|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
David Andersen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 59
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 9:28 pm: |       |
If you have ever watched the University boat race between Oxford and Cambridge then you will have seen this sight before. The finishing line is just below the bottom of the page.
Regards
David |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 454
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 10:39 pm: | |
Hi all,
While the "solitary vices" crack is most likely to be a sexual matter (probably homosexuality), "solitary" suggests something else - could Monty have had a drug habit (cocaine)? It might have affected his behavior in his classes - but what about his legal practice?
Could his mother also have had some type of addiction problem? Well this could be stretching a bit.
Jeff |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 472
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 3:38 am: | |
"Solitary vices" is Kosminski, not Druitt, isn't it?
On David's theory, I still don't understand why the Tukes wouldn't have given evidence at Druitt's inquest if this was the case.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on August 27, 2004) |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 229
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 6:01 am: | |
Hi Jeffrey,
Solitary vices, is I beleive, a victorian euphemism for masturbation. Young boys were warned that such things could cause blindness, and of course that it caused hair to grow on the palm of the hands.
Best Regards
John Savage |
David Andersen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 60
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 9:20 pm: | |
The Tukes would want to avoid a scandal. The Manor House was a highly thought of establishement treating, among others, Landseer - Queen Victorias favourite painter, and, Harriet Mordaunt was in their care for about 11 years or so. Doctor Gull, no less, had visited the Manor House, along with others, in order to certify her.
From what we know the whole inquest appears to be full of riddles, perjury and inconsistencies and not as searching as it may be. Given Montys note, and Williams evidence of Mothers insanity the Coroner may have felt that he had heard enough evidence to justify the verdict without calling further evidence.
For coincidence seekers: The inquest was held in the 'Lamb Tap', at that time a public house. It is now a private house, owned by Fullers Brewery, I think. The Sich family, who owned the Lamb Tap married into the Tukes several years after Montys inquest.
Regards
David |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 282
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 10:39 pm: | |
Thanks David,
For the further Chiswick map details.The Tukes Asylum at the Manor does stick out like a sore thumb.
And thanks Chris,
For reminding me of the results of your Hough investigation for Shirley Richards.I notice a church near Church Wharf.I wonder if MJD knew the incumbent?
AN IDEA: Looking at G R Sim's LLOYD'S WEEKLY NEWS
article of 22 September 1907, amongst his seemingly jumbled account of the police Ripper investigations is his insistence (repeated from previous articles) that "Doctor" Montague Druitt had been freed after spending time in an asylum.
The dates for that stay are unspecified.Could it be Montague was an "Outpatient" or even a former
inmate of the Manor House Asylum?
Or might he have been a patient of Tukes' in his City Rooms, who now sought his counsel in challenging times?
As for the jumbled and vague details of Montague Druitt's Inquest. It makes it hard to nail down solid facts. Just where was MJD living after being dismissed from Valentine's School? If it was for a "serious" matter, one assumes he would not be allowed near the school again.
He would have had to find alternative accommodation pronto. Sure, he could have bunked in his chambers for a night or two, particularly if the Legal Calendar Year for the Courts was nearly over: - fewer lawyers around 9 KBW...
Perhaps he had found temporary digs at the home of a pal, or even new permanent accommodation, at an address in Chiswick?
But all this is PERHAPS-A-CISING...
I just get back to the fact Dr Diplock of the MJD Inquest had a connection with the local LOCK Hospital. Where was the Lock? Where was the Hospital? You see, I have read elsewhere, Coroner's records of Inquests were stored at the hospital they operated from.
No-one seems to be able to provide me with information about this Lock Hospital.Any clues? |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 478
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 3:38 am: | |
I do remember that the records of the Manor House Asylum are extant, and have been seen by at least one Ripper researcher (Howells and Skinner?).
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2883
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 4:27 am: | |
Hi John
Sorry my pasting is a bit dodgy.
Details: London Lock Hospital and Home, London : details
Go to: Name | Administration | Status/Type | Other info | Records
Name
Previous name(s) London Lock Hospital and Asylum
Address 91 Harrow and Dean Street Soho London W9
Previous location Grosvenor Place, London (1746 - 1841)
Harrow Road location was from 1842, and Dean Street from 1862.
Foundation Year 1746
Closed Yes
Closure year 1948
Top of page
Administrative authorities : Administrative authorities
Regional Hospital Board (1948-74) Not Applicable
Hospital Management Committee (1948-74) Not Applicable
Regional Health Authority (1974-82) Not Applicable
Regional Health Authority (1982- ) Not Applicable
District Health Authority (1974-82) Not Applicable
District Health Authority (1982- ) Not Applicable
County (before 1974) Middlesex
County (1974-1996) Not Applicable
County (after 1996) Not applicable
Top of page
Status : Status
Pre 1948 OTHER: Charity.
