|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 154
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 7:52 am: |       |
Andrew , I think its entirely possible because it was the Christmas season , with all the duties that that might entail for William.
Plus he wasn't his brother's keeper. Just because he heard Monty hadn't been seen for a week didn't necessarily mean that Monty had been murdered , he may well have gone on holiday as Mr Valentine thought.
When there was no news of Montague over the Christmas period however , and he did not contact home or visit , then William must have been a bit more worried and thats when he probably went to check things out.
Remember , the date we have is December 30th and if its feasible that that date is correct then we should assume it is correct - I think its perfectly possible. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 583
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 2:48 pm: | |
Simon,
I agree with your last sentence and that's why I stated that I wish I could accept the date of Dec. 30 as correct. We always give much greater weight to the actual reading, unless there is overwhelming evidence that it is in error. However, I do not believe Dec. 30 is feasible.
The wording we have from the inquest coverage states that William was contacted by Monty's friends and told that Monty had not been seen at his chambers for more than a week. This implies that he was expected at his chambers from time to time in early December and did not show up. There is a definite hint of concern being expressed here. Busy season or no, it is inconceivable to me that William would allow three weeks to pass before taking the first steps to locate his brother. Even if William inexplicably waited for Christmas to see if his brother would turn up for the festivities, would he not then make his enquiries on Dec. 26 or 27, rather than nearly a week after a Christmas without Monty?
Add to this Monty's growing mental/emotional distress and I think it is just nearly impossible that December 30 could be the correct date. November 30, on the other hand, makes perfect sense. It is not a correction I make lightly, but one that I believe is necessary.
Andy S. |
David Andersen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 68
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 4:45 pm: | |
Montague appears not to have attended Lord Wimbornes Ball, to which both he and his Mother had been invited, and which was held on Thursday the 20th December. It is quite likely therefore that William, at that point, might have instituted a search for him.
Is it not also possible that, given we are told that Montys family and friends suspected him of being JTR, that the real purpose of Williams search was to find, and possibly destroy, any incriminating evidence?
Regards
David |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 155
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 6:11 pm: | |
David , its possible that William attempted to hide any incriminating evidence but we don't know that he found any or ( if there were any ) when he found it.
If Monty had gone ' abroad ' then it would have been wise for William to have allowed a couple of weeks for him to return , remember we are talking about an adult man here and not a child. As I said , William was not his brother's keeper , in fact they may not even have been very close as William said at the inquest that Monty had only stayed a night with him in October.
I think we all agree that William was contacted around the 11th by letter from someone who lived at Kings Bench Walk , saying Montague hadn't been seen for some time ( ie since the 1st December , over a week earlier ).
The question is : when did William go to London to search for his brother ? As I said , it depends on how urgent William though the disappearance of Montague was. If he was very worried , surely William could have cabled the London police to search for his brother ?
Instead , William went to London ' to make inquiries '. Its possible that he went and searched Montague's chambers soon after he recieved the letter , but its my belief that he didn't visit the school until December 30th. Its there in black and white :
"...at Blackheath he found that deceased had got into serious trouble at the school and had been dismissed. That was on the 30th December "
It may well have been that the school was closed over the Christmas holidays , and the boys and masters had returned home or gone elsewhere : this might explain why William couldn't go to the school until that date. |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 156
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 6:41 pm: | |
Another thing that weighs in favour of the 30th December date is that it is clear William searched Montague's rooms at Eliot Place to find the suicide note. But is it really likely , if Druitt had been dismissed on 30th November , that Mr Valentine would have allowed him to keep his room ? Surely he would have had to clear his desk and move to his chambers at Kings Bench Walk ? |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 487
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 3:30 am: | |
Simon
I don't quite follow the last argument.
I thought you were only arguing that William didn't go to Blackheath until late December. But now it sounds as though you're arguing that Druitt wasn't dismissed until late December, which is impossible.
Given that Druitt must have been dismissed before his death, I think your last argument actually tells in favour of William having gone to Blackheath earlier, not later, in December.
Chris Phillips
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1128
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 9:11 am: | |
I havent had time to look this up but am certain that the date of 30 december was an error of Machnaghten"s-either that or the newspaper item put a wrong date in by mistake.The date of his dimissal was 30 November by most accounts.That in itself tells us that the matter was so serious that he had to go "there and then"---otherwise they would have let him work until the end of term.He is also reported to have been in the Thames a month which is why the date of his death is 4 Dec.1888 on his tombstone.
