackered after a day selling the 'jewellery' and in need of a serious slurp (after bedding down the faithful beast of course) was geuinely surprised and maybe a little irritated to find our 'Liz'. Thinking ...just maybe.. and of course not knowing any different he thinks 'Uh Oh....wife?' and rushes in.
Like the hound image Bob!
Cheers
Suzi |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 373
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 11:21 am: | |
Hi Bob,
Although I have doubts about Diana’s scenario (though it’s good to try and see things from a different perspective, Diana), I don’t agree with the reason you put forward.
Because, how can we be sure that Diemschutz wasn’t in rage when he approached the yard? Sure, he told a perfectly believable and innocent story to the police, but if he actually did kill Stride, he surely would have told some innocent story like he did, not one involving him being angry and enraged.
All the best,
Frank
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1531
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 5:25 pm: | |
Frank
A rage or not a rage!?
For goodness sake who knows how Mr Diemschutz felt when he came home?
Probably a little wet and tired maybe and then the pony to put to bed and then finding a dead woman in the yard.....maybe that was enough to put any man into a rage!
Not enough to kill though I feel unless there was something else that Mrs D should or could have told us!!!
Hunt on those hounds....if the scent is there.....they'll find it
Suzi |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 374
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 6:48 pm: | |
Suzi,
“For goodness sake who knows how Mr Diemschutz felt when he came home?”
This is exactly my argument against Bob’s point! We don’t know for a fact what or how he felt when he discovered the woman - and prior to that. We only know what he told the police, which is an innocent and believable story that didn’t include any indications as to how or what he felt. So, Bob can't know if he did or did not feel rage at any point during his approach and discovery of the woman.
And although it’s an intriguing suggestion Diana made, I don’t believe Diemschutz killed his wife thinking it was Stride.
Frank |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1534
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 9:03 am: | |
Frank et al
Having spent far too long trawling through Diemschutz references which is not maybe the most illuminating experiences..there is one thing that worries me a tad..When our Louis's pony refused to go forward and after prodding'something soft' behind the gates,striking his match and discovering the body..believing her to be drunk WHY did he 'momentarily suspect it may be his wife'?
Was she in the habit of slumping around in alleys!? especially as on her own testament she was in the kitchen of the Working Mens Club at the time.
As to the rage....who knows...will never know either way so no point in pursuing that supposition but somehow I feel that Louis wasn't maybe in the best humour after working all day and coming across this lot which was to seriously jeopardise his plans for a relaxing (or whatever) end to the day.
Cheers
Suzi
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 8:22 pm: | |
Where is the EVIDENCE that Mr. and Mrs. Diemschutz weren't getting along? The light was plenty good enough to recognize someone outside the green gates--it was only dark in the alleyway. Where is the EVIDENCE that Diemschutz had been drinking? Stride DID NOT become semiconscious, she screamed three times at her attacker. Why would Diemschutz, assuming he wanted to kill his wife, do so under such bizarre circumstances? If he wanted to do away with her, why not make a reasonably decent plan of it, getting the drop on her in private, rather than suddenly pouncing on her in the street? You are pulling the whole thing right out of your #**.
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1535
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 10:16 am: | |
Mr Radka,
There IS no 'EVIDENCE 'there's the rub!
Diemschutz's private life has no bearing whatsoever on this case,
Suzi}
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 368
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 8:11 am: | |
Louis' reactions are revealing. He shows up at the club and finds a woman inside the gates. His story is that he thought it was his wife and she was drunk. This tells us quite a bit. Even lies have to be believable in terms of past experience or they wont fool people. Apparently the scenario of Mrs. D. getting drunk and staggering out into the yard to sleep it off does not seem unbelievable to anyone concerned because the story is never challenged. This tells us something about her. It would probably be safe to say that Mrs. D. had a drinking problem. The next step to a troubled marriage is not a difficult one. Alcoholism does not usually enhance the marriage relationship. As to rage, Louis could have been simmering all day over something that had happened in the morning. The sight of what he thought was his wife, drunk again, would have been the final straw. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1536
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 1:29 pm: | |
Hi Diana
The scenario you paint of the Diemschutz's marriage is no doubt a common scenario at the time,as in the case of Polly's body,Cross and Paul thought,after the initial tarpaulin idea that the woman was drunk so obviously although the streets of Whitechapel were not dotted with 'fallen' women the odd slumped one was a common enough occurence!As to Mr D's marital background I can't think that this has any real bearing as I recall after this initial flurry and scuttling about with Morris Eagle et al,despite his 1889 'affray'with the Jewish Socialist problem he seems to have disappeared into the usual murk of obscurity,as so many here.
