|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 806
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 5:18 pm: | 
|
Druitt had in his possession a second half return rail ticket from Charing Cross to Hammersmith.
Question for London Underground Historians:
Which line would have issued this ticket? My first impression was District. But then I found a link to a 1921 Tube map (http://www.clarksbury.com/cdl/maps/tube21.jpg) which clearly shows that District did go to the Hammersmith station at that time. Of course, Druitt could have walked from Baron's Court but remember the ticket was issued for Hammersmith.
The Metropolitan was the only line to call at Hammermsith in 1921 (this is the branch that today is the Hammersmith & City line) but the Met did not call at Charing Cross. So, on what line would Druitt have used the first half of his ticket?
Andy S.
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 807
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Sorry, folks. It appears that I can now answer my own question. An 1889 tube map shows a "New Station Hammersmith" on what appears to be the District line. A 1905 map also shows a Hammersmith Station on the Distirct. I don't know why it wasn't on the 1921 map.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clive.billson/tubemaps/1889.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clive.billson/tubemaps/1905.html
Andy S. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 808
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 12:58 am: |
|
Sorry to take up space "talking to myself" but perhaps some are interested. I see my first mistake now. One the 1921 map the label "Baron's Court" has an arrow pointing to a different station altogether and the label "Hammersmith" apparently does double duty in referring both to the Met and District stations.
So having confirmed that Druitt rode the District from Charing X to Hammersmith we can conclude that he most probably did not visit his chambers at King's Bench Walk on December 1. Else he would have taken the District from nearby Temple rather than walking back to Charing Cross.
Andy S. |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 373
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 5:15 am: |
|
Andy,
Yes I would agree with you that Druitt most probably did not go to his chambers that day. It looks to me as his journey was Blackheath, Charing Cross, Hammersmith. A direct route and it suggests that he set off to go to Hammersmith for a specific purpose.
That purpose need not have been simply to jump in the Thames, he could have done that near Blackeath or at Charing Cross.
Rgds
John |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 810
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 10:32 am: |
|
I think we can tentatively trace many of Montague's steps on that fateful Saturday. I believe he was allowed to stay at Eliot Place Friday night. The fact that his possessions are still there when William comes to inquire strongly suggests this. Since Friday 30 November was the last day of the school term, it is likely that Monty's dismissal was not announced until after classes had been dismissed and most of the boys were gone. Human nature being what it is, Montague probably spent a sleepless night in his quarters at the school during which time he penned his "suicide note." Then, wishing to avoid confrontation with any of the staff, Monty would have left the school early in the morning to catch the first Saturday train to London (anyone know what time this train left Blackheath?). Monty probably left the school before sunrise (the present Blackheath station was in use in 1888, being about a 10-15 minute walk from the school) and arrived at Charing Cross still in the early morning.
Now comes the mysterious part. Assuming he went directly to Hammersmith, it still would have been morning when he arrived there. Chances are it was late night before he committed suicide, so what was he doing all day in the Hammersmith area? Was it a last-ditch effort to seek some assistance or compassion? Why did this effort fail? Who turned him away? Although he was clearly suicidal, what sort of bad news was so devastating that he decided not to return at all to Blackheath as he had originally planned?
I suppose that we will never find the answers to these questions but that they will forever remain fodder for speculation.
Andy S. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 518
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 2:04 pm: |
|
Howells and Skinner did, of course, try to show that Druitt could have had influential friends who lived by the river in Hammersmith.
One of these potential associates of Druitt was Harry Wilson (also a friend of PAV). H&S state (p172 of the original UK h/b edition) that Wilson's diary - now in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge - contains inside the back cover the address of J H Lonsdale at 5 Eliot Cottages, Blackheath. H&S state further that this address was only 100 yards or so from Druitt's school at 9 Eliot Place. J H Lonsdale had chambers 5 doors away from Druitt in King's Bench Walk.
Harry Wilson lived in Chiswick, at "The Osiers", in Chiswick Mall. The house is adjacent to Thorneycroft Wharf where Druitt's body was later dragged from the river.
Unless these facts have since been rebutted (as they may have been) is there any connection worth investigating here as to how Monty Druitt filled his last hours?
Just a thought,
Phil |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 377
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 6:58 am: |
|
Andy, John and Phil,
I thought Andy's logic in spelling out the possible early morning movements by Montague Druitt on his final, fateful day, made a lot of sense.
Suicide is regarded these days as a failed cry for help.
But we must bear in mind the sickness of the suicidee. They inflict terrible pain on close ones left behind. This, to my view, is done because they are disturbed to distraction: They know not what they do.
The main difficulty in piecing together Druitt's last movements and the reasons therefor, in my opinion, is this mixture of desperation and distraction.They may defy logic.
It is now so long after the event, unless one of those prominent cricketers or lawyers acquainted with MJD, wrote down their recollections and included mention of Druitt, it is hard to know how we will ever find out.
Yes, the best procedure seems to be in examining
the links between MJD and those around him.
But: try as I might, I cannot see Montague John Druitt mixing in the same social circles as Wilson and Prince Albert Victor. Snobs are snobs.