Natalie |
David Andersen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 69
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 9:47 am: | |
Simon - you say that the Turnham Green report makes it clear that Druitt (1) left his things at Eliot Place. (2) Didn't take anything with him when he left, and, (3) His note was found at Blackheath. It doesnt seem clear to me at all.
Would you not agree that if Monty went to the Tukes, taking his things with him it would make just as much sense to consider the asylum as the place where he 'resided' and where his things were searched, and where the note was found, as anywhere else. IF we are dealing with an attempt to cover up Montys movements, and any connection with the Tukes, the reports are just the kind of vague, contradictory, and misleading information we would expect.
From the fact that 'the badly decomposed body' of Druitt, had been in the water for 'upwards of three weeks' it is, however clear that Monty died on or before the 4th December.
Regards
David |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 584
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 11:49 am: | |
Granted, we will never be able to settle this conclusively unless some other inquest report or newspaper coverage emerges. But let's look carefully at the question and apply some textual criticism principles:
The Gazette article is poorly written. The sentence That was on the 30th of December linguistically could refer either to the date Monty got in trouble or to the date William went to London to make inquiries. The structure of the news article suggests that it refers to the former -- the date Monty got in trouble -- since the sentence appears immediately after that information is given. If it was intended to refer to William's London trip, it would be more natural to write "On December 30, William travelled to London to make inquiries..." or something of that nature. But clearly, Dec. 30 is impossible as the date Monty got in trouble, since he had been dead for weeks by then. Could it be the date he was sacked? It's just barely possible that he was sacked after his disappearance, but it's not likely.
On the other hand, if the date is intended to refer to Monty's getting sacked, Nov. 30 fits perfectly. Nov. 30 was a Friday, which matches the suicide note's "since Friday." Being Friday, it was a "neat" opportunity to terminate. Other pieces also fit together. Being Friday, Monty would probably have been given at least until Monday to clear out his things. But since he died over the weekend he was not able to do so. Mr. Valentine has no real reason to search or remove Monty's things immediately, so he leaves them alone. A week goes by and Monty is nowhere to be found. When he doesn't show up at the one remaining place where he should be expected -- his legal chambers -- a friend writes William about the disappearance (Wednesday Dec. 11). Given Monty's fragile state of mind and the family history of suicide, William would immediately be concerned. Would he wire Scotland Yard to begin a search? Probably not. Police don't waste their time searching for adults who have disappeared unless they suspect foul play. He could have wired Mr. Valentine, but it was probably just easier to go to London & Blackheath personally. That way he could also check Monty's chambers and other locations. When he arrives at Valentine's he is told about Monty's dismissal, but Mr. Valentine doesn't know anything about his whereabouts. So he consents to supervised search of Monty's rooms (William "had" Monty's things searched, rather than searching them himself), where the suicide note is found. December 13 or 14 then would be the likely date of William's London trip (probably Dec. 13).
Another difficulty with William making his enquiries on Dec. 30 is that Dec. 30 was a Sunday. Is it likely that William would make the journey on a Sunday rather than a weekday or a Saturday?
The earliest opportunity for William's London trip would be Dec. 13 (assuming the letter announcing Monty's disappearance was written and posted on Dec. 11 and received on Dec. 12). Are we to believe that, given the family history, William would wait 17 days -- and a full five days after Christmas -- before making inquiries? I would say overwhelmingly, no.
Finally, has anyone ever tried to locate the old records for Valentine's school? A ledger would indicate the date on which Monty's final cheques were written (the ones found on his body). This would settle the matter. It's a longshot, but a remote possibility.
Andy S.
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 159
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 2:05 pm: | |
Chris , my argument is that William Druitt visited 9 Eliot Place on December 30th 1888. Its my contention that Druitt was dismissed in absentia at some point between the 1st and 30th December , and when William arrived at Blackheath he found his brother had been dismissed for absenting himself from his post without permission. Because he was lying at the bottom of the Thames...
David , it is possible that Monty had booked himself into the Tukes asylum but I don't have any evidence to suggest that at the moment. The phrase ' Witness had deceased's things searched where he resided ' is open to interpretation , but I'm assuming that , since the report gives no indication that William went elsewhere from Blackheath or that Druitt had moved from his rooms that Montague was still residing at his given address there.
Andrew , although the family had a history of melancholy , William specifically stated that Monty had never attempted suicide previously. I feel that he had no reason to suspect Montague would harm himself.