Post 1948
Type : Type
Pre 1948 OTHER: Venereal disease.
Post 1948
Top of page
Other information
Harrow Road site was the main hospital after the move from Grosvenor Place. Later became the female branch of the hospital and was referred to variously as a 'Rescue Home' and 'Asylum'. Dean Street site was for male, and out-patients.
Top of page
Records can be found at:
Royal College of Surgeons of England
Record type Date range
Administrative 1746 - 1948
General 1746 - 1948
Finance 1767 - 1948
Admission & Discharge -
Staff -
Ephemera 1751 - 1751
Pictorial 1746 - 1851
Private Papers -
Clinical & Patients 1849 - 1851
Finding aids
Finding aids Brief Guide(BG)
Location of finding aids At Repository(AR), Wellcome Library (WIHM)
Details
Notes
Dermatological Drawings of Patients 1849 - 1851 (AddMS201)
Top of page
London Metropolitan Archives
Record type Date range
Administrative 1896 - 1947
General 1896 - 1947
Finding aids
Finding aids Brief Guide(BG)
Location of finding aids At Repository(AR), Wellcome Library (WIHM)
Details Brief Guide: Hospital and Charity Annual Reports.
Notes
Annual Reports - Annual Reports Collection SC/PPS/093/34,83
Top of page
Terms of use | Copyright | Privacy | Top of page
The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU email: enquiry@nationalarchives.gov.uk tel: +44 (0) 20 8876 3444
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2884
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 5:00 am: | |
I'm not convinced that Monty couldn't have still been living at Blackheath. Would they have evicted him, bag and baggage, forthwith? If the serious trouble was of a sexual nature, yes. But if, say, he'd punched another master, wouldn't they have given him a few days to find other accommodation?
Still, if Druitt was indeed staying at the asylum, either as a voluntary patient or as a constant visitor, the possibility arises that the asylum staff were the first to identify Druitt. For surely, in the case of a suicide so close to an asylum, one of the very first things the police would have done would have been to inquire there about missing persons?
But then, if the asylum records have been searched, obviously no trace of such an inquiry has survived.
Robert |
David Andersen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 61
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 4:58 pm: | |
Some of the Manor House asylum records do exist. I do have Anne Druitts case notes from the Manor House. I am bound, by contract, at the present from divulging the contents. However I will respond to any private email enquiry. I am not being difficult but my own book is currently with an agent.
The aspect which most intersted me, regarding the Manor House, is - why, of the many establishments choose that particular asylum for Anne Druitt. It was only a couple of hundred yards from the spot where Montys body had been found only 18 months earlier. Either it was her wish to be close to The spot, or, great insensitivity on the part of William Druitt, who organised Annes move to Chiswick - or, if the Tukes were covering up for Monty, any 'ramblings' would not give the game away.
Interestingly enough, although Anne Druitts notes record all of the other suicide, and attempted suicides of her family, as relevant to her condition, not one single mention is made of her own sons suicide 18 months earlier and pratically on the doorstep of the Manor House Asylum.
It is an eloquent omission.
Regards
David |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2898
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 6:11 pm: | |
Best of luck with it, David. It's nice to have a Druitt book on the way.
Yes, it is an eloquent omission - Monty's suicide would have been relevant to her condition genetically, and it would have contributed to her depression - unless they simply didn't tell her about it.
If she was in any way still aware of her surroundings, and who she was, then she'd have been asking to see him. The family would have had to invent a reason for his absence. Could this be the origin of the "gone abroad" story?
Robert |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 283
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 7:07 am: | |
Hello Robert,
Thank you very much for providing National Archives' details of their holdings on Lock Hospital (which Dr Diplock, who conducted MJD's Inquest,was connected with ).-See A to Z.
Dean Street? Venereal Disease? Soho District?
Dr Diplock needs further research.The A to Z says he was also Surgeon to the London Friendly Institution.
I have pointed out previously, not only was Dr Diplock a long serving and experienced medical man who died four years later..
But his unusual middle name " Bramah " has been perpetuated as the forename of a later London medical man named Diplock.
Can anyone translate the National Archives entry above for me, please?
Does it indicate records exist for the Hospital for 1888? I dont think so.
Hello David,
Congratulations on your contract for a book on Anne Druitt and the Manor House Asylum.
I think the discovery, and your permitted access to Anne Druitt's Patient Notes, will be one step forward in the very difficult quest to find out more about Montague and his family.
It would be important to learn if Anne Druitt carried a Diabetes strain which passed down through the Druitt family.Were her symptoms consistent with undiagnosed and untreated Diabetes?
Dr Lionel Druitt certainly suffered from Diabetes.
As did Montague Druitt's military brother, Captain Edward Druitt's children.
It appears as if David Andersen's conscientious
searching has not found evidence of MJD having any recorded links with the Manor House Asylum.