Cheers
Suzi |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 243
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 5:47 pm: | |
So Diana,
If i understand you correctly. Liz was attacked by someone, as witnessed by Schwartz and knocked to the ground who then ran off without causing her any more harm.
Whilst in this unfortunate position she was found by D who thinking she was his wife, cut her throat!
Not really her night was it?
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1541
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 5:58 pm: | |
Diana
At the end of the day a domestic as was usual in those days and streets ! probably as it can be today!!!!
A cry of murder or the odd scream would have been a quiet night for most of the residents!
Liz!!!!!?????NO! this was something the police would have ignored ..if not for dear Kate! |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 369
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 6:51 pm: | |
The other thing that might support the idea is that when others examined the body they found that she was still bleeding from the throat.
I am not going to have a hissy if this isnt proved. Its just one more theory. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1542
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 5:46 pm: | |
Hi Diana
No hissies here!!!! As to the blood... theres a lot of this recorded with Liz!!
'The back of the hand and wrist were covered with clotted blood'
'There was an unusual flow of blood' Phillips does go on to say ..'Considering the stature and nourishment of the body'..
Interesting! poor old Liz!
The fact that Liz's righthand was covered with blood is a mystery....a defence wound sounds possible I feel ..for what that's worth!
Oh well on we go go then
Suzi
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 379
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 6:18 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,
“The fact that Liz's righthand was covered with blood is a mystery....a defence wound sounds possible I feel ..for what that's worth!”
To the question as to how he thought her hand got covered with blood, Dr. Philips answers that it was a mystery to him. That suggests that the hand was uninjured, as does the post-mortem. I always felt that she just reached for her throat when it was cut and that that caused the blood on the back of her hand and wrist - (also) for what it’s worth….
Cheers,
Frank
 |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 370
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 7:38 pm: | |
Wouldnt it be something if her hand had blood on it because she managed to do some injury to Jack before he killed her? Too bad they didnt do DNA back then! |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 8:39 pm: | |
I think she got blood on the back of her right hand because of the way she fell. Essentially, she would have reflexively extended her left arm to break her fall, as the murderer forced her down from behind and to her left with his hands on the backs of her shoulders. This takes her left hand out of the ballgame for a brief moment--all she can do is move her right hand as a defense. Once he has her down, the murderer quickly puts his left hand on her chest or forehead to steady her, then cuts her throat. Her right hand flailing around, moving toward the injury site, could have been bloodied thereby. The fact that the blood is on the back of her hand is because she would have raised her hand up with the palm outward as a defensive gesture. Thus when the blood spurted out of her throat, some landed on the back of her right hand.
This solution is offered on a paid basis. Please forward $25.00 each to my email address. Thank you.
David
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1547
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 11:33 am: | |
David,
Sounds plausible I admit.
As to the 'paid basis' come up with our man and I may just MAY consider it!!!
Suzi
 |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 371
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 10:46 am: | |
I think of these things in the middle of the night when I cant sleep. If Louis killed Stride and got away with it, then he is still left with a wife he is not wild about. Couple that with the slowly dawning realization that he has successfully committed murder and it doesnt take much imagination to figure out what he will think of next. Is there any way to find out when Mrs. D. died? What did she die of? An "accident"? Or perhaps some kind of puzzling digestive ailment (the Victorians were fond of arsenic)? I know births and deaths and census records are looked up on the site but I dont know how to do it or if indeed I can do it this side of the pond. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1551
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 5:22 pm: | |
'Hi Diana
OK have done a lot of work on Mr D here and can find no record of Mrs D's demise!
Louis I feel was just on.. shall we say a bad night....his domestic situation whatever that was surely has no bearing here!
Where did you get the idea that Mr D done for(!) Mrs D or that there was any prob with their marriage or relationship at all???