Maybe William did make a visit to London in the second or third week of December , but maybe he only checked Montague's chambers at Kings Bench Walk. If he had known where Montague had been teaching , surely he could have written a letter to George Valentine asking about his brother ? Instead , William only finds out what happened when he visits the school in person.
Is there any textural evidence that contradicts the date of December 30th , it would be interesting to find out ! |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 585
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 2:49 pm: | |
Hi Simon,
We are dealing with perceptions here. To me it seems highly unlikely that Valentine would respond to a missing employee simply by sacking him when his belongings were still in his rooms. I am making the assumption that his belongings were still there, but it seems quite a valid assumption since the news article does not indicate otherwise (which I believe it surely would have). It also seems that the news article would say so if Monty's dismissal were due to his unexcused absence -- since this would be directly relevant. The phrase "had got into serious trouble" seems to be a delicate way of alluding to some potentially scandalous or embarrassing behavior, the exact nature of the behavior not being thought by the reporter to be relevant to the case.
Quite right about there being no evidence of Monty checking into the asylum. It remains a possibility, but only that.
Yes, I also made an assumption about Monty's mental health and the degree to which it was known to his family. Yet the fact remains that the family had a history of mental illness and suicide. If Macnaughten is correct, Monty's family had doubts about his mental health. I can't conceive that under those circumstances William would delay. It is also difficult to understand why he would go to London on a Sunday for this purpose.
Could William have written a letter to Valentine inquiring about his brother? Yes, but that would take time: a day for the letter to arrive, who knows how long before Valentine got around to reply, and a day for the reply to arrive. Besides, we know that William made a personal visit, so I'm not sure what you are getting at here.
Is there any textual evidence that contradicts the date of December 30? Strictly speaking, no. Textual evidence is just that: evidence that is found in the text of a document. Textual evidence contradicting the date would have to be something on the order of the date being written as Dec. 30 in one place and Nov. 30 in another place in the document, or evidence of a change in the text such as a cross-out (not applicable in the case of a newspaper article) or a variation in the transmission of the text (for example, if a later edition of the newspaper would have carried the date as Nov. 30). None of these are present in the text, yet we are left with a seemingly logical contradiction. In such cases we are justified in considering the possibility of error even in the absence of textual evidence of that error. We do not do this lightly, but I believe in the present case it is not only justified, but necessary.
Andy S. |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 160
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 7:36 am: | |
The question of Monty's personal effects is a difficult one to judge , it does seem that they were still at Blackheath despite Druitt being dismissed from his job. If Monty had been fired over some serious allegation , I'm sure he would have been told to clear his rooms immediately , and if he hadn't done so I'm sure that they would have been sent to his legal chambers or put into storage somewhere.
I feel it is more likely that his belongings would stay at Blackheath if Druitt was dismissed ' in absentia ' , as there was the possibility he could return and claim them : as for the phrase ' serious trouble ' , that could well refer to something like ' Hes in serious trouble when he comes back ' and need not necessarily refer to any sexual or criminal misconduct.
If Monty booked himself into Tukes asylum upon losing his teaching post , then I think we would need more evidence than the inquest report to ascertain this , it would be wholly speculation otherwise |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 161
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 7:50 am: | |
Andrew , I do agree that a date of 30th November is indeed a likely one for Druitt's dismissal , but playing Devil's Advocate here I am wondering why we always assume the paper is mistaken.
Ripper authors also seem to dismiss the 30th December date out of hand :
" Though the newspaper report says 30th December , this is clearly a misprint... " - Howells and Skinner.
" The main difficulty in the interpretation of this extract is the ambiguous reporting of the date 30th December...One explanation of this difficulty would be that 30 December is, in fact , a misprint for 30 November. A date of 30 November for Druitt's dismissal makes sense. " - Sugden.
I'm wondering whether this 30th November date has just become another myth of the ' Jack the Ripper ' case , handed down from author to author , and maybe we as Ripperologists now have a responsibility to bust this myth that rests not on evidence but on a ( albeit reasoned ) assumption. |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 162
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 8:05 am: | |
In relation to the Tukes asylum theory , there is a good point for it and a good point against it.
The point for is the wording of the suicide note , if the wording was ' Since Friday ' then that suggests that Druitt was not writing it on Saturday 1st December : he would have written ' Since yesterday ' or ' Since the 30th ' or ' Since my dismissal ' instead. The words ' Since Friday' do seem to imply a passage of time of at least two days and maybe more ; also the argument that Druitt meant to convey the date by using these words does not really stand as he could easily have dated the letter at the top , as is common practice.