Oxford middle class is not Cambridge upper class.
It was this gambit in the Howells & Skinner book which, I thought, let down an excellently researched and nicely written book.
Others will disagree. And yes, the three points listed by Phil above are pretty interesting..but.. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1915
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 9:31 am: |
|
Sorry to jump right in here chaps but my ears pricked up when the names Wilson and Lonsdale appeared. In 1887 Lonsdale,who was in Wilson"s address book [ another Trinity man] left Lincoln"s Inn where he was a barrister and left too no 5 Eliot Cottages which was only a minute or so from Druitt"s 9 Elliot Place and went into the church****
Guess where he went?
to a curacy in WIMBORNE,Druitt"s family home!
[and where he was to be buried in 1889].
****all this to be found in the excellent paper by Neil Rhind on JtR The Blackheath Connection.Well worth getting actually!
Natalie
ps and there is quite a bit more of such gems re Druitt! |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 529
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 10:26 am: |
|
John, I simply intended to draw attention to work already in the public domain as it were.
But Wilson and Druitt could have met in the Inner Temple, if nowhere else. And (assuming both were of that inclination as has been suggested) in the homosexual world "class" might mean less or different, than it did elsewhere.
Just a thought,
Phil |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 811
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 10:46 am: |
|
All very interesting. I wish Mr. Rhind would allow his paper to be posted here (he never responded to my e-mail). The connection with Lonsdale in intriguing but it doesn't explain Druitt's trek to Hammersmith. I find the link to Wilson very weak indeed. I agree with John on this. To me, the Tuke connection is more promising.
However, we need some clear, logical thinking here. Although his body was found at Chiswick, remember that Montague did not buy a ticket to Chiswick but Hammersmith. Granted, Hammersmith is not far from the spot where Monty's body was found (and also both the Osiers and Tukes' Asylum) but other stations on the District were closer. Ravenscourt Park and possibly Turnham Green were closer and did have District line service in 1888 (Stamford Brook would be opened later in 1912). My question now is whether the designation "Hammersmith" on Monty's ticket would have included Ravenscourt Park. In other words, had Monty intended to travel to Ravenscourt Park would his ticket have listed that station or Hammersmith? Were individual tickets issued for each and every station in 1888 or were they grouped together for ticketing purposes?
Andy S. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1916
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 11:20 am: |
|
Both William Morris and George Bernard Shaw had houses nearby on the river at Hammersmith/Chiswick
[which can still be seen].Oscar Wilde is known to have been a regular visitor and several famous poets.The Irish poet Yeats befriended Oscar and saw him in one or other of these houses regularly in the 1880"s.Poets and literary,bohemian types seem to have been all over Hammersmith ,like a rash, in those days and the Apostles seems to have been one of several such groups of "Literati"friends.
Dalton was one of the leading lights of the Apostles[this one from Neil Rhind"s paper I hasten to add] and was an ex pupil of the Blackheath Propriety school who later went on to Trinity which most pupils did from the Prop school.And ofcorse PAV was a Trinity man as was JKStephens.Dalton ,though,in contrast to the rumours about JKS and PAV was not known as a homosexual however.Both he and his brother were pupils there at the very same time that Valentine was there with his brother William and would have known each other without doubt,if not well, given the smallish size of the school.Moreover Cornelius practised as a barrister in the Inner temple.
Andrew,
Its possible that then as now not all trains bound for Hammersmith/Chiswick actually stopped
at the Ravenscourt park etc stations.Some may have been direct and the stopping trains infrequent.
Natalie |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 813
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 11:45 am: |
|
Natalie,
I had thought of that possibility. By my scenario above, however, it was still early in the day when Monty reached Charing X. I suspect trains were frequent and he could have waiting for a train that did call at Ravenscourt Park. Speculation, of course. I rather suspect the answer is that a "Hammersmith" ticket would have encompassed nearby stations, which were probably the same fare. I have posed this question and also the question as to whether there was Saturday service to Ravenscourt Park in 1888 to the London transport Museum.
Andy S.
PS -- I suppose I will have to break down and buy Neil's paper one of these days.
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 814
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 3:59 pm: |
|
I received an answer to my inquiry at the LTM. There apparently was Saturday service to Ravenscourt Park in 1888 (though I suppose this dos not mean that every train necessarily called there). Also, the ticket would bear the name of the specific station to which the travel wished to go. In other words, a ticket reading Charing Cross to Hammersmith (which is what was found on Montague's body) would not be issued for travel to Ravenscourt Park, which is nearer to Chiswick than Hammersmith is.
What does this mean? It suggests that Montague's original destination that Saturday may not have been Chiswick at all but actually Hammersmith, else he would have bought a ticket to Ravenscourt Park or perhaps Turnham Green which were both closer. If he had wanted to travel to Chiswick, Montague could also have depart the train from Blackheath at Waterloo and taken a rail service directly to Chiswick, rather than taking the "round about" way via Charing Cross and Hammersmith.
We should not be hasty to assume Montague's original destination was Chiswick.