The fact MJDs suicide is not mentioned in clinical examination notes of his own mother's illness, suggests William Harvey Druitt may have once again, acted as family censor.
Given his close professional and family links with the Christchurch Druitts -the family of his uncle, James Druitt-suggests he would have had a
confident amongst that group. After all James' sons were all Court officials, high in the local Masonic lodges, and qualified legal people.
I look forward to your book with interest David. Well done. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2902
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 8:50 am: | |
Hi John
I don't know whether this will lead anywhere :
London Metropolitan Archives: Family Welfare Association (formerly the Charity Organisation Society)
The contents of this catalogue are the copyright of London Metropolitan Archives.
Rights in the Access to Archives database are the property of the Crown, © 2001-2004.
To find out more about the archives described below, contact London Metropolitan Archives
FAMILY WELFARE ASSOCIATION (FORMERLY CHARITY ORGANISATION SOCIETY)
Catalogue Ref. A/FWA
Creator(s):
Charity Organisation Society, 1896-1946
Family Welfare Association, 1946
[Access Conditions]
All records of the F.W.A. which are less than 60 years old, with the exception of annual reports and other publications, are closed to public consultation unless written permission for access is obtained from the Director of the Family Welfare Association.
CENTRAL OFFICE
ENQUIRY DEPARTMENT - ref. A/FWA/C/D
FILES ON CHARITIES
FILE - London Lock Hospital and Asylum, (case 3002 or 1/1876). Vol. 1: correspondence and papers - ref. A/FWA/C/D/78/001 - date: 1876-1916
[from Scope and Content] Male Hospital and Outpatient Department: 91 Dean Street, Soho; Female Hospital and Asylum; Westbourne Green, Harrow Road
Robert |
J. Whyman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 4:09 am: | |
David,
Have you read Stanwell Heard's excellent article about Valentine's School (I believe its avaliable in the dissertations section of the casebook)? In that it states that George Valentine had ceased to be in residence at the school from 1886, and in any case from what I've heard the letter hinted at suicide but didn't have to be interpreted as such.
I agree with Chris Philips; the gone abroad quote does come from the cricket club (and can be seen in the Heard article).
Out of curiosity; in most sources I've seen Ann Druitt's name spelt thusly or is the Ann/Anne spelling interchangable?
J. |
J. Whyman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 5:21 pm: | |
I believe that at the inquest into Montague Druitt's death his brother William Harvey Druitt stated (according to the 'Acton, Chiswick, and Turnham Green Gazette') that "[He] heard from a friend on the 11th of December that deceased had not been heard of at his chambers for more than a week." To me this would imply that the person who told William that his brother was missing was a fellow barrister. Surely if Montague had disspeared from Manor House the Tukes would have felt obliged to inform his relatives as soon as he dissapeared?
Has anyone done any serious research into the relationship between Monty and his elder brother William? I've heard some speculation that at the inquest William lied when he claimed that he had not seen his brother since the end of October due to Monty's last court case being set in Christchuch (which was most likely handled by the Druitt firm of solicitors). However, most people don't realise that there were two firms of Druitt Solicitors: one under Montague and William's uncle James Druitt and cousin Robert Druitt jr. in Christchurch and another under their cousin James Druitt jr. and William Harvey Druitt in Bournemouth. Also Monty (according to Cricket records) appears to have spent rather a lot of the summer of 1888 in Bournemouth and the surrounding area so I suppose its safe to assume they were on good terms with each other.
Also, if anyone's interested http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/3_06.htm#ManorHouse offers some background into the history of Manor House Asylum as does http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/3_06.htm#BrookeHouse on the history of Brooke House. |
Robert Louis Ebert
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 11:18 pm: | |
John,
According to the Dickens's Dictionary of London (1888), the Lock Hospital is a female hospital and asylum located in Westbourne Gn. Harrow. The male hospital and outpatient department was a 91 Dean Street, Soho. Apparently some sort of industrial training was offered. The entry shows a lot of the doctors connected with the establishment. Dr. Diplock is not listed, but that is not conclusive. I hope this is helpful.
-Robert Ebert |
Vincent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 9:33 am: | |
Andrew Spallek, thanks for the correction.
Wasn't one of the reasons Kosminski got into trouble his habit of indulging in his "solitary vices" in public places, like on the street? Perhaps I've got him mixed up with someone else.
Somehow I think Monty's vices were a little bit different.
Regards, Vincent
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 575
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 11:29 am: | |
David Anderson,
Perhaps I've missed something in the discussion. Did you say that Druitt was seen alive on (December) 3rd?
Regarding the "suicide note" I think we need to remember several things. (1) It's not really a suicide note at all, strictly speaking. It doesn't say "I'm going to kill myself" it says "the best thing is for me to die." It seems a bit of an odd way to describe suicide. (2) THe note is not quoted verbatim, but it is only reported that the contents were "to this effect...." Unfortunately, we do not have the exact text. (3) While a note or letter of some sort was apparently produced by Druitt's brother, we have no way of knowing whether it was genuine or fabricated.