This suggests that Druitt wrote the letter on the Sunday 2nd or a day or two later , but this couldn't be at the school if he had been dismissed.
The bad point against Tukes asylum is the cheques : if they were written to the Tuke brothers then why didn't they recieve them ? If they weren't , why didn't Druitt leave the cheques in his room ? |
J. K. Whyman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 1:58 pm: | |
Daivd,
Do we really have any evidence apart from Macnaghten to say that Monty's entire family believed him to be the Ripper? Is there any information on who the source of Ann Druitt's family history may have been? Could it have been done when Ann entered Brooke Asylum in 1888 and the Tuke's never bothered to update it? And again is there really any concrete evidence that the Druitts and the Tukes were friends?
To me it appears that most of the evidence surrounding Druitt's death is pretty much open to interpretation and personal bias definately considering that most of it comes from press reports, which aren't always the most reliable of sources. For example whetheer or not brother William committed perjury lies on the interpretation of the phrase 'he had no other relitive' meaning either (a) anywhere or (b) present. If you consider the former to be true you must then consider William's motives: was he simply trying to protect other family members from association with scandal? Then of course he seemed to have no problem telling the world that his mother was insane...
One other problem that I have with your theory Daivd: why would the Tukes let someone who was clearly such a complete lunatic that he had either (a) developed the delusion that he was or (b) was the ripper out of their sight? Considering that Manor House Asylum was one of the leading institutions of its day I find that a little hard to believe.
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 586
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 10:40 am: | |
Simon,
I think we just disagree on this. I don't think you are unreasonable in your contention, but I do believe mine to be the correct conclusion for the reasons I have given above.
You say: If Monty had been fired over some serious allegation , I'm sure he would have been told to clear his rooms immediately , and if he hadn't done so I'm sure that they would have been sent to his legal chambers or put into storage somewhere.
Why would that be? It would seem perfectly natural to me that if Monty was dismissed on a Friday he would be given at least until Monday to clear his room. We are not aware of any other pressing need for that room. When he did not clear his possessions, why would Valentine be in a hurry to dispose of them, particularly if the room was not needed. Removing them to Monty's legal chambers would only incur additional expense for Valentine. As a busy man -- and now understaffed -- he probably would have been to busy to worry about Monty's things.
I agree that the phrase "serious trouble" does not have to be indicative of a sexual or criminal offense. On the other hand, if it were a reference to his being absent without excuse, we would expect the reported to have noted that since it is directly relevant and not particularly embarrassing.
You cite Sugden and Howells/Skinner, wondering why they conclude that "Dec. 30" is an error for Nov. 30. These authors have weighed the evidence as I have and agree that this is the most reasonable scenario. I don't remember Howells/Skinner offhand, but I believe Sugden walks us through details of his reasoning, which are much similar to those I have given.
Regarding the cheques: they were found on the corpse, not among Monty's belongings. Constable Moulston's report is not ambiguous about this.
In the end it is a matter of how much weight one chooses to give to the written text of the newspaper article and how much one chooses to give to context and attendant circumstances. I -- and every author I know of -- have chosen to see the balance tilted toward the latter in this case.
Andy S. |
David Andersen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 70
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 10:41 am: | |
Simon - I have no problem accepting that William went to Blackheath. The Turnham Green report does,however, suggest that Blackheath might not have been his only port of call. It states: 'Witness then went to London to make enquiries, and at Blackheath....'This suggests to me that Blackheath was just one of the places where he hoped to find news of Montague. William would almost certainly have called at Montagues chambers and quite possibly elsewhere.
JK Whyman - It has never been suggested that Montagues entire family believed him to be the Ripper. Ann Druitts family history is well documented. The papers, which I have in my posession are: A typed letter, dated 6th June 1890, from Dr. Gasquet of the Brighton Asylum (127 Eastern Road) to which Ann had been sent in the summer of 1888. It gives a brief description of her condition as told to Gasquest bt Dr. Pavey, of the Brooke house asylum. Gasquet makes it clear that he has never recieved any history of her case from the Asylum authorities. I also posess the case notes, compiled by Dr. Thomas Tuke which detail her condition and treatment during the time she spent at the Manor House Asylum. }
Regarding your question as to the Tukes reaction to Montague. The answer is yes. They were quite qualified to deal with lunacy. They were Quakers, and, lovers of that great English bonding game known as Cricket, and, since two of the Tuke brothers, including Thomas, were at Oxford at the same time as Montague (the opening bowler for the university team) it would be unthinkable if they were not, at least, acquainted. The Tukes accomodated a fairly diverse collection of individuals, including Harriet Mordaunt, a 'guest' of the Tukes Asylum for eleven years.