Andy S. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1923
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 5:34 pm: |
|
I know Hammersith a little.It has a number of handsome, mostly Georgian,houses on the River -including the homes of William Morris and GB Shaw.
Then there is St Paul"s School and Latymer- perhaps he was thinking about applying for a teaching post there!
Natalie
|
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 374
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 7:20 pm: |
|
Hi Andy,
Again I must agree with your statement that we should not assume that Montague's original destination was Chiswick.
I think I have stated before on these boards that the Thames is a tidal river with a current running at about 1 knot (one mile per hour). If the body was floating for some time it could have travelled about the river in either direction for up to five miles. My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that given that the Thames flows towards the sea in an easterly direction, it is more likely that Druit went into the river to the west of where he was found, i.e. Kew rather than Hammersmith.
Rgds
John |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 816
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 10:03 pm: |
|
John,
The only problem with that theory is that we know he did indeed travel to Hammersmith, which is down river from chiswick rather than up river.
If Montague entered the river from Kew or the Richmond area, why did he buy a ticket to Hammersmith?
I think we would do well to consider what might have been at Hammersmith that was of interest to him. Unfortunately, I am not familiar at all with that area. I will take some time to explore Hammersmith and Chiswick on my next trip, whenever that may be.
Andy S. |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 375
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 10:49 pm: |
|
Hi Andy,
The reason for my last post is simply to show that from the time he bought his ticket to Hammersmith until he was fished out of the river, we have no idea were Druit went, or what he did. Simply because he was found at Chiswick, people often presume that he went in, at or where he was pulled out; which is quite reasonable, but we don't know for sure.
I just feel that we need to keep in mind that he could have done anything in the day or days he was in the Hammersith area.
Rgds
John |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 817
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 2:37 am: |
|
John,
Well, that's true. However, the fact that he bought a return ticket to Hammersmith indicates that he intended to return to central London from there. Wandering far from Hammersmith would be illogical, which is not to say it cannot be factual (clearly not all facts follow logic).
Andy S. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 10:36 am: |
|
Hi Natalie.
Those are excellent, and very interesting, pieces of information you've put forward. Having studied anything and everything about all the suspects for being JtR, I've been a confirmed Druittist for many years. But I think you know that from my numerous messages about him.
Please forgive my ignorance, but where can I obtain Neil Rhind's paper??
Cheers Natalie.
DAVID C. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1942
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 5:22 pm: |
|
For David Cartwright
Hi David
If you email Neil Rhind on nander@tiscali.co.uk you will be able to ask Neil about his paper direct.It is a sterling piece of research.
Best Natalie |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 823
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 6:30 pm: |
|
There are also a couple of football clubs in the Hammersmith and Fullham area that predate 1888. Perhaps he was off to visit a sporting chum. If only we knew.
Andy S. |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1009
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 7:09 pm: |
|
Or maybe a rowing chum?
Chris Phillips
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 825
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 1:49 am: |
|
Actually, from a cursory look at the map, the Hammersmith/Fullham area does seem to be rather laden with sporting venues (not far from Olympia). Where was Evelyn Ruggles-Brice these days?
Andy S. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1944
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 3:48 am: |
|
Andrew,
a favourite place to watch the Cambridge /Oxford rowing race is in Hammersmith.Its also near the training grounds.Hammersmith border/Chiswick on the river is where they have their clubs and where they keep their rowing boats and a series of quaint pubs where they have a drink afterwards.
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4415
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 4:12 am: |
|
But would they be practising for their race as early as the start of December?
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1945
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 4:19 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
I have been along that part of the river all times of year and have seen them with the doors of the boathouses rolled up chatting.I think they still meet- the organisers etc throughout the year.I dont know when they train though. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 567
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 7:49 am: |
|
There are all sorts of reasons for acquiring a return ticket - cheapness (I have known booking clerks to push a return as being as cheap or cheaper than a single fare) being one.
Another possibility is that, if MJD was suicidal and pre-occupied, he simply acted on auto-pilot and asked for a return without thinking about it or realising what he had done.
But the logical conclusion has to be that someone who buys a return ticket intends to, or at least expects, to come back. This would again imply that MJD had not made up his mind to kill himself when he bought the ticket; or was intending no such thing.
So let us look at this as logically as possible.
The first assumption is that MJD was
a) under the impression that he was going mad (like his mother);
b) involved in a "scandal" (perhaps involving boys and/or homosexuality) and had been sacked for that reason.
Either one, or both, of these are seen as motive for suicide. But in fact the evidence for either is pretty fragile and second hand. Without them, is there any evidence at all that MJD would have taken his own life?
It must also be remembered that burial in consecrated ground usually required it to be shown that the deceased/suicide had acted while the balance of his mind was disturbed. the reference to MJD's mother might have been brought in for that purpose.
Druitt could have been sacked for all manner of reasons not all scandalous - focusing on an increasingly successful legal career to the detriment of his teaching might be one.
So we have two alternatives:
Either (a) he intended to commit, or was contemplating suicide that day;
Or (b) he was perfectly OK and was going to Hammersmith on some other business.
Actually in either event, the two people who lived at Hammersmith and whom I mentioned in an earlier post could have been the object of his visit.
