|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
c.d.
Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 35
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 10:44 pm: | 
|
Druitt's suicide note has always bothered me. If Druitt's suicide was in any way related to his guilt over the murders, why is there no mention at all of the murders or his victims? Concern for his family and their reputation and a desire to spare them further pain would be the obvious answer. A veiled reference to what he had done would accomplish that but still show that his death was in some way an atonement for his deeds, yet all we have is a concern for his own failing mental health. Doesn't this seem strange?
My apologies if this has been brought up before.
c.d. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2505
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 3:42 am: |
|
Hi c.d.
I tend to agree-if ofcourse the "suicide note" wasnt just a "cover up" by his frantic family .
But yes,if Druitt was lucid enough to be concerned about his own and his mother"s failing grasp on reality and with how much longer he could endure his depression over it, then the very least that could be expected is that he would have expressed some a hint of contrition or remorse over his involement in the ghastly murders-if he was involved as per Macnaghten"s memo of 1894.
Myself I have come to think its more likely to be a case of one worried Chief of Police worrying about the impact of a certain newspapers allegations on another Chief of Police,Charles Cutbush, viz the Sun"s revelations that year about Thomas ,the "nephew" of Charles Cutbush.
Natalie |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 175
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 4:01 pm: |
|
Natalie,
I agree with you 100%. I feel that there was far too much emphasis put on Thomas being innocent. Of all the Ripper suspects, he was the only one whose innocense was shouted to the rooftop (so to speak).
I absolutely feel that Druitt's suicide was quite a convenience for the police and nothing more than that.
The suicide note has always bothered me as no doubt it has several other people, but I agree with c.d., why not confess to the murders if you are going to commit suicide anyway. On the other hand maybe he did and someone else wrote a different note, to save the family's name etc.,
Who Knows???????
regards
Julie
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 489
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 7:37 pm: |
|
Hello c.d., Natalie and Julie.
I can see what you are observing c.d., and that question should be asked, in my opinion.
However, if you look at the image Montague Druitt chose to present to his public when he (obviously with some forward planning )suicided.
Immaculately dressed in kid gloves, suit, gold watch and chain; pockets filled with cheques for
moderately large amount; gold coins; season rail ticket;....drowned in the Thames in a pleasant London suburb.
Discreetly drowned. Allowing for the death to pass unreported in the major London papers.
The suicide was no major announcement by (allegedly) one of the most horrific women-slayers of the nineteenth century. It was an Ophelia-like slide into oblivion.
With as little embarrassment for his surviving
family as possible.One or two notes left to be privately read.No note on the river-bank for public consumption.
For whatever reason, Montague Druitt seems to have been unable to admit in writing to those terrible crimes; after all, Macnaghten and his acquaintances have alleged it was Druitt's friends or relatives who expressed grave concerns over Druitt's disappearance in early December.
If, as has been alleged, those people feared Druitt was the Whitechapel murderer, their concern when he went missing is understandable.
But I must admit, there is inconsistency in Druitt's possible absconding from an asylum or nursing home, to appear in a London court in connection with a trial Druitt was appearing in!
I also believe, so far, we cannot decide one way or the other, given the lack of information about Druitt's movements.
So talk of cover-up and scapegoats is still premature, I think.
|
c.d.
Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 40
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 10:30 am: |
|
John,
Hi. You made some very good points. I would expect Druitt to have said something with respect to the murders. It didn't mecessarily have to be an admission of guilt. He had considerable options, all the way from "I killed five women" to "I am sorry for the things I have done." He could have shown remorse while still protecting his family's reputation, but for whatever reason, he chose not to do so.
c.d. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2517
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
Hi c.d.,Julie,John,
Its amazing how another persons point of view can throw such a different light on things.
I am thinking right now of John"s excellent observation about MJ Druitt being such a "well dressed/well groomed suicide.
I know that the first things assessed by psychiatrists re stages of depression and mental illness are usually
a]how good is the person"s work record
b] how "well presented" are they/how well are they looking after their personal appearance.
On the first count Druitt seems to have managed his Legal Duties quite well up until very close to his death.He did ofcourse lose his teaching post and apparently his performance on the cricket pitch had been deteriorating throughout the Summer of 1888, though not his work as Honorary Secretary of the Blackheath Cricket Club!
But as a "well dressed suicide"-----that is a bit baffling!
Natalie |
c.d.
Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 41
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 12:23 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie,
I don't have a problem with Druitt being a well dressed suicide. He was after all an English gentleman and had come from a prominent family. We simply don't know how rapid his deterioration was. I am troubled however by the fact that he had money and a train ticket in his pocket. Combined with the way he was dressed, it seems to indicate that he was prepared to travel and meet with someone. My first thought was that he was intending to seek help but decided that his situation was hopeless and it was best to get it over with. This seems a logical explantion but then we are left with the question of why he left the note in his room if he had decided to seek help. Any thoughts?
c.d. |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 177
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 6:29 pm: |
|
John Ruffels,
Hi John,
Since we know so little for certain about so many suspects, our (mine) theories are just that. I , as well as many others, try to come up with as many different scenerios that may fit or that make sense, in order to better understand who Jack was. Maybe the points put forth by me with respect to Montague's suicide do not necessarily agree with other's opinions, I stand firm when I ask why such a big deal was made in the case of Thomas Cutbush being innocent, and not in any other suspect's innocense. Why just him? If a special point was made for any other suspect's innocense as in the case of Cutbush, than I would be happy to hear from you with their names.
regards
Julie
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 491
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 7:17 am: |
|
Sorry Julie,
You're correct. I did not address the core of your argument when I posted above. Rather I focussed on Druitt's state of mind and the prevailing compulsion to appear respectable ( in life and death).
I am not a deep student of LVP crime, so cannot come up with any other cases where senior police took strenuous steps to vouch for the innocence of any suspect in the Ripper murders.(The only other case I can think of is the curious attendance of a senior JTR police official at young Saunders' case for bottom stabbing).
But, to your point: Melville Macnaghten's memorandum, which goes to great lengths to criticise the accuracy of THE SUN's article on Thomas Cutbush, then goes on to allege the police were closer to catching The Ripper than people think. He then explains, the reason the Ripper wasn't caught was because he suicided.
If you look at these points all together, you will notice they have one aim: to justify the actions of the police.
Even to the point of pleading the innocence of Thomas Cutbush. Purely(?) to take the pressure off his family. Which just happened to include Uncle Charles, a senior Scotland Yard man and certainly, an acquaintance of MM.
But. One other point should be noted. Whilst you and I are aware of the contents of Macnaghten's Memorandum (marked "Confidential"),the readers of
The Sun remained blissfully unaware of Macnaghten's attempts at arguing innocence.It was never used in the press or parliament.
But I agree with you that such a memorandum was pretty unusual.(To the best of my knowledge anyway). |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 180
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 7:09 pm: |
|
John Ruffels
Hi John,
We obviously agree on certain points, your points are well presented.
best regards
Julie
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 752
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
|
The trouble with the suicide note is that a (and perhaps the) major plank in the 'case' against Druitt was the allegation that his own family suspected him of being the Ripper. We don't know if this was true, but if it was, we can hardly expect Willy of having given a true and accurate rendition at the inquest. The burden of the Druittists is the possibility that if he was indeed the Ripper, his family carefully lied, destroyed, and manipulated any existing evidence that might have tended to implicate MJD. By the way, what was up with brother Ed? He doesn't appear to have been at the funeral, and Farson made a big deal out of his sudden flight down under. Cheers. |
Jessica
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 12:43 am: |
|
I visited all the sites of the murders while I was in London. I just happened to come across this site. I am just curious as to why you all are so interested in this unsolved murder cases? |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1528
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 4:02 pm: |
|
Hi Jessica,
Slightly puzzled.
You state that whilst in London you visited all of the murder sites, that is not uncommon as thousands of people from all over the world take the tours on offer or do solo trips.
Incidently i am pleased that you came across this site.
The reason that all of us regulars persist in discussing as you rightly state this unsolved murder case , is simply that it it is unsolved, and as it is human nature to be fascinated by mystery it is a challenge to attempt to use ones knowledge and detective instincts to try to understand this intriquing puzzle.
Besides all of that it is a great form of relaxation, and a great forum for letting of energy in the form of debate.
Hope you continue to pop into our little world of intrique.
Regards Richard. |
jason_connachan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 6:53 am: |
|
"I stand firm when I ask why such a big deal was made in the case of Thomas Cutbush being innocent, and not in any other suspect's innocense. Why just him?"
Julie
I cant answer your question fully. One explanation could be that he was one of the few living "suspects" who was NAMED}. That along with the sensational nature of the Cutbush claims (and mild embarrassment to the police) may have led to a re-buttal by the authorities |
Andrew Spallek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 1021
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 5:31 pm: |
|
Julie, et al:
A "big deal" is made about Cutbush's innocence because it was his apprehension that occasioned Macnaghten's memo. It was not MM's concern to exonerate other suspects in this memo.
As to what someone "should" or "should not" write in his suicide note, we are on dangerous ground here. I have been involved professionally in a number of suicide cases and have found that each of these individuals behaved differently and it is impossible to generalize about the behavior of a suicide victim prior to his act.