It is precisely the fact that the Manor House Asylum was one of the leading institutions of its day that any connection with Montague was supressed - even to the point of not recording his suicide anywhere on Ann Druitts case papers.
I return again to the vexing question thus:
Why, in 1890, did William Druitt, move his Mother Ann, from the Brighton Asylum to the Manor House Asylum? - Given that her son, Montague, had taken his own life a few hundred yards away from the asylum. Is this insensitive? or Could it have been a prudent neccessity. Ann Druitts insanity, like Augusta Geins death, may well have been the catalyst for the subsequent behaviour of their respective sons.
Regards
David |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 587
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 10:55 am: | |
David is "vexed" by the question: Why, in 1890, did William Druitt, move his Mother Ann, from the Brighton Asylum to the Manor House Asylum? - Given that her son, Montague, had taken his own life a few hundred yards away from the asylum. Is this insensitive? or Could it have been a prudent neccessity.
I don't see anything vexing here at all. William decided that Manor House was the best place for his mother. Ann did not have any personal negative experience with the area. Granted, her son ostensibly committed suicide nearby, but Ann did not discover the body there and probably did not visit the suicide scene. Even if she had, what of it? I know a woman whose husband committed suicide in their home. She and her children still reside in that same house were she discovered his body. It is of no consequence.
Andy S. |
David Andersen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 72
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 11:24 am: | |
Andrew - Undoubtedly the Manor House was the best place for Ann. The question which vexes me is Why? You state that Ann had no personal negative experience with the area. Would her Sons suicide not be considered as a negative experience? But you only address half of my vexing question. Why no mention of Montagues suicide on Ann Druitts papers? It was deemed necessary to mention the suicide attempts of other family members but not her own sons successful attempt just a couple of hundred yards from where Thomas Tuke wrote his notes.
Please understand that I am merely postulating a theory here. But so much more seems to make sense the more one considers that there might have been an attempt to cover-up any connection between Montague and the Manor House Asylum.
Regards
David |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 593
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 11:32 am: | |
David --
Undoubtedly the Manor House was the best place for Ann. The question which vexes me is Why?
That I don't know as I have not done inquiry into this area. I am open to suggestions.
You state that Ann had no personal negative experience with the area. Would her Sons suicide not be considered as a negative experience?
No, not in the way I define a negative experience. It might be different had she actually found her son's body at the location. But merely being told that this is where it happened is not a personal negative experience with the area (if she was even told where it happened). I think this line of reasoning has nothing to add to your interesting theory.
Why no mention of Montagues suicide on Ann Druitts papers? It was deemed necessary to mention the suicide attempts of other family members but not her own sons successful attempt just a couple of hundred yards from where Thomas Tuke wrote his notes.
Can't say for sure. Perhaps Monty's suicide was taken for granted as being well-known. I have no other explanation.
Please understand that I am merely postulating a theory here.
Understood and appreciated. Your theory has merit, though I don't think Ann's being moved to the proximity of her son's suicide is a factor in itself.
But so much more seems to make sense the more one considers that there might have been an attempt to cover-up any connection between Montague and the Manor House Asylum.
Interesting. I'll have a look back at this thread because I jumped in late.
Regards,
Andy S.
(Message edited by Aspallek on September 20, 2004) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3058
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 11:53 am: | |
Hi David
Your book sounds as if it will be very interesting. But just on your point that any papers on Druitt's body would have been illegible after being immersed for so long, here's a man who seems to have been in the river for longer :
The "Times" Feb 26 1889
Robert |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 594
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 4:05 pm: | |
Thanks, Robert. Although it must be acknowledged that this man might have been identified from the leather cover of his chequebook rather than from any surviving paper cheques.
But I say again that legible paper documents have been recovered from the Titanic wreckage after 90 years underwater.
Andy S. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3066
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 9:35 am: | |
Apologies if this has already been posted.
"TIMES" SEPT 20th 1888
Robert |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 238
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 10:13 am: | |
Hi Robert,
A good find, and more evidence that Monty had a succesful practice at the bar. Thanks for posting.