(Incidentally, Hammersmith now and probably then, is a good shopping centre. He may have intended to buy something, or even breakfast there, before walking on to Chiswick. A walk like that would have been nothing to a Victorian.)
He might have wished to seek career advice or funds from Harry Wilson or J H Lonsdale (the latter of whom he almost certainly knew given the proximity of not one but two addresses). Equally, given Wilson's suspected proclivities. there might have been a link if sexual scandal was involved.
My point is not that either alternative is likely, just that there are a range of possibilities and we need to be careful about our assumptions.
I think John was too hasty in dismissing Wilson and Lonsdale above. We know that MJD was invited to a function in Dorset at which PAV was present. There is thus no reason why he could not have been involved on the fringes of the Prince's circle even if he did not know PAV intimately. As already stated there must be a high degree of likelihood that MJD knew Lonsdale to some degree.
On balance, I think Druitt may well have felt he was at a crisis of his life - a turning point might be less melodramatic, but his perception might have been of a crisis. He might have travelled to seek advice from existing friends, or perhaps with Lonsdale to see Wilson (whom we know Lonsdale knew) who had "influence" and knew "people".
Whether, as a result of that meeting he determined to commit suicide, or (more unlikely) was killed, I do not know.
A killing (though I do not necessarily promote the Howells and Skinner thesis here) might have been designed:
a) to remove an embarrassment and keep the lid on a scandal involving people in high places (PAV etc) maybe akin to the later Cleveland St affair.
b)MJD MIGHT have been blackmailing others more highly placed than he (for instance). This might explain Macnaghten's later knowledge of him.
All this is very dramatic and thus not highly probable. But we should not dismiss the possibility that cases ran parallel to the Ripper murders and were suspected of links. Thus rumours about MJD's doings might have been recalled by some in a Ripper context , giving rise to comments like "one should look high up in society".
As today, so then, society had many ways of catering to bohemian tastes. Those who frequented Cleveland St - and there must have been people other than those mentioned in the later case - would have wanted other venues and outlets. The Chiswick group (Wilson etc) might have been patrons, or their premises a place to meet. No evince and pure speculation, but I am exploring possibilities here.
We quite simply do not know enough about Druitt to be certain of anything. His dismissal, the reasons for Macnaghten's later beliefs; his movements and intentions on the likely day of his death, all are shrouded in mist.
More work on Lonsdale might be a way in? Also to seek to trace other connections MJD may have had, sporting or other.
He remains a possible and plausible Ripper to me, but I am equally open to his name having got mixed in by association rather than on the basis of a real connection. Basically, I have no axe to grind here.
All pure thought clearance.
Phil
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 826
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 11:29 am: |
|
Phil,
Thank you for your comprehensive post, most of which I agree with. I, too, think more work on Lonsdale is in order. However, by 1888 he had left his legal career (and his chambers at KBW and residence in Blackheath apparently) to enter church work. Leighton gives 1887 as the date when Lonsdale gave up law for the church. But certainly there must have been a period of theological education required. A Master of Divinity I think would have been necessary. Some of the requirements for this degree would have been met by his law degree but I suspect at least a year of theological studies was necessary. When did this take place? Was 1887 the date when Lonsdale actually entered church work or is it the date he left his legal career to study theology? Where was he in 1888?
Now back to Montague. I have always noted his seeming overreaction to his dismissal. Why would that make him think he is going insane? Why would it prompt his suicide? Perhaps it was because he knew he was guilty of something else, something heinous, something that would soon be discovered and would lead to dire consequences.
With regard to your assumptions, Phil, I agree that there is no evidence Monty's dismissal was due to scandal of a sexual nature. In fact, I would argue that the evidence points away from that. As to Montague's fears of going mad (like mother) and suicidal thoughts, we must take these as factual unless we allow for the possibility that his suicide note was not genuine (a very slim possibility, I think).
You make good points about Montague's potential reasons for purchasing a ticket to Hammersmith rather than Ravenscourt Park (which was closer to Chiswick, the Osiers, Tukes', etc.). Perhaps he telegraphed a Chiswick contact and arranged for breakfast at a favorite Hammersmith Pub. We do not know. All we can surmise is that he probably did not go directly to Chiswick that morning.
The return ticket is still puzzling. From the fact he left his suicide note at Eliot Place (I have no doubt that this is where it was found) and its wording, "Since Friday...", I have to conclude that Montague left Eliot Place with the intention of killing himself before he returned -- or at least that this was a strong possibility in his mind (i.e., the note seems to have been written with the presumption of it being found a few days later). Then why the return ticket? Was it cheaper than buying two singles? Perhaps, but who cares about expense if one is going to kill himself anyway? This is clearly not the time to be shopping for bargains! Was it out of habit that he purchased the return ticket? Maybe, but there is no evidence that he made frequent trips to Hammersmith.