Regarding the wording "since Friday," I agree that it is a peculiar way of referring to the day before if the note were written on Saturday. Two things, however: (1) We don't know for sure whether the Friday being referred to was November 30 or perhaps a previous Friday. (Though I'll admit that Nov. 30 is the most likely). (2) The note may have been written with the anticipation of not being found for several days. Thus "yesterday" as a way of referring to November 30 might be seen as inaccurate by the author.
As to Druitt's dwelling place at the time and where the note was found, I think the most natural way of understanding the evidence is that he was still residing at Valentine's since William's testimony was that he went to Blackheath to make inquiries. Chances are that Druitt was given at least a few days to vacate his quarters there.
Vincent,
Yes, that is correct about Kosminski.
Andy S.
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 398
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 1:22 pm: | |
Hi, Andy
I think the phrase "the best thing is for me to die" says it all. I've always been struck by the parallels between Druitt and Virginia Woolf's suicides (mental illness, suicide by drowning, rocks in pocket). Here's the text of one of the notes Woolf left:
Dearest,
I feel certain that I am going mad again: I feel we cant go through another of those terrible times. And I shant recover this time. I begin
to hear voices, and cant concentrate. So I am doing what seems the best thing to do. You have given me the greatest possible happiness.
You have been in every way all that anyone could be. I dont think two people could have been happier till this terrible disease came. I cant
fight it any longer, I know that I am spoiling your life, that without me you could work. And you will I know. You see I cant even write this
properly. I cant read. What I want to say is that I owe all the happiness of my life to you. You have been entirely patient with me and incredibly good. I want to say that - everybody knows it. If anybody could have saved me it would have been you. Everything has gone from me but the certainty of your goodness. I cant go on spoiling your life any longer.
I dont think two people could have been happier than we have been.
V.
Here's the final version (I suppose Woolf, the writer, edited herself even to the end):
Dearest,
I want to tell you that you have given me complete happiness. No one could have done more than you have done. Please believe that.
But I know that I shall never get over this: and I am wasting your life. It is this madness. Nothing anyone says can persuade me. You can
work, and you will be much better without me. You see I cant write this even, which shows I am right. All I want to say is that until this disease came on we were perfectly happy. It was all due to you.
No one could have been so good as you have been, from the very first day till now. Everyone knows that.
V
Woolf never writes "I'm going to throw myself in the river" either, and nobody suggests Leonard Woolf killed his wife or that these aren't suicide notes.
Cheers,
Dave |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 577
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 2:37 pm: | |
Dave,
Your point is well taken. Still, I would point out some differences between the Woolf and Druitt letters. In her earlier draft, Woolf clearly speaks about "doing what seems best." She is actively speaking about taking some action, i.e. taking her own life. In the final draft she has dropped this language, but she still speaks of the recipient "being much better without me," which implies her action of committing suicide in a way that is almost active in nature -- as if it is certain that she will soon be removed from him. In Druitt's letter (or at least in the "gist" that we have preserved for us) the strongest thing he says is that he feels that his death is the best thing, i.e. completely passive. There is really no assumption in Druitt's letter that he is going to die soon. In all likelihood this is probably a reference to suicide, but stops short of speaking in active terms. It's hard for me to express this feeling in words, but it just seems to me to stop short of being a true suicide note and settles for being a note of despondency. That's just subjective on my part.
But we do need to remember that the fact that William produced a piece of paper that purported to be a letter from Montague does not prove that it is genuine. In my view, we must regard this letter very cautiously.
Andy S. |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 399
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 3:23 pm: | |
Fair enough, Andy, although I disagree  I'll admit that one thing I've never seen is the full press account of Druitt's inquest. All I've seen is the summarization of William Druitt's testimony that appears in Phil Sugden's book. Is that all there is, or is there more?
Cheers,
Dave |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 578
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 3:36 pm: | |
David,
The newspaper account is all there is.  . The inquest transcript has been lost. William produced a letter which he purported to be from his brother, Montague. We should note two possibilities: (1) William could have written the letter himself for any of a number of unknown reasons. (2) Someone else could have written and planted it, although one would suppose that William would recognize his brother's handwriting (assuming it was handwritten). Furthermore, the reporter did not attempt to quote the letter exactly. He only said that the letter was "to this effect..." and then proceeded to give the wording we are familiar with.
I admit that my speculations concerning the nature of this letter are subjective. I may well be wrong. There may be thousands of examples of similar suicide letters! Still, something doesn't seem quite right.