Best Regards
John Savage |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 595
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 11:17 am: | |
Tremendous find, Robert! This appears to show two things:
1. Druitt was functioning "normally" during the period of the murders.
2. Druitt was at least marginally successful as a barrister. It is surprising to see him represent a defendant in a criminal case. My guess is that he served as a sort of "public defender," that is a barrister appointed by the court to those who could not afford a private one. In the US, many private lawyers derive a significant side income from such steady work. Granted, this was not a difficult case, but Monty was successful in his strategy of an insanity verdict. One suspects that Monty's teaching income may not have been as vital to him as we once thought. Now that really begs the question as to what would make him despondent enough to commit suicide?
Andy S. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3067
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 12:24 pm: | |
Thanks folks, but I checked the Press section after posting and someone has already transcribed it, so I wasn't the first.
On court matters, I'm finding references to a case "R v Druitt" which is mentioned quite a lot in relation to industrial disputes. I appreciate that this Druitt isn't likely to have been Monty, but does anyone know who was the Druitt, whether employer or employee, who was involved in this case?
Robert |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 242
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 8:11 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Your case of Regina v Druit, would probably mean that the the Druit involved in the case was a defendent rather than a barrister involved in the case.
However if you would like to let me have more details we may be able to find further information.
Best Regards
John Savage |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1401
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 8:18 am: | |
This Christopher Power certainly sounds an intriguing character. There is only one individual of that name listed in 1881. The ages do not quite match and he was living at that time in Oldham, Lancashire.
The details are as follows:
90 Book Street, Oldham, Lancashire
Head:
Christopher Power aged 28 born Ireland - card room jobber
Wife:
Sarah Jane Power aged 22 born Willenhall, Staffordshire - Card room hand
Chris |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 287
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 8:22 am: | |
Hello Robert,
In reference to the September 20th case. Are we
definite that the "Druitt" mentioned is our MJD?
I know the press account is a summary, but what was the location of the offence? Exactly which court room was the case held in and do other contemporaneous newspapers carry further reports?
As regards both this case and the R versus Druit(t) case, are there not Law Reports which a spry-
thinking British Lawyer reading these boards might not look up for us?
Don't get me wrong Robert, I am impressed with all your researches, but feel it would be good to get as much information on this case as possible. A Law report would provide transcripts of Druitt's own words, giving us an inkling if there was something awry with his demeanour in court-or not.
(Signed): Your Antipodean Armchair Advice-Giver... |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3070
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 4:02 pm: | |
Hi all
I will try and find out more about the Power case the next time I can get up London. However, I have been to the Supreme Court library before, and was disappointed to find that I could not look up transcripts of cases, only summaries. One summary I looked up omitted all mention of the man mentioned in the case title, which surprised both me and the librarian!
On R v Druitt, though, there is a lot in the "Times". I'd been searching for "R v Druitt" without much progress, but when I searched simply for "Druit", up came the tailors' strike of 1867.
The Druitt in question was George Druitt, one of the tailors' leaders. I saw his address in a letter to the "Times", and I'll post it next time. Regent St, I think it was. George Druitt continued his trade union acrivities, with links as far afield as Scotland. I have also seen his name in connection with the Trafalgar Square business. Also, he was involved in the Workingmen's Emigration Society, which may be interesting, as I'm sure I've seen a Tuke mentioned in connection with emigration. Prince Albert Victor seemed to be urging it on the Protestant Boys' Club members, too. I also found a Druitt who was executed earlier in the century. I'll try to post some of this stuff, if anyone's interested, before the "Times" pulls the plug.
There's so much about the strike in the "Times" that I thought I'd post just the one item. Sorry if it's a bit of a mess, but I find this mouse lark incredibly fiddly.
PS Where would I be without John's antipodean proddings?
AUG 22 1867
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3076
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 7:20 pm: | |
Who knows, maybe this is a link between Monty and Charing Cross.
June 29th and Sept 4th 1886.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3077
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 7:26 pm: | |
This is the Trafalgar Sq item.
JUNE 26th 1888
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3096
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 4:28 pm: | |
This man was the Bill Sikes of the Druitt world.
"TIMES" Jun 4 1832
Robert |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 599
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 8:39 pm: | |
Is this an advert to fill the position vacated by Monty? If this salary is for a single term it seems we may have underestimated Monty's salary and the cheque for £50 may not have been even close to a term's salary.