A possible scenario: Montague telegraphs Harry Wilson at the Osiers on Friday asking to meet him for breakfast/lunch at a favorite Pub in Hammersmith. Montague travels to Hammermsith but Wilson fails to show up. Druitt then walks to the Osiers to call on Wilson and is rebuffed. Druitt wanders aimlessly for a few hours and then drowns himself in the Thames. Now, we do have to factor in the suicide note. Perhaps Montague had thought of the possibility that Wilson would not be able or willing to help him and in that case there would be no choice but to commit suicide. Thus the reason for leaving the note.
OK, now the question: In Montague's mind, what sort of trouble was he in that Harry Wilson could help him with?
Natalie,
Does Neil Rhind's paper say whether 1887 is the actual date Lonsdale entered church work at Wimborne Minster or whether this was the date he left his legal career to study theology?
Andy S.
(Message edited by aspallek on May 20, 2005)
(Message edited by aspallek on May 20, 2005) |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1946
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 1:08 pm: |
|
Hi Andrew,
Yes, thats the date given and his first curacy is at Wimborne Druitt"s family home.
Regarding Hammersmith.I drove through it today and was struck by the number of very old pubs there-probably old even when Montague was alive!
Also by the large numbers of what seemed like Georgian cottages leading towards the river.The houses on the river sometimes have strange features like doors sunk down with high steps in front to act as a damn when the Thames floods.
Also lots of large early Victorian buildings-like convents/hospitals.
And as you say lots of shops-especially around King Street -the upper stories of which look very ancient indeed[late Georgian/early Victorian] in amongst all the new Buildings.
To my mind he went there to be quiet by the river.Its very beautiful there at the moment with masses of blossom and the Willows hanging over on the little Island etc ,but its actually a bit treacherous looking in Winter
when the river swells up.You can walk right along the bankside which has playing fields either side of the river and is rather lonely and deserted -in contrast to the shopping area of Hammersmith.One of the older tube entrances is right
next to an old Victorian pub with the police station a little further along.
Natalie |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 574
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 1:42 pm: |
|
If he wanted to be quiet, Natalie, why Hammersmith, why not Richmond, Kew or the stretch between Hampton Court and Kingston? All easily accessible by train, and even lonelier if not lovelier??
It's a long time (probably the late 80s after the H&S book came out) since I thought deeply about Druitt. But I come back to some of the things that struck me then
- the suicide note, convenient for the family in some ways (it suggested madness and thus an excuse for suicide and thus burial in holy ground was OK). I accept that equally it might be genuine and I have no knowledge of how suicide notes "usually" read;
- the return ticket that (for all the explanations I gave earlier) suggests he intended to return;
- the association of individuals with interesting connections immediately near where the body was found.
Andy, in your excellent post, you ask:
... now the question: In Montague's mind, what sort of trouble was he in that Harry Wilson could help him with?
My analysis would be (in no particular order):
a) financial assistance of some kind;
b) help to get out of a "scandal" or to use influential contacts to cover it up (assuming the person he was visiting wasn't involved);
c) a fellow paedophile/homosexual to confide in after his disgrace and dismissal;
d) help in getting a new job;
e) blackmail - I've been sacked, you are involved, help me (in whatever way - money, contacts, assistance) or I spill the beans;
f) you got me into this now please help get me out(assumes the person visited WAS involved in some way);
f) you got me into this now please help get me out (assumes the person visited WAS involved in some way);
g) Druitt discovers that having misled himself into thinking himself a valued member of an elite group, he has been used and discarded - they let him sink;
h) Druitt seeks legal or social advice;
i) in a crisis he has gone to see friends for tea and sympathy.
Can anyone think of any more? Some of these are quite dramatic, some routine, none are mutually exclusive. some might have sent Druitt away in despair if he did not gain his object. Others might have led to him being quietly silenced.
I emphasise that I have no agenda here. All I have done is brainstorm some options.
Given Wilson's circle of course, the house at Chiswick - if that is where Druitt went - might have been a venue to meet more influential people.
Note that Druitt did not have to have gained access to a group around PAV at university, as H&S tried to argue as I recall. IF - big if - he was homosexual, he might have been drawn into such a group through the Inner Temple/legal contacts; or membership of a club like the 100 Guineas, or the Cleveland St place. he was not unhandsome, fit and sporty, with a "look" similar to that affected by PAV himself. So he could have had attractions for other men of that sort.
Another lurid possibility (if the connection above had any validity - which I doubt) is that, for whatever reason his high-placed friends tired of him or feared him, leaked information to his headmaster and got him sacked. He might then have tried to seek them out to gain explanations or redress. far-fetched? Maybe, but it could explain why he had a return ticket.
One spin off from this unlikely option, is that if those who had disposed of him wanted to blacken Druitt's posthumous reputation, then they might have leaked information about Druitt as Jack to Macnaghten later... No, I don't believe it!!
Enough speculation - and I underline that it is simply a basis for discussion...
Phil |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 827
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 2:18 pm: |
|
Natalie,
What I am asking is whether 1887 is the date Lonsdale began his curacy at Wimbourne or is it the date he gave up his legal career to begin theological studies? What I'm trying to do is establish Lonsdale's whereablouts in 1888. Clearly he had given up law by then but was he at Wimbourne or was he off studying theology, perhaps at Trinity College, Cambridge, where there is a John Lonsdale on the faculty today?