Finally, while Druitt's note does read like a suicide letter, we have to remember that we are not certain of this. The return ticket in his possession is enough evidence at least to throw some doubt that Druitt's suicide was premeditated. Furthermore, since the note was first produced by William at the inquest, we are really not certain that it is genuine at all.
Just some thoughts for the sake of perspective.
Andy S.
(Message edited by aspallek on December 12, 2005) |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 121
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 10:09 pm: |
|
Hi Andy,
Good comments and some important things to keep in mind when discussing Druitt. Haven't we been going on the assumption that MM named Druitt as a result of his suicide and the private information he is said to have obtained from his family? You are right that speculating what someone should or should not say in his suicide note is futile. But in this instance, it is no ordinary suicide. According to the police, the suicide was the result of Jack being unable to cope with the thought of what he had done to Mary Kelly. If that was true, I find it very strange that there was no allusion whatsoever to what he had done. You have to wonder if the police found that strange as well or whether the private information was so strong that any doubts relating to the circumstances of the sucide were cast aside.
c.d. |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 499
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 5:17 am: |
|
Hello Fellow Posters,
I think one major problem with analysing Montague Druitt's "guilt" or otherwise, in the Ripper murders is the second-hand nature of the sources.
Journalists:At the Inquest, reporting evidence in a generalised manner, cut-down, to fit into a newspaper paragraph or two. Meeting a time deadline. That includes a paraphrase of the contents of the suicide note; evidence by the next-of-kin William Harvey Druitt,about Montague's behaviour, career, family and when last seen.
The Police Constable's evidence: extremely shortened.And the Waterman's story: also cut into a very small oragami .
Add to that Melville Macnaghten's Memorandum: with its brief summation plus his claimed (but not revealed)"private information", and the whole thing is very difficult to take apart and examine successfully.
R. J.Palmer wonders aloud why Montague Druitt's next younger brother, Captain Edward Druitt, did not come back for the funeral (or become involved even at a later date?).
Well, Captain Druitt converted to Catholicism whilst at Chatham in February 1887.His family were pillars of the Wimborne Minster, a bishop and an Archdeacon featured in the closest family tree.The Wimborne and Christchurch Druitts were strong Masons.Edward Druitt married in 1889, the daughter of one of the staunchest Catholic families in the West Country, the Welds of Chideock Dorset.Amongst whose relatives were the Vaughans, and included a Mother Superior at Rose Bay Convent Sydney, and a Cardinal.
After Edward Druitt's return to England after his Australian stint, he eventually retired from the Royal Engineers and moved to Edinburgh where he was a Railway Safety and Accident Inspector for the rest of his working life.To my knowledge, despite his London relatives clipping and keeping a newpaper mention of Edward's son, Everard's, death in France in 1915, on Active Service, no other record survives of communication between Edward's and the other Druitt branches after his marriage. At least two of his siblings inherited the Diabetes strain and succumbed to its ravages.
It is my opinion that Macnaghten might have learnt of the Druitt family suspicion about Montague being the Ripper after the Inquest.It is likely the Druitt family wished to maintain Montague's "respectable"image: Montague's kid gloves worn at his suicide, and the use of Druitt family influence to have him buried in hallowed ground, despite his suicide.
Perhaps the family "suspicion" was a private matter: not to be aired in public. |
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1149
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 9:49 am: |
|
Howdy John Ruffels,
This is just a small matter, but I thought you might be interested. The Internment Act 1882 directed that persons found guilty of felo de se (deliberate self-murder) were to be buried in churchyards, as if they hadn’t killed themselves. I assume the Act also applied to those who committed suicide while of unsound mind (the gentler version of felo de se). What the Act doesn’t cover are the Church of England’s burial rites. That directed that the office for burying the dead “is not to be used for any that have laid violent hands upon themselves.” So, there should have been no problem getting Druitt buried in the churchyard, the problem would have been with getting the rites performed for him.
Hope that’s of interest,
Dave |
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1150
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 11:33 am: |
|
Hmmph! Strike that, the actual title of the act is "Internment (felo de se) Act 1882", so I guess it applies only to cases of suicide while of sound mind. I still think the law allowed Druitt to be buried in a churchyard without rites, but I'll have to track it down (otherwise it will nag at me).
Apologies for the side path!
Dave |
Andrew Spallek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 1025
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 3:32 pm: |
|
Dave,
That would be interesting to find out -- though it may not shed a while lot of light on the "big picture" of Druitt's guilt or innocence of the murders. Britain is so very different from America, with our separation of church and state. Our governments have no authority in these matters.