Andy S. |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 400
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 3:52 pm: | |
Hi, Andy
Right, we don't have the actual inquest report, but what about the rest of that newspaper account of the inquest that appears in the Acton, etc. Gazette? It seems that only the one section summarizing William Druitt's testimony is being referenced. Perhaps the whole thing has been reproduced somewhere? In the case of the JtR victim inquests, there are similar summaries, but then the newspapers go on to transcribe the testimony in fuller detail. I don't know if that's the case here.
Cheers,
Dave |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 65
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 4:47 pm: | |
Andrew-
Just a thought... depression ran in Druitt's family and this note of passivity that you (rightly) detect could very well be a manifestation of that disease.
Mags |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 284
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 8:23 am: | |
Evening All,
I am enjoying these forensic discussions of the press account of the suicide note allegedly left by M J Druitt.
Whilst I say "allegedly" I cannot see much reason to suspect the hand of any other in his death.
Firstly, there is only one known example of MJDs handwriting I know, which has survived (unless Winchester School holds any).
This is in the "Druitt papers" in the West Sussex Records Office. Chris Phillips kindly pointed me towards it.
This writing is a letter from MJD during his Oxford days to his illustrious Uncle, Robert Druitt, the medical editor and surgeon.
Montague describes the visit of a female sibling of Robert's family to stay with MJDs family.MJD
seems to have attempted to entertain this young (teenage?)niece by setting her a test in Latin!
In his letter he summarises the results.Assessing the girl's capability.The letter ends with another Dorset Druitt chiding MJD and saying THEY were responsible for entertaining the girl and not he.Montague says to his uncle,why not pop up to Oxford to visit me?
The reason I have described the contents of the letter is to say (from this very brief look at Montague's life)he appears to be a rather stuffy sort of bloke. Pedantic?
This makes me think the wording in his suicide note (and bear in mind his legal training traded on weasel words)would have been punctiliously expressed.
It is hard to assess MJDs or his brother's motives based upon so little data as provided by newspaper accounts.
Perhaps a descendant of Dr Diplock might still have his notes? |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 285
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 8:31 am: | |
I meant to also say thank you to Robert Charles for the details of the Charity Organisation Society.
And to Robert Louis for looking up the Dickens London Encyclopaedia for further details of the Lock Hospital.
I think this might provide trails for some Londoner Ripper-Sleuths to chase up.
And can anyone find Dr Diplocks family gathered around the family hearth on Census Day 1891?Please |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2914
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 9:26 am: | |
Hi John
It was 30, High Rd, 17 Williams Terrace, Mornington House, Chiswick..
Thomas B Diplock, 61, Doctor of Medicine Surgeon Coroner, born Hastings, Sussex
Eleanor H Diplock, wife, 57, born London, St Georges
Bramah J Diplock, son, married, 34, granite stone merchant and quarry (illeg) born Middlesex, Chelsea
Alice Saunders, servant, single, 26, cook domestic, born Bucks
Rose Saunders, servant, single, 20, house and parlourmaid domestic born Bucks
There was a photo studio at 26 High Rd.
Robert
|
David Andersen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 62
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 10:01 pm: | |
In 1970, whilst researching for Farsons book, I discovered some papers signed by Montague. They are his enrolment papers for the Inner Temple. It was a casual enqiry and the receptionist - at the treasury building, in the Inner Temple, produced them within ten minutes and kindly photocopied them for me. Also Keith Skinner has shown me one of Montagues diaries.
As far as I am aware the Acton, Turnham Green Gazette report is the only press report giving any reference to the actual proceedings.
The whole inquest has the feel of having been a quiet and discreet affair. The main room in the Lamb Tap was, and is, very small. I doubt if any public were present. The inquest was convened, dealt with, and concluded all within 48 hours of the discovery of Montys body.
Regards
David |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 230
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 5:04 am: | |
Hi David,
A facinating post, I was interested to note that Keith Skinner has diaries written by Montague, as we have all speculated about his state of mind it would be most interesting to know what was written in these diaries?
Best Regards
John Savage |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 286
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 6:06 am: | |
Thanks very much Robert,
For the prompt posting of the Diplock household on Census day 1891.I always thought Dr Diplock had a large family.And I think I did find another Dr Diplock with that distinctive middle name.
Perhaps by 1891 all of his children were grown up and residing elsewhere.
Hello David,
I realised some time ago that you must have been the David Anderson(?)/Andersen who discovered several items revealed in Dan Farson's book.
Thanks for reminding me that you had unearthed Montague Druitt's Admission Application form at the Inner Temple.That means there are several examples of MJDs handwriting floating around.
As to the fact Keith Skinner, a rather capable researcher like yourself,is hanging onto details of an MJD diary,I can only assume whatever Keith discovered in that diary did not help the case he was advancing in his joint Howells & Skinner book
on JTR.
Keith Skinner has been a prolific researcher, but definitely did not use quite a lot of information in his "Ripper Legacy".And because he has moved on to researcher other crimes and other times, a lot of potentially useful material is lying idle in his garage or attic, gathering dust.