Boy, do I now regret not taking the time to visit Hammersmith and Chiswick on my last trip.
Phil --
I'm not sure this is enough speculation. Let's do some more! To address your potential reasons Montague would seek help from Wilson or someone like him:
a) Financial assistance would probably not be necessary. Remember that he had cheques totalling 66 pounds on him. Assuming these were cheques made out to him, he had ample funds. This would be something on the order of 10,000 to 20,000 pounds today (perhaps more).
b) There is no evidence of scandal. In fact, the evidence suggests otherwise.
c) As you note, there is nothing to suggest that Montague was either a paedophile or a homosexual.
d) He already had a successful legal practice.
e, f, g) Possibilities, but supposes conspiracy which should always be presumed unlikely without clear evidence.
h and i) Quite possible, although would rebuff be so devastating if that was all Montague was seeking?
On the return ticket: it may be that Druitt was quite hopeful of finding assistance in whomever he expected to meet at Hammersmith. If he did receive the expected assistance, he would use the return ticket and destroy the suicide note before anyone found it. He left the suicide note just in case he did not receive this assistance, in which case he would not be returning.
Finally, on Druitt's overreaction to events: it is true that I have known mentally ill people who display this very overreaction. However, these people were prevented by their illnesses from holding down respectable jobs. Montague held down not one, but two, respectable jobs right until the final crisis. This suggests his illness was not to the point of producing such overreactions.
Andy S. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1947
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 3:24 pm: |
|
Andrew,
I see what you mean and dont know the answer sorry!
Andrew and Phil,
I am not convinced that Druitt "managed" the two jobs at the very end.Something appears to have gone wrong when he had to be dismissed because of a "serious offence".
To me he seems to have always enjoyed competitive sports and the competition of "debating" when at university.He was the school"s champion at Fives and an excellent cricketer,a rugby player etc.This could mean he
had a streak of brutality operating below the surface but on the other hand it could be argued that he knew how to discharge this brutal streak if indeed he had one,in an appropriate way.
The bits and pieces we have suggest a man
of considerable physical strength and intelligence and fairly strong and possibly for that time at any rate "liberal" views --- but who admired Wordsworth because he defended "Protestantism".
But that there was a dark side to his family there can be no doubt for several family members committed suicide.
His mother sounds as though she was in a pretty bad way by the time she was sectioned
because of her irrational beliefs about people-people out to electrocute her and what not and Druitt may have found all this together with his own demons too much to endure.Hence the suicide while the balance of his mind was disturbed.
Such a man could have been the ripper in my view-particularly if episodes of psychosis started to happen around the time his mother was sectioned ie July 1888.
As someone said the other day on these boards-in madness there doesnt have to be a reason
-well except to the madman ofcourse!People who dont suffer from delusional voices in their heads telling them to act in certain ways may not ever understand the acts of a Jack the Ripper in the way Jack "understood" them.
The only thing is we have no evidence whatsoever that Druitt did have any connection to Whitechapel.No evidence whatsoever that he was ever violent in any way.Or that he had ever committed a crime of any kind!
It doesnt ring true either that he had anything to do with any plots or conspiracies.
But we can"t altogether rule him out because of Machnaghten and the fact that both he and some of his family were able to take life-if only their own
Natalie |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 579
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 3:26 pm: |
|
Three responsible jobs if one includes his unpaid but no doubt time-consuming work for the Cricket Club.
You have written some excellent posts today, Andy - they are much appreciated.
The fact is, and I am trying to avoid speculation altogether now that a man can work away without a clue to the unrest within. But like a grain of sand with an oyster, some tiny thing (that an outsider might never know or see as trivial) - a fear, a secret, a past "sin", a suspicion of illness - can gnaw away at his soul until he is effectively transformed.
Serious trouble at the school could mean anything, from embezzlement, an inappropriate affair (with a female) assisting cheating at exams or some other non-sexual irregularity.
I have been engaging in debate in another thread about potential Fenian/Irish links of MJK. But how if MJD had got himself into a radical cause - say the Irish question - and had hidden material or people in the school? Would that not have been motive to dismiss him?
Many things that impaired "integrity" could have been social suicide for a gentleman - but on the other hand, the empire in 1888 must have held many opportunities for a man to start over (India, Australia, Canade would surely have welcomed a trained lawyer or experienced teacher...) and we know people did.
I too would not want to suppose a conspiracy without firmer grounds, but one must remember that there were scandals in that period with Cleveland St already mentioned by me. There the establishment clearly moved to protect itself and key members such as Lord Euston and perhaps PAV.
I don't think Macnaghten would have made up the stuff about the family's fears about MJD either. They came from somewhere and had some cause.
I have the feeling that we are tip-toeing around something here, that (if we but had the key) would all fall into place so easily. Pity is, we probably will never gain that key, unless in an attic in a druitt residence somewhere, there is a trunk, or a box or a file... one would think his gold watch and spade guinea fob must have gone somewhere (unless into the grave with him)...
Thanks again Andy for your illuminating and inspiring posts.