Andy S.
The Times April 10, 1889
 |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 185
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 8:53 pm: | |
Andy , this would be an annual salary. Therefore £50 would indeed be the wages for a whole term. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 5:34 pm: | |
Hi guys. I've really enjoyed reading this lively debate about Druitt's last days. I've only one thing to add, concerning MJD's connection to Jack the Ripper. I think it very unlikely, that anyone would raise the alarm about him missing, after just one week's absence from his chambers at Kings Bench Walk, unless they were accustomed to seeing him there "EVERY" week. As he was at the school on weekdays, it follows that they were used to seeing him there at weekends. As the Ripper killings were at weekends, put the three things together, and you have a man who was in the vicinity of the murders at the crucial times. I have always believed that Druitt was Jack the Ripper, and nothing I've learned in recent years has altered that view. O.K.guys,carry on with your debate. ----- DAVID C.}}}} |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 250
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 8:51 pm: | |
Hi David,
When lawyers refer to their "chambers", they are usually talking about their office rather than living quarters. I feel it more than likely that Monty visited his chambers on a regular basis, otherwise he would not have needed a season ticket from Blackheath to Charing Cross.
With regard to weekends from what little we know he seems to have devoted a lot of his time to cricket. It is also apparent that he did not always teach at the school in Eliot Place, every day of the week, as The Times newspaper report of November 1888 records that he was appearing before Lord Coleridge in the High Court on a weekday.
Best Regards
John Savage |
David Andersen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 74
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 8:34 am: | |
Just browsing back through this thread.
One point relating to the reasons for Druitts dismissal. I dont think that the serious offence was his absence from the school since we are told that the serious offence was at the school.
Regards
David |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 611
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 9:34 am: | |
David,
I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the word "at." Wherever he committed his "offense" the "trouble" he encountered was "at the school" since that's where he had to deal with the consequences.
Now something of interest that just occurred to me: If the above advert is for Monty's old position, that raises an interesting question. If Monty was dismissed back in November, one would think that a replacement might have been found before the next term started. Since there was no permanent replacement by April (the date of the advert) could it be that perhaps the date of December 30 is correct and refers only to the date of Monty's being sacked (this being on the eve of the new term and too late to get a replacement for that term)? Perhaps his "offense" was being absent without explanation between sometime in November and December 30. The problem with this is -- as I mentioned before -- this places William's visit inexplicably late.
Andy S.
(Message edited by Aspallek on October 13, 2004) |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 5:10 pm: | |
Hi John. Thanks for filling me in more accurately about MJD's likely weekly time-table. I'm still curious though, as to why the alarm bells were sounded after just one week's absence from his chambers. He could have been staying with family,or on holiday somewhere etc. Had those who contacted his brother noticed anything wrong with him, erratic or unusual behaviour etc., or any other reason for pressing the panic button so quickly? John, I think an awful lot was done to keep details of Druitt's last weeks of life well and truly covered up, even to the point of William Druitt lying at the inquest, in saying he was the deceased's only relative. It was all too secretive. There has to be a good reason why.
My best regards to you too John.
David Cartwright |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 615
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 1:53 pm: | |
David,
I'm afraid we'll never know whether Monty's associates noted any erratic behavior on his part. I think the answer to their alarm comes from the likelihood that Monty had missed important appointments during that week's absence. We know he had court dates the week of his disappearance. He probably has such dates -- which he obviously missed -- during the following week.
As to William's lying at the inquest, I'm afraid we'll never be sure, either. The most likely explanation is that he was protecting the rest of his family from negative publicity.
Andy S. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 8:18 am: | |
Hi Andy S.& John Savage. I have posted a message in the "Some thoughts about MJ Druitt" column. I would like the opinions of you two guys in particular, about the subject of my message.
Best Wishes
David Cartwright |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3757
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 4:02 pm: | |
Hi all
Just wondering whether this could have been Monty's last hurrah. No proof, of course - just posting it out of interest.
DEC 3rd 1888 "TIMES"
Robert |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3193
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 4:11 pm: | |
Hi Robert -
The Daily News covered this story as well (referring to the woman as both Harriet Worth and Harriet North) on the 3rd and 4th, concluding on the 4th:
"On inquiry at the Royal Free Hospital, Gray's Inn road, yesterday, respecting the woman Harriet North, reported to have been stabbed at King's cross that morning, it was stated that she was in no danger whatever. The matter had been much exaggerated, as it is doubtful if she has been stabbed at all. "
Another Annie Farmer perhaps?