Can someone relay a message to Keith that we would like him to pass on his valuable unused MJD material to a trusted Ripperologist of his choice so that others can carry his earlier, and very valuable efforts further?
I agree David, that the MJD Inquest appears to have been undertaken hastily. Echoing Macnaghten's words about another aspect,that 'to do so would only cause pain to his family".
Please note that somewhere at that Inquest, the local policeman did say he thought Montague Druitt was "a stranger to the district". |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2922
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 7:05 am: | |
John, I've checked the 1871 census, and Dr Diplock did indeed have six children - Frank, Brahah, Leonard, Arthur, Esther and Maud.
Robert |
David Andersen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 63
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 3:19 pm: | |
Ok I shall try to address some of the above:
Robert: Monty was sacked on Friday 30th Nov. His journey, to Hammersmith, was made the next day. There may have been 'things' left, of his, at Blackheath, but,given the circumstances it is likely that his desk was cleared. If his note was found at Blackheath, by whoever searched, on behalf of William, we are left with the vexed question of the return ticket. If, however the note was found at the asylum it answers not only that question but also the question as to how his 'badly decomposed body' was so quickly identified. If he had stayed at the asylum for a day or three and then went missing it is likely that the local police would have been made aware - thus quickly identifying a 'patient' from the nearby asylum.
J. Whyman: It may not have been anyone connected with Montys chambers who gave this information to William. If Monty had checked in at the Manor House Asylum and then gone missing it is possible that they could have made the inquiry at the Temple.
John Ruffels: Thank you John for your comments re: the Book. It is called 'Blood Harvest'
As far as Mrs Druitts diabetes is concerned -
Doctor Gasquet wrote to Doctor Tuke, June 1890,
'.. and occasional traces of albumen.' I dont know what papers Keith has. He showed me only one I shall try to contact him to see if he has anything else.
Andrew Spallek: The suggestion, that Monty was last seen alive on the 3rd December, is from Tom Cullens 'Autumn of Terror' I am not sure what Toms source was but I shall look further into this. The reports suggest that a search was made, though not necessarily by William, 'at the place where he (monty)resided.This could just as easily have been referring to wherever Monty had spent his last few days.
Regards
David |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2961
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 4:05 pm: | |
Hi David
I must say, the wording of the "Acton, Chiswick and Turnham Green Gazette" report does suggest you may be right about Monty's not living at the school at the time - in the space of three lines the report goes from the "serious trouble" to the "place where he resided." As the school had been mentioned just two lines before, it would have been more natural to say "at the school" rather than "at the place where he resided."
Robert |
David Andersen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 64
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 4:47 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Yes that is exactly right.
Another report - 'The Southern Guardian' Jan 5.89
says 'The deceased left a letter, addressed to Mr Valentine, of the school, in which he alluded to suicide.' The letter, to Valentine, evidently was not left at the school, or, if it was he did not receive it, since Valentine was under the impression that Monty had gone abroad.
Regards
David |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 123
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 5:50 pm: | |
I always wondered why Monty was found with no keys on his person , they were not listed among his personal effects yet he must have needed them to lock his room at Kings Bench Walk.
Theres more to this than meets the eye... |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 232
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 7:10 pm: | |
Hi David,
You comment that Montague's body was "quickly identified".
According to the Southern Guardian article a cheque for £50 was found on the body, I think this would have been the most obvious way for him to have been identified, his name most probably being written on the cheque, which wouuld also have been traceable to the person who wrote it.
Best Regards
John Savage |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 125
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 8:47 pm: | |
David , I sent you a private message , maybe it will be of some help !
Simon |
David Andersen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 65
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 9:40 pm: | |
Thank-you Simon.
Yes John Savage.However, there are two problems with the cheque. 1. What condition would any papers be in after three weeks immersion in water. Given that they may have survived there is also 2.P.C. Moulsoms evidence that 'no papers, of any kind were found on the body.'
Regards
David |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 233
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 7:25 am: | |
Hi David,
The question of what condition the cheque would have been in after immersion in water for three weeks is something we can only guess at. However we do know the name of the issueing bank (London and Provincial) and the amount(£50). Now the amount would almost certainly have been written in pen and ink, and if this was legible so perhaps would be the name of the payee?
Also it is clear that the return ticket to Hammersmith survived in a legible condition (including date) and also Montagues season pass for Blackheath - London. It also occurs to me that the season ticket would quite likely bear the name of the holder, and I have e mailed the National Railway Museum to see if they can confirm this.
Therefore it seems to me that from the evidence available we can safely presume these items would have been of assistance to identify the body.
Best Regards
John Savage |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 479
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 8:00 am: | |
The letter, to Valentine, evidently was not left at the school, or, if it was he did not receive it, since Valentine was under the impression that Monty had gone abroad.