Phil
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 828
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 4:03 pm: |
|
Question: Where banks open on Saturdays in 1888? If not, why would Druitt have the two cheques in his possession if he couldn't cash them? Was it to prove to someone that he had sufficient funds for something?
Phil is right about the Cricket Club duties. It almost amounts to three respected jobs at once. This is not a man with outward manifestations of mental illness. In my view Monatague's offense could not have been of a homosexual or financial (embezzlement) nature. If so he would not have been paid so generously nor been allowed to remain at the school Friday night. Interesting idea about the possible Fenian?Irish connections. Being non-British, I am not well versed in this area.
Natalie has identified the Druitt conundrum: Here is a man with no know connections to the East End (though with legal chambers nearby) and no known history of or capacity for violence who yet was the number 1 suspect of a man very much in the know. He must have been suspected for good reason. He certainly had suspicious events connected with the end of his life and had a capacity for mental illness.
As to my lengthy posts of today: I am recovering from some minor surgery and have nothing else to do! I wish I could go back to work!
Andy S. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 829
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
It is likely that November 30 was the end of Michaelmas term at Cambridge. If Lonsdale had returned to study theology there might he have ventured to the Osiers for an end-of-term celebration and so have agreed to meet Montague at Hammersmith? Perhaps such festivities at the end of Michaelmas term were regular at the Osiers.
Andy S. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 582
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 5:45 pm: |
|
In my youth (say up to the 70s or later) British banks closed on a Saturday and had restricted hours 10am-3pm on weekdays. I don't know what their hours were in Victorian times.
If by "legal chambers nearby" you mean KBW and Inner Temple, I would describe neither in that way. The whole "Square Mile" of the City of London separates them from Whitechapel/Spitalfields. Not, in relative terms a huge distance, but a world in social and perceptual ways. certainly not next door, and no closer than a host of other places.
The generous redundancy payment might have been to get him to go quietly. If he was short of funds - say to start a new abroad - he might have been looking for much more substantial sums that £66: perhaps thousands - hence a visit and appeal to rich friends?
I certainly am not pushing any Fenian connection - just a serendipitous association of ideas between this and another thread. No one would be more surprised than I if anything came of it.
Hope you are soon back to full fitness Andy.
Best wishes,
Phil |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 830
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 7:55 pm: |
|
Phil --
I agree with you on the social chasm between the City and the East End. However, this chasm is bridged if you postulate that Druitt (or someone else) deliberately visited the East End for some nefarious reason. As far as distance is concerned, KBW is a little more than a mile from Mitre Square. If Druitt were in the habit of taking the train to Cannon Street rather than Charing Cross, he was even closer yet.
Again, 66 pounds would be more than enough to make a fresh start elsewhere. The value of a pound is easily 100 to 200 times now what it was in 1888. For example, a typical wage for a Met police officer was 16 shillings a week or around 40 pounds a year. 66 pounds would be a year and a half's wages for a bobby. An engineer earned about 100 pounds a year. Several thousand pounds in 1888 would be millions today.
My guess is that there would be no need for banks to be open on Saturdays in Victorian times. Articles I have read indicated that "gentlemen" rarely had the need to carry more than a few pence or at most a few shillings on their person since most purchases were handled by credit.
Andy S. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 586
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 1:47 am: |
|
Andy I was only quibbling over a word "nearby". In London terms, I would not have used that word.
You make good points about money - but the cheques would eventually have to be cashed.
Another possibility that occurs to me (I certainly won't press it, but it might not be unrealistic or impossible). That is that Druitt himself was being blackmailed in some way and by someone. He might have gone to "friends" either for advice on handling the situation or to borrow money.
The corollory is that Druitt went to see whomever was blackmailing him. That might account for the sums on him - from years ago I seem to recall that it was easier than it is today in the UK to endorse a cheque made payable to someone else and pay it into your own account. If he was re-buffed, it might account for his decision to commit suicide.
If Druitt was "resisting" a blackmailer, that might account for why the school was tipped off about something; he would have had a secret it was difficult to share (i.e. he had to carry on as usual as far as possible); and might account for a trip from which he at least initially intended to return.
Pure speculation seeking a match with the evidence we have. But that might allow for visit, return tickets, sudden decision that life was not worth living, carrying on as normal and dismissal, as well as money on body.... But it has no substance outside my thinking.
Phil |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4423
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 9:41 am: |
|
Hi all
Re blackmail, I think the odds are against Monty's having been blackmailed, at least as far as the murders are concerned. Monty disappeared for a month without, apparently, any hard evidence of his guilt being passed to the police by the blackmailer. Of course, he may have been approached by a chancer - a blackmailer who had no definite evidence, but relied on his victim's position in society, and the state of his nerves, to do his work for him. If that was the case, then Monty killed himself for nothing, because the blackmailer did nothing.
Robert |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 587
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 11:00 am: |
|
I'm just trying to go through the options here, in a reasonably systematic way.
I don't think we can know what the blackmailer might have done after MJD's death. Was the information about him that worried the family and which was passed to Macnaghten perhaps from that source?