Suzi
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 376
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 5:31 pm: | |
Because she apparently had a drinking prob. which would not endear her to her hubby. It was a possible scenario. But thanks for looking. Where did you look? |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1557
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 6:36 pm: | |
Hi Diana
As to Mrs D's 'problem' I'm sure this wasn't an unusual one at the time! Look back at Annie and Polly for example!
Where did I look? probably everywhere....but am sure that Mrs D doesn't figure here. there are no records of her 'demise'!..Am sure that Mr D just accepted Mrs D (with or without her 'problem') as a way of life and no reason to 'do her in'!!!!!!!!
Suzi |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 377
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 7:06 am: | |
Possibly so, but then again, unless the woman has set some kind of record for longevity she must have died by now. There must be a record of her death somewhere. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 4:29 am: | |
Surely the study of the Whitechapel murders must have moved on from this sort of random hypothesising?
if this was April 1, I'd look to see if this was a prank!!
I am appalled that anyone should still even consider plucking a name from the rail and inventing a motive based on absolutely no evidence. Such an approach traduces Diemschutz and the originator.
The East End in 1888 was teeming with life. We know a few names from the police files and newspaper reports. In the 60s, I might have accepted grabbing any name, however unsupported by evidence, and making a case. It's what the hack writers then did. But now -we know so much more about the police investigation, the thoroughness with which they pursued leads - we have names galore with at least some contemporary suspicion linked to them. In the case of Stride, we have at least one (non-Ripper) suspect in her lover Kidney. Why, oh why pick on Diemschutz??
There is absolutely NOTHING in the evidence we have that points a finger at the man - you might as well accuse Matthew Packer, whom we at least know may have misled the authorities.
Thinking along absurd lines takes us nowhere and demeans everyone involved. I know i am new to this site and perhaps IIam speaking out of turn, but what I have seen here has largely impressed me (with the expection of a few obviously puerile inputs I have come across). But this thread shocked me as a total waste of time.
Think for a moment, and on the basis of the case made here against Dienschutz, almost anyone in the East End could have been the killer. For heaven's sake, surely a theory has to start with some "evidence" stronger than this?
My apologies if I have given anyone offence, but I think there is an important point here.
Phil |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1143
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 12:20 pm: | |
Hi Phil,
I agree entirely we are clutching at straws to say the least.
Speculation is a healthy attitude, but it has to warrant some common sense.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1560
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 3:39 pm: | |
Phil
Sometimes the boards need to take a 'breather' and if we chat in and around a minor point for a few lines then so be it.
No harm has been done to anyone and I'm quite sure more 'weighty' problems are always in our minds......for what that's worth.
Suzi |
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 83
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 11:16 pm: | |
Suz,
I have to agree with you. This case can be so circular - and heavy - at times that a little breather (no matter how ridiculous it might seem to some folk) can't do any harm. Unless, of course, our time is wasted by certain haoxers, or attention seekers (not mentioning any names here..). But, I appreciate threads that look at "something different", if for nothing else than a "different way at looking at things".
Phil, I do see where you're coming from.. but if you can be patient with those of us that have been discussing this case, here, for years and years and years.. bear in mind that for some of us, a different tangent - no matter how silly it might seem - tends to lighten the air somewhat. At least for me. (Not that I "buy" into scenarios that don't make sense, you understand - including Cornwell, Lewis Carroll or Maybrick.) But Diana has at least given me a different perspective in her Diemschutz scenario.
No offence taken, and most certainly none intended! Indeed, I look forward to more of your posts!
Bestest,
Lyn
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2367
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 12:57 am: | |
Phil, I just want to say that you are right on the money.
Although no offense intended at all to sweet Diana, I have to agree with Phil here.
Absolutely no evidence or witness reports justifies such a scenario. Nothing really disproves it either, but I complete agree with Phil that no facts whatsoever give hints in this direction.