I queried this before, and J. Whyman confirmed my impression that "gone abroad" came from the cricket club minutes, not from Valentine.
But of course, it must be the case that Valentine didn't receive a suicide note immediately, otherwise he would have contacted the family.
However, I'm not convinced there were really two different suicide notes (only one being referred to in any given report of the inquest), as opposed to one note, left at the school, and reported in two garbled ways.
Chris Phillips
|
David Andersen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 66
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 3:19 pm: | |
Yes John I quite agree that any papers could easily identify the body. However the policeman who brought Montys body ashore, and searched his pockets, claimed at the inquest, that 'No papers of any kind were found on the body' If the policeman was telling the truth then we must begin to consider that the papers were found elsewhere - possibly at the Asylum 200 yards away.
Chris Phillips - Yes Chris the comments do come from the minutes of a meeting at which Valentine was present. My understanding is that it was Valentine who made the comments which were, of course, minuted.
Regards
David |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 480
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 4:31 pm: | |
David
Thank you for that further information.
If the minutes attribute the comment about Druitt having gone abroad to Valentine, that's an important fact that I haven't seen stated elsewhere. That was on 31st December, according to Heard's dissertation, the same day that Druitt's body was found, and nearly 3 weeks after Druitt's brother heard he was missing.
I'm puzzled by your interpretation of the inquest evidence about the absence of papers. The report printed by Howells and Skinner (from the Acton etc Gazette) has PC Moulson giving evidence that he found money, cheques, railway tickets etc on the body, and then adds "There were no papers or letters of any kind." Doesn't that just mean that "papers" was being used in a sense that excluded cheques and railway tickets?
Chris Phillips
|
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 234
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 3:26 pm: | |
Hi All,
I contacted the National Raiway Museum at York to ask if Monty's name would have been on his season ticket. They were unable to say for definite as they do not posses any season passes for the South Eastern Railway for 1888. However they did have one for 1897, which has the holders name written on it. Below (hopefully) is a copy of the picture they sent me.
Hope this is of interest
John Savage |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 235
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 5:04 pm: | |
Hi David,
I must say that Iam enclined to agree with Chris Phillips above, however in the newspaper report PC Moulson does seem to contradict himself, perhaps he ment to say " There were no }other papers or letters of any kind". This would certainly have made more sense; and then agian some authors, I beleive, have criticised this newspaper report as being shoddy journalism, and perhaps the work of a juniour journalist.
Also according to the report in the Tames Valley Times "On Monday the body of a gentleman was found by Henry Winslade, waterman, in the Thames, off Thorneycroft's Wharf, and has since been identified by a season ticket and certain papers".
In my opinion, William Druit having been notified earlier that his brother had gone missing would very likely have informed the police, who would have put Monty on a missing persons list, this would account for t}he very short time between the finding of the body and the holding of the inquest.
Best Regards
John Savage |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 580
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 11:55 am: | |
Some thoughts:
I would be dubious of accepting Cullen's notion that Druitt was alive on Dec. 3. This is probably an (erroneous) assumption based upon the death date on his tombstone of 4 Dec. I believe it is fairly certain the Druitt died on Saturday 1 Dec or in the very early hours of 2 Dec -- this primarily from the date on the railway ticket.
The next question is where was the "suicide note" found. The newspaper account says it was found in a search of "where he (Druitt) resided." The word "resided" most likely indicates more than a temporary dwelling. The wording that William "had" Monty residence searched rather than searching it himself probably indicates that this residence was some sort of institution which granted only guarded access rather than a room in a private home, etc. This "institution" could conceivably be the school, a hotel, or an asylum.
Now put together the pieces of Druitt's last week of life. The newspaper account says that Monty got into serious trouble and was sacked on "December 30." Of course, this date is impossible. Surely this must be an error for Friday "November 30", which tends to be corroborated by the note's reference, "since Friday" (i.e., something drastic and devastating happened on Friday). Presumably, Druitt would have been given at least a few days to remove his belongings from the school. Therefore, the place where he last "resided" was Valentine's school whether or not he actually spent the night before his death there. This all fits nicely. Now on about 11 or 12 December, William shows up at Valentine's, enquiring about his brother. Since Monty has "skipped out" leaving his belongings, which may have included some school property or documents such as grades or even potentially scandalous material, Mr. Valentine is reluctant to have William go through the possessions personally or unsupervised. So William must "have" Monty's belongs searched rather than doing so personally. I'm not saying it had to be that way, but that to me is the plainest reading of the matter.
I, too, have doubts that a letter to Mr. Valentine ever existed. If it did, it is clear that Valentine never received it. It may have been left among Monty's belongings with the intention of being found by Valentine -- who never bothered to search them.