Phil |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4424
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Phil, it's possible. But I do think the blackmailer, if there was one, couldn't have had anything absolutely damning on Monty. If he had, he must have been a very patient blackmailer to wait a month while his victim simply disappeared.
I'm just wondering what evidence any blackmailer could possibly have had that might have alarmed Druitt. I suppose the people best placed to be blackmailers would have been the maids at Eliot Place, who could conceivably have found bloodstained clothing and a knife in his room. Next on the list would be the East End prostitutes, some of whom might have seen him with one or more of the victims. After that, it's difficult to see how the Ripper blackmail scenario would work. But I agree that blackmail for other things - embezzlement, homosexuality etc - is certainly a possibility.
Robert |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 588
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 2:12 pm: |
|
Robert - you seem to be assuming that MJD would have been blackmailed about being the Ripper!!
I think he could have been blackmailed about almost anything - irregularilites in his legal practice, in his social life, about his mental state... Many people have secrets and I don't think I ever inferred that I thought Druitt was being held to ransom over knives, East End prostitutes, bloodstains etc.
And if the blackmailer knew Druitt had "topped himself" that explains his silence afterwards - except that someone clearly made the police aware of Druitt, and the family concerns arose for some reason...
But this is just conjecture - let's play with the ideas, but not take them too seriously.
Phil |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1952
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 3:03 pm: |
|
On the other hand if Druitt had begun to hear "command voices" he could have "confessed" to the killings-thinking he had done them-then topped himself and Machnaghten could have gone along with family or friends who "thought it might be true"---but hadnt really got a clue.The whole bunch of them could have been "speculating" about Druitt as the Ripper!
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4429
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 3:10 pm: |
|
No worries, Phil. I'm all in favour of thought experiments - even some of Richard's!
Robert |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 12:35 pm: |
|
Although this quote by Mark Twain has various versions, he is reported to have said "It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." Having said that, I will now go against his very sage advice. I am obviously missing something here. How could any paper that Druitt had on his person be legible. Wasn't his body in the water for a month or so? Some type of waterproof case? What am I missing? And please Mark, forgive me. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 831
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 12:52 am: |
|
Legible papers were found on Druitt. The report of his inquest makes this clear. Not so strange really, legible papers were recovered from the Titanic nearly 100 years in saltwater. A lot depends upon how they were folded and in what sort of holder they were kept.
As to the possibility of Montague being blackmailed, since there is no evidence or even suggestion of it I wouldn't put a lot of time into investigating the possibility.
Andy S. |
Phil Hill
Police Constable
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 1:41 am: |
|
Andy the discussion wasn't about areas for further work, and my posts have all been clearly marked as speculative.
The discussion, if you recall, (and check the title of the thread) was about the trip to Hammersmith, and WHY MJD might have gone there. the reference to blackmail came up as part of an attempt to brainstorm all the possible reasons for his trip. Nothing more.
Phil |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 834
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 5:19 pm: |
|
Phil,
I know. It was I who started this thread. I hope you didn't think I was being critical. I only meant to acknowledge the possibility of blackmail but to put it rather far down on the list of likelihood as to a reason for the Hammersmith journey.
Andy S.
(Message edited by Aspallek on May 22, 2005) |
Phil Hill
Police Constable
Username: Phil
Post Number: 5
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 1:56 am: |
|
Then we agree - although if something was amiss at the school and Druitt was involved, blackmail might always be an option.
Phil |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1959
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 6:34 am: |
|
Hi Andrew and Phil,
re the blackmail- I wonder whether it would be worth checking any addresses in Hammersmith of workers at the school?For instance grooms,maids, cooks,etc.
On the other hand by drowning himself in Hammersmith it ensured that the coroners report didnt circulate widely in Inner London newspapers.This could have been foresight on Monty"s part IF he left the suicide note etc to save his family having to cope with the aftermath
of publicity.
The return ticket on the other hand may have been some uncertainty on Monty"s part that he really wanted to do away with himself.
Regarding his mother,he sounds as though he was genuinely troubled over the prospect of his own further depression/mental illness-something that he may have heard about before in the family and recognised the symptoms of in himself as well as mother-as said in the suicide note.
Already depressed, he could then have gone to Hammersmith perhaps on a prearranged visit ,to discuss with a Doctor his fears for himself as well as his mother.If he then had a thoroughly depressing prognosis about his mother and an equivocal one at best from a Doctor about his own troubles, it could all have left him suicidal.After all he went only a day or two after he had lost his teaching job because of serious trouble.He may have wondered how it all would end if he did stick it.Especially if he also THOUGHT he might be the ripper!!!After all something must have given Machnaghten the strong suspicion that he was and it may be that it was Monty himself who started the ball rolling "confessing"----a hugely common happening even today for people to delude themselves about having committed crimes they did not do---especially paedophiles[not that I am saying Monty was a paedophile]but I do happen to know this is common and very tiresome stuff for mental hospitals and the police to have to deal with.[It may ofcourse stem from a latent desire but the "confessional material" is rarely acted upon
by the confessor apparently].
Anyway the final straw that day may simply have been a depressing confirmation by a doctor of Monty"s fears.
Natalie
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