What might be quite revealing is for someone to gain access to the parish records of Wimbourne Minster and find out the circumstances of Montague's burial.
Andy S. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5383
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 4:06 pm: |
|
Hi Andy
We know from the Sourcebook that the funeral service was read by Rev. Huyshe.
Robert |
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1151
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 4:48 pm: |
|
Nope, you’re not going to find evidence of Druitt’s guilt or innocence of the Ripper murders in legislation or, I suspect, in the depositions from Diplock’s public tavern inquest (otherwise you’d think someone would have talked about it). I like trying to learn the little details statutes provide just because of the thinking points they give me.
Take for example the verdict of suicide while of unsound mind. It seems that typically, the average person sitting on a jury figured that if you killed yourself, you must be crazy. You could not be responsible for your actions. But English law considered there were categories of suicides kind of like there are categories of murders, and that you could kill yourself the same way you could kill another person--you could murder yourself. There was a legal view in 1888 that juries broadly associating suicide only with “unsound minds” might be a dangerous thing to do, because then you could apply insanity to any murderer and he wouldn’t be responsible for his actions.
So there seems to have been a feeling that verdicts of “suicide while of unsound mind” might have been kind of a rubber stamp that juries used to spare relatives (and 1889 isn’t too far from the days when coroners seized the property of felo de se’s just like the property of murderers.) When I read the verdict in Druitt’s case, I don’t think the verdict necessarily tells us much about his state of mind at the time he went into the Thames. Killing yourself so you can avoid going mad might be a rational thing to do.
Thanks for that Robert. So there was a ritual performed.
Cheers,
Dave |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 123
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 9:35 pm: |
|
It struck me that Druitt would be a much stronger suspect if he left no suicide note at all. It would fit much more into the police theory that the Ripper was overcome by remorse and had no choice but to take his own life. The note that we have hints at other reasons for doing what he did.
The fact that Druitt had money and a train ticket in his wallet is troubling. I wonder if he simply took his wallet as he left his rooms as he was accustomed to doing without really thinking about it. Another explanation would be that he was intending to see someone but decided that things were hopeless and simply went ahead with his suicide.
c.d. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 999
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 1:34 am: |
|
Hi all,
I usually think that Monty's suicide might have been a last minute choice - the return ticket and the cash suggest he was planning on something akin to further plans for living. Perhaps he had a tragic emotional or mental encounter at Hammersmith that made him thing that suicide was the best way out.
But the problem I have always found with the note is - we do not have the physical note!
We have testimony of what it said from his brother, at the inquest. We don't know what it actually said (if it said more than was reported), nor do we know if there really was a suicide note at all. It was in the interests of Monty's brother and family to shut further inquiries about the demise of the barrister as quickly as possible. So what if his last note refers to fears of going insane like mother? On the other hand, it reveal (via being read into a public record at an inquest) that the mother is insane too - hardly something a family would want revealed in 1888. But what if the family had to cut their losses short by gritting their collective teeth and revealing the skeleton in their immediate closet (Mom's insanity) rather than revealing worse secrets?
Best wishes,
Jeff |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 500
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 6:15 am: |
|
David O'Flaherty,
Your comments on the British legislation around 1882 covering suicides makes interesting reading.
Shirley Mayo Richards, an astute Mayo/Druitt genealogist, made the sharp observation to me that the only press account of Montague Druitt's funeral, records the funeral taking place in the
grounds(?) of Wimborne Minster; or should that be the Wimborne Cemetery? And does not mention a funeral service held in the Minster (small cathedral)proper. Was this a loophole under British ecclesiastical laws? Possibly explaining the high fees paid for Montague's burial?
Whilst visiting London in 1885/6, Montague's uncle Archdeacon Thomas Druitt from Australia, attended several high Anglican church functions, and met the Lord Mayor of London (I think) twice!
Of course, women did not attend funerals alone in those days (or did they?)explaining why only three males and no women - plus two or three clergy- attended Montague Druitt's funeral.
Myself, I have always found interesting the fact the date the first Ripper murder occurred (naming the canonical five)was St Cuthberga's Day.She was the patron saint of Wimborne, and its Minster.
In fact, a stained glass window in memory of the Druitt family is of St Cuthberga.There was a later Druitt window installed too.
Some people will think I have strayed from the original theme for this thread.I do not think so. |
Cassie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 9:40 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Re these apparent suspicions from Monty's family. It occurs to me that there must have been many families at the time who were suspicious of a relative, especially if the man in question was a bit different and had the habit of going out at night alone. I would imagine many people looking at their sons, brothers, husbands and lovers and wondering 'Could he be...?'