Concerning the term "papers", which were not found on Druitt. I think this is a general term referring to miscellaneous documents -- not railway tickets, cheques, or letters. I also think it quite possible that such items as the aforementioned could be legible after a month underwater. Legible documents have been found among the Titanic wreckage as well as on other shipwrecks. What I would love to know is the date on the cheques. I find it astounding that this was not mentioned! Perhaps someone someday will find the old legers from Valentine's school, but I'm not holding my breath. If they were written on 30 November my reconstruction of the events would be confirmed. Since they were not cashed, I think that's a pretty good bet.
Andy S.
|
David Andersen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 67
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 12:11 pm: | |
I have tried to take a slightly lateral view of Montys involvement and his last days. It is, of course, perfectly feasible that (a) The inquest was shoddy and unsearching, (b)William forgot about his other relatives, (c)PC.Moulsom meant to say something else, etc. The contributions above do demonstrate that there are some very good reasons as to why these events might have occurred.
However, the haste of the inquest with its minimal reporting, Williams perjury,the lack of any information as to where the papers (Montys note etc) were found and the whole problem of how, and where,where Monty spent his time after arriving at Hammersmith are also perfectly consistent with the possibilities I have proposed.
We must also consider that (rightly or wrongly) Montys relatives, and friends, certainly considered Monty to have been JTR and would have been keen to conceal their suspicions. It may be, therefore, that what we see are not mistakes or laxadasial reporting but simply the residue of a cover-up. Monty would not have had to be JTR for this to happen, but the belief, by some, that he was would be enough. We can never convict Monty since we are told that all of the evidence, against him was destroyed (MacNachten).
Consider this scenario:
Monty is sacked from the school. He leaves the school the next morning and travels to Hammersmith. He visits his old Oxford cricketing chums - the Tukes, at their asylum in Chiswick. Sometime over that weekend they learn that he is JTR. Monty writes his letter then takes a 4minute walk down to the river and wades out. The Tukes alert the police and the family. Montys body eventually rises and, since he is already being looked for, is quickly identified. The inquest is a brief formality and Montys body is transported down to Wimborne to be buried in a grave which cost 13 times more to prepare than the average.
18 months later Montys Mum Ann is sent to the Tukes asylum at the instigation of William Druitt - a spot just a couple of hundred yards from where her son killed himself. No mention of Monty is made upon her case history prepared by the Tukes though other suicidal family members are noted.
Monty might not have been Jack the Ripper but his friends (possibly the Tukes) and his family certainly believed he was.
Regards
David |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 151
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 1:54 pm: | |
I'm going to play Devils Advocate for a minute here and make an assertion : Druitt was not dismissed from the school on 30th November 1888.
Lets look at what happened :
William Druitt hears that Druitt has not been seen for more than a week at his ( legal ) chambers on Tuesday 11th December 1888.
William Druitt goes to London - " Witness then went to London to make inquiries and at Blackheath he found that deceased had got into serious trouble at the school and had been dismissed. That was on the 30th of December. " ( Sugden p.382 )
My assertion is that the date of 30th December is not erroneous , and it refers to the day that William went to Blackheath ( not to London which may have been a day or two earlier ).
Thus Druitt may well have been dismissed at any time between 30th November and 30th December , and if it was a later date then the ' serious trouble ' that he might have been in may simply have been going absent without leave.
The Turnham Green Gazette also mentions ' Witness [William] had deceased's things searched where he resided and founded a paper addressed to him ' - this makes it clear that (i) Druitt left his things at 9 Eliot Place (ii) Druitt didn't take any of his things with him if he had planned on going somewhere and (iii) the suicide note was found at Blackheath not at the legal chambers at Kings Bench Walk. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2986
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 2:26 pm: | |
Just on the brevity of the inquest, according to an article in "Edwardian London, Vol 2" coroners on occasion got through 19 inquests in one day!
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2987
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 3:07 pm: | |
Also this from the Victorian Dictionary :
THE JUROR.-I am a ship's rat-catcher. I ought to have been at the docks this morning to get my account signed, and now I shall have to wait eight months for my money. The ship sailed at ten o'clock.
[-68-] THE CORONER.-Why did you not go before you came here?
THE JUROR.-How could I get back here by a quarter to eleven from the Royal Albert Docks? Gentlemen won't get up for me at six o'clock in the morning.
THE CORONER.-I often get up at six o'clock.
THE JUROR.-Superintendents of ships don't get up at six o'clock, and I don't believe you do.
THE CORONER (sarcastically)..-Thank you! I have already held four inquests before coming here.
THE JUROR.-Yes, and you get paid for it!
Robert
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 582
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 11:50 pm: | |
Simon,
As much as I would like to believe the date of Dec. 30 to be correct, it is inconceivable to me that Williams would wait more than two weeks (from Dec. 11 to Dec. 30 -- or even Dec. 28 or 29) after being informed that his brother is missing to make inquiries at his places of employment/residence. I think it must be a mistake for November 30.
Andy S. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