As Phil says, Kidney is a more likely candidate if we are supposed to theorize -- he had a natural, known connection to the victim, he was at least on some occasion abusive against her and he also appeared with a very strange conduct at the inquest. At least that's a "perspective" that's supported by some of the facts involved.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 7:09 am: | |
I quite understand the need for "relaxation" on a board like this, but it did strike me that the discussion thus far is an almost perfect example of what Philip Sugden refers to (p152 of my working p/back copy). he writes:
"Ludwig's case could well serve as a cautionary tale for intending Ripperologists The capacity of these amateur sleuths to delude themselves and their readers in futile attempts to incriminate men against whom not a jot of respectable evidence exists is apparently infinite..."
HIS words NOT mine!!
But there IS a danger here. The newcomer to the case; the unwary; the less well-informed; even the student of the Whitechapel murders who returns to the case after a break and seeks to bring himself up-to-date (among whom i might number myself!!; can be misled.
There sometimes seems an increasing tendency to take the old (misguided) view that "if it's in print it must be true". We might assume we all know that that is far from a fact!! But the evidence suggests that many do accept what appears in print (or on film) as gospel.
Even in (so far) my short acquaintance with Casebook - of which i have a high regard, I might say - I have noted a number of posts that seem to draw all their information about the case and a royal connection (taken as a given, it seems) from the 1988 Michael caine TV series; and "From Hell"!! On that uncritical basis poor Diemschutz will soon be suspect No 1!!
To give another example, I am unaware of any evidence whatsoever, that Druitt was homosexual. It is an inference (maybe not an unreasonable one, but an inference only, all the same) drawn, in the main, to support certain theories about the murders. yet i see it as a given fact about this unfortunate young man time after time.
Another interes of mine - the Amarna heresy (18th Dynasty Egypt) - is bedevilled by similar assumptions picked up and re-peated until they become accepted, but having not a scintilla of support. Nefertiti's parenthood bing a vase in point.
Maybe I have taken this thread too seriously, and I apologise if I have, or am too fervent in making my point. But I think there is a serious point to be made.
Phil |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 2:31 pm: | |
"Puerile inputs" should not always be disregarded, either. I've found that the people who think they are the more mature sorters of evidence concerning this case are the very ones who throw out the baby with the bathwater. There is a good deal of phony maturity on these message boards, and I have several names I could give, but there is also now and then a kind of fecund playfulness. The usual ticket to acceptance here is a showy pose of mature discretion, but I've found through personal experience beginning in 1996 that this often merely overlays the wildest childishness.
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1564
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 2:06 pm: | |
Well! I think we've all had our say here!!!
The one thing we must surely all agree on is that any minutiae even if it's just a tabloid sort of idea like the marital cicumstances of the Diemschutzs' (sorry Diana!) ..may just set off the odd tangental idea which may spark off something else!! Well of course we all live in hope that's why we're here!!!
Suzi |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 378
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 3:58 pm: | |
Peace. Peace. Peace. Peace. Peace. (I had to have 5 words) |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1260
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 4:54 pm: | |
Ok Diana but on the matter of MJ Druitt being "gay" I for one would doubt that he was but I think its worth exploring whether he may have been.The reason being that Machnaghten and others stated that he was "sexually insane".So what do they mean by this? I think we are mostly agreed that in the case of Aaron Kosminski-the references to his "solitary vices" are to his [alleged]compulsive masturbation.But in the case of MJ Druitt we are less certain what this "sexual Insanity" really refers to.We know he was dismissed from the boys school for something very serious but what was it?After all Boys private /minor public schools were[and may still be]famous for homosexual highjinks.It was probably more popular then than now because today young people are a bit freed up to have opposite or same sex relationships but up until recently not only were the boys themselves in such schools often exploring their sexuality with each other as soon as they reached puberty but there was nearly always the odd schoolmaster who had a predilection for these youths as well-and a blind eye was usually turned to it in most cases.Its true that Oscar Wilde was as a grown man punished severely but then he shouted his love for Lord Alfred Douglas from the rooftops and was extremely provocative and quite insulting to those who didnt agree with him.This wouldnt have suited Victorian Society with its notorious double standards at all.
So what I am getting at is that IF Druitt was gay few would have given a damn about that UNLESS he had acted in a similar way to dear old Oscar and I just dont see him as being like that.So why the Dismissal from the school?