Perhaps Monty's family, knowing he was unwell, jumped to conclusions themselves after his body was discovered, and being good citizens simply passed on their suspicions.
Just a thought.
Cassie |
Andrew Spallek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 1026
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 10:40 am: |
|
I am making some assumptions here, so don't take this as "gospel truth."
I believe that in Victorian times only wealthy and/or influential people had funeral services in the church. Ordinary folk would only have a burial rite spoken at graveside. This certainly seems to be so in the case of the victims. Now, of course, the Druitt family was well-to-do and somewhat influential. However, to have a funeral in the church in those days would have drawn considerable attention -- attention which would not be desired in the case of a suicide. I think it is safe to assume that there was no church funeral for Montague, only a graveside burial rite. But this is why it would be useful to examine parish record to see if there is any notation of unusual circumstances regarding Montague's burial.
Andy S. |
Andrew Spallek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 1027
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 10:48 am: |
|
John is quite right in cautioning us about the second-hand nature of the evidence regarding Druitt.
The Note: (1) We don't know if it is genuine or fabricated by brother William. (2) We don't know the exact text of the note. The reporter merely sums it up, saying that it was "to this effect..." and then quotes the familiar words.
The Macnaghten Memo: We don't know what M's "private information" was, so we can only make generalizations about its reliability. We don't know why Montague's family suspected him (although I do get the impression that this suspicion was in place before the suicide).
When confronted with so much second hand evidence we must first ask whether any of these items are impossible or so unlikely as to be dubious. We do this by comparing it to known accurate evidence. Then we consider the combined weight of the surviving second-hand or circumstantial evidence.
Andy S. |
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1152
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 12:51 pm: |
|
Hi John Ruffels,
Thanks for that. Well, keep in mind that when we talk about suicides, there were two different types—deliberate self-murder and then indeliberate self-murder by reason of insanity. Legally and morally, the first one is worse, right? That bit from the Internments (felo de se) Act 1882 is related to felo de se—deliberate suicide while of sound mind—so I’m not sure if it applied to someone like Druitt, who was found to be of unsound mind. The reason felo de se is singled out here for special legislation is that coroners used to have a special procedure for disposing of these self-murderers (burying them under roads and staking them until the 1820s, when they started burying them in churchyards during the middle of the night up to 1882, I guess). Besides that, up through about 1870 (I think it was 1870), coroners seized their property like they did any other murderer’s. But even if Druitt had died during the earlier, gruesome period of staking, I don’t think he would’ve faced that kind of treatment because the verdict in his case was that he wasn’t responsible for his actions. There were different classes of suicide.
Anyway, I don’t know how the Church would have seen it. With even felo de se’s being allowed in churchyards, I don’t see why they would keep someone like Druitt out, who after all was found to be not responsible for his actions. So why should the Druitts have to grease the wheels to get him in? If there was a problem, I think it must have had to do with the rites. But I don’t know anything about religion or even what type of cemetery was at Wimborne.
Just as a general point of interest, legally determining suicidal intent seems to have been potentially an involved business. Say you’re in a duel, and if in the act of trying to kill the other person, you inadvertently run yourself upon his sword and die—then you were felo de se. Even an asylum lunatic could be felo de se if he killed himself during a lucid interval. If you had gangrene in your hand and decided to cut it off, and then died as a result, you weren’t felo de se because your intent was innocent of murder. If you were underage or insane, you weren’t a felo de se because there was no consent of will.
Now imagine a fellow whose wife has left him. He jumps into the Thames and drowns himself. Was he mentally competent? I think the average inquest jury would have said, “No, love drove him mad. Anyone who kills themselves must be mad.” But the law might say otherwise, as Rudolph Melsheimer (editor of Jervis on Coroners) commented in 1888, “The law very rationally judges that every melancholy and hypochondriac fit does not deprive a man of the capacity of discerning good from evil, which is necessary to form a legal excuse.” That’s an interesting point to apply to Druitt—in his state, could he discern good from evil? Go back and read what we have of his suicide note, and ask yourself if Druitt was someone who could tell good from evil. If you say “yes”, that’s consent of will, making Druitt felo de se and legally competent.
Of course, we can’t really say because we’re missing evidence, as Jeffrey Bloomfield has pointed out. We probably don’t have the full text of Druitt’s suicide note, and certainly we don’t have the full text of the inquest depositions. So I’m not saying he was competent, only that often we assume insanity when suicide is involved. Suicide is more complicated than that. Druitt could very well have been conflicted about continuing his existence, yet still have been legally sane.
Stuff to talk about on a cloudy day,
Dave |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