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3759
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 4:31 pm: | |
Thanks Stephen. Yes, it looks pretty innocuous.
Back to the drawing board!
Robert |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 544
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 8:59 pm: | |
Hi all,
Fascinating stuff on this thread, but I still can't see anything that directly links Monty's dismissal and demise with the killings in Whitechapel. We still have a coincidence of dates, mingled with Macnaghten's memorandum. But I would say we have gotten a fuller picture of Monty's careers up to November 1888.
I had a question about cricket. Baseball and American football have "seasons" when they are played (baseball from April through October, football from October through January). Is there a period of the year when cricket playing is also suspended due to climate changes?
I also wonder, given Monty's career as a barrister, has anybody tried to see if there are any records of his career at the inn of court from which he was a member ((the Inner Temple)? It would be interesting to see who were his contemporaries from that inn of court, and if any of them may have left memoirs or diaries that could have mentioned him.
The stabbing attack on Ms Harriet North sounds interesting, but the vague description sounds more like George Chapman (heavy moustache, foreign looks) than Monty Druitt.
Jeff |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 726
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 9:16 pm: | |
Cricket is generally regarded as a Summer sport. In Britain today the Football season runs from mid-August until the beginning of May, and the Rugby season pretty much the same. The Cricket season runs through the summer months, overlapping at either end. I think the first games tend to be around April and the last ones in September. I don't know if this was true in 1888.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 321
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 5:51 am: | |
Hello All,
Shame about that case Robert, looked promising. Thanks Stephen for your prompt corrective.
Jeffrey,
You ask has anyone been and looked at the records at the Inns of Court to find out just who Montague Druitts contemporaries were?
I did just that during a visit from Australia about twenty years ago. The staff were quite helpful, and allowed me to take notes from massive bound volumes called "Call Books".
These recorded the huddled groups who were "called" to the Bar.(That is, paid their fees and were sworn in as qualifed barristers).
I have studied these lists and the notes I made of those who graduated from New College with Druitt. So far, I have found no name of a contemporary whose name leaps off the page.None appear to have gone to the same chambers. Or even practised on the western Circuit.
I am still looking.In fact, I have listed some of these contemporaries on threads like: "The friends of M J Druitt", et cetera.Hope this helps. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 6:15 am: | |
Hi Guys, and especially Robert.
Over Christmas, I've been reading up on the London "nude" murders in the 1960's, known at the time as the "Jack the Stripper" murders, and the similarity to the JTR business is quite startling.
There were six killings, and were investigated by a Superintendant John Du Rose. The murders ceased with the suicide of a South London security guard.
He was never named, and no evidence ever became known publicly. Yet Superintendant Du Rose was satisfied of his guilt, and the case closed.
So-called experts say that serial killers rarely commit suicide. As most serial killers are caught, we don't know what may have happened had they remained at liberty, and who knows what happened to those who remained uncaught. It all depends on the mentality of the killer. Peter Sutcliffe, for example, was simply pure evil, whereas insanity was rife in the Druitt family, and Monty himself was clearly seriously unbalanced, as his suicide proved. So you can't compare the two.
What I'm saying guys is, that over the past 30 years, Ripper authors have contrived to make this mystery ever more complicated than it really is.
True, there is no concrete evidence of Druitt's guilt,YET, but there is also not a scrap of evidence of his innocence either. He fits the bill from start to finish. MOTIVE---The suffering of the "decent" women in his family, inspiring a hatred of "cheap" women who sold themselves on street-corners. TRIGGER---His Mother hauled off to an asylum, just weeks before the killings started. CESSATION.---He was in the Thames three weeks after the final murder.
I personally have no doubt that he was JTR, but I'm sure that many of you will disagree with me.
A happy new year to all.
DAVID CARTWRIGHT}}
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3772
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 4:15 pm: | |
Hi David
There speaks a confident Druittist! I'm not as convinced as you are - but he's near the top of my list. I can't help feeling that there is something out there waiting to be discovered.
Of course, I know that some very good researchers have been working on him for a long time, without turning that "something" up. If it does come out, it'll probably be lucky chance.
Whether any new evidence will incriminate or exonerate him, I can't say. But he's the first suspect I read about (Dan Farson) and I've always had a "soft spot" for him. And by that, I don't mean the mud of the Thames! 
Robert |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