No I myself dont see Druitt as gay---maybe a bit unconsciously so but not overtly.In fact what I see of him is that he may have been a bit asexual-far too interested in cricket-at least when not depressed that is.So to return to Phil"s point about being too ready to accuse people or imply things about them about which we have no proof surely its all part of trying to discover
-as in the case of Druitt-why they were suspected
or indeed why in the case of Diemschutz they were not.
I would have thought that in the case of Diemschutz he was known by lots of people to have been reasonably happily married and to have conducted himself in a reasonably sane and sensible way for the most part.The police must have asked questions of the people at that club and neighbours etc and if there was anything at all suspicious about his behaviour I think it would have come down to us.
Best Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2369
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 5:34 pm: | |
David Radka,
What happened in 1996? 
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1574
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 5:38 pm: | |
Diana
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nats
Gosh thought you were starting a new one off there for a mo!
He he MJD batting for the wrong team 'eh? Doubt that tho although there were as you say those rather cruel accusations...whatever they meant!
I agree the assexual thing does seem to apply him...sad really but thats how he comes over to me too
As to Mr and Mrs D..I agree here too bet they were quite a pair in reality!Your 'reasonably happily married and to have conducted himself in a reasonably sane and sensible way for the most part' made me laugh tho!!!!! Could go for a lot of us 'eh??!!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 5:12 pm: | |
There are MANY reasons why Druitt might have been sacked. Among them embezzlement; theft; not being present to do his duties (ie maybe putting cricket or law first); falling out with the boss; seducing a female member of staff; making a girl pregnant; seeking to blackmail a pupil or their parent.
The school could have wished to avoid scandal on any of these issues and simply dismissed Druitt - the sanction being prosecution.
Of course, sexual insanity probably did mean homosexuality (though not necessarily paedaphilia), but we should not jump to onclusions.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 2:05 pm: | |
I don't know who that was aimed at, Mr Radka. but if it was me, thank you for your expressed wisdom and the benefit of your clearly long experience. (Though I'm not sure what that has to do with anything!!) I shall note it for the future.
Phil |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1262
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 6:14 pm: | |
"there are MANY reasons why Druitt might have been sacked".
Yes indeed.But he was said to have been close to or a friend of the head.Something extraordinary seems to have happened to warrant the dismissal
wouldnt you think?
Quite right Suzi,you would be forgiven for wondering what kind of batting was taking place here! ...hey-maybe that was what happened...Druitt had startled everybody by batting for the wrong side....and it was a way of avoiding calling for the hurry up cart!
Natsx
|
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 141
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 7:51 pm: | |
I swear,people, if I am exposed to any more fecund playfulness around here, I am just going to swoon!
Mags |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 330
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 9:27 pm: | |
Ah well, no one would ever accuse Mr. Radka of "phony maturity."
Don. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1578
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 4:00 am: | |
I am quite naturally 'appalled' at this accusation ref. Mr Radka!...as you would be!
Nats
Thats it!!!! case solved! a mere matter of spending far too long in the pre match 'hospitality' tent....a simple mistake which cost the poor man dear!!!
Mags
Fecund playfullness??...I'll have you know this is 'serious' research!!!
Suzi |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3610
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 6:39 am: | |
It's a bit naughty of me to post this here, as this thread is about Diemschutz, but I agree that Druitt need not have been homosexual. Yes, he taught at a boys' school and yes, he was unmarried. But his life was very full - he was a barrister, a teacher, and a sportsman. As I understand it, high-class late Victorian courtship required quite a lot of tedious hoop-jumping, and Druitt may well have decided that he just couldn't spare the time. For one thing, his cricketing form might have suffered!
On the other hand, though, I feel that whatever caused Druitt's dismissal must have been quite serious. Valentine probably regarded Druitt, with his barrister's profession and his social contacts, as being quite an ornament to his school. I doubt if he'd have sacked him unless he had no other option.
Robert |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 142
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 9:01 am: | |
Hey, Suzi, I don't make this stuff up !
Shall we adjourn to a Druitt thread?
Mags |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 144
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 10:01 am: | |
I've posted a thread called "Why was Druitt sacked". Hope we can continue this discussion over there.
Mags |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1582
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 3:43 pm: | |
Yup Mags ok will check it later! A tad busy here on the Hutch thread! Worry not will be there!
x suzi |
