Archive through April 3, 2000

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through April 3, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Contemporary Suspects [ 1888 - 1910 ]: Druitt, Montague John: Archive through April 3, 2000

Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 10:56 am
Looking at it again , it does seem likely that Druitt was dismissed on the Friday , the Saturday was probably a simple error on Fuller's part.
Author: Neal Glass Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 12:35 pm
Dear everybody: I CERTAINLY DID UTTERLY CONFUSE LAWENDE FOR SCHWARTZ. Embarrassing. But confusing Lawende for Schwartz does not detract from the fact that there's no case against Druitt without a decent witness. I've posted another message on the Chapman board where I also brilliantly confuse Lawende for Schwartz. But seeing as how it is all about the same evening, it is not that huge a deal in terms of the bottom line. And here the witnesses to the so called double event do point to another man. That is what I am getting at. It does not point to Druitt. INCIDENTALLY WHETHER IT WAS LAWENDE OR SCHWARTZ, or, for that matter, Marshall, no one is describing Druitt. Sugden concedes that it could have easily been Severin Klosowski that the three men had seen, peak cap and all. In fact Lawende, Schwartz and Marshall are the strongest argument that Druitt had nothing to do with any of this. The issue for me is how his name became implicated in the first place. Who fingered him and why? What would possess someone to go to the police after the man was in his grave under circumstances that were already something most families would want to keep quiet? From what little we know of this, William Druitt wanted to keep the rest of the family out of this. This is understandable, so how did his name get in this? That's the mystery. At present I can't see that this poor troubled man killed anybody. He's just a name on a piece of paper jotted down by someone who had nothing to do with the investigation. The only interest for an author is that it is such a poor reflection of how records were kept. Mcnaughten had those names because those were the only names that had survived in just so short a time.
Author: David M. Radka Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 01:50 pm
...tick...tick...tick... David
Author: Neal Glass Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 03:53 pm
"Tick. Tick. Tick." I've never heard of that theory.
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 04:40 pm
I've come to the conclusion that the date of Druitt's suicide is problematic and can't be known for certain from the existing information. I've made the following timeline of Druitt's final days from bits that I've culled from various sources: 22 November 1888. Druitt pleads before High Court in an electoral registration dispute and wins. 29 November 1888. Druitt's legal case is mentioned in The Times. 30 November 1888. (Fri) Last day of school term(?) Druitt dismissed by Valentine(?) 1 December 1888 (Sat) Druitt buys a return ticket from Charing Cross to Hammersmith. 4 December 1888. Date of Druitt's death on tombstone in Wimborne Cemetery. 11 December 1888. William Druitt learns that MJD hasn't been seen in his chambers for "more than a week" 21 December 1888. Druitt removed from his post as Honorary Secretary and Treasurer of Blackheath Cricket Club. The excuse is made that he has "gone abroad". 30 December 1888 (Sun) William discovers Druitt's suicide note at 9 Eliot Place Blackheath (?) 31 December 1888. Druitt's body discovered floating in Thames at Chiswick. 2 January 1889. Inquest at Chiswick. 3 January 1889. Funeral at Wimborne. 5 January 1889. Funeral notice in the "Southern Gaurdian". If anything else exists, I don't know about it. As most all of you already know (sorry for repeating well gone-over facts here) the main difficulty comes from the date of December 30th. The newspaper report (Acton, Chiswick and Turnham Green Gazette) of the inquest states the following: "Witness (William Druitt) went to London to make inquiries, and at Blackheath he found that the deceased had got into serious trouble at the school, and had been dismissed. That was on 30 December." If you believe Sugden, that the date is a misprint for "30 November" you are stuck with believing that Druitt wrote the infamous "since last Friday I thought I was going to be like mother" on a Saturday...which doesn't make sense. If you believe the writer of the newspaper summary of the inquest got the date right, you have to accept that William Druitt waiting two weeks to go to Blackheath, and that (amazing coincidence!) MJD's body turned up the very next day...also hard to accept. If you believe the statement refers to the date Druitt was dismissed, you got even more serious problems, because Druitt was already dead. It seems to me that since the funeral of MJD followed so quickly after the discovery of the body and the inquest, that Druitt was already known to be dead before then, arrangements had been made, and William and the rest of the family were just waiting for the body to turn up. Druitt's dismissal from the position of secretary on 21 December might also bear this out. For all we know, Druitt might have mucked around in Chiswick for a day or two before his suicide, though that would make the suicide note left in Blackheath rather awkward... RJP
Author: Neal Glass Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 08:09 pm
Wait a minute here. If I'm following what you are saying, R.J., then Sugden got it wrong? You've checked the days? Then that does leave you with the newspaper article and another enigma, whether it makes sense to anyone or not. It only deepens the mystery. Things do not have to make sense to people at a century's remove for those things to have occurred. If someone holds off checking on someone for a couple of weeks, and if the body does just happen to materialize the next day, that is not exactly outside the realm of human possibility. I'm sure anyone reading this has experienced stranger coincidences than that. That's just how things turn out sometimes. And that a funeral is rushed and gotten over quickly doesn't exactly rock my sensibilities either. The Druitts were strange. There were a lot of family problems, and we just don't know what kept William from checking on his brother or whether he was simply ambivalent about checking on Montague for reasons that simply reflected certain tensions. It always comes down to not knowing what was going on when it is about the Druitts. He committed suicide after a successful legal suit? Suicide can be that way. But then it is not out of the question that he was murdered either. Forensics back then would not have been able to tell the difference, not that long after he had been in the water. We'll never know. Neal
Author: Simon Owen Friday, 31 March 2000 - 08:47 am
More on Druitt : RJP , the correct text of Druitt's suicide note is " Since Friday , I felt I was going to be like mother , and the best thing for me was to die. "( Howells/Skinner p.268 ). This is why Druitt is assumed to have committed suicide on Saturday December 1st , the Friday being the day previously when he was supposedly dismissed from his school post. But you are right in that the date assumed to be a misprint is recorded as December 30th. It is possible that Montague had been dismissed for being absent from his position , the letter to him being dated 30th December which would have arrived on the last day of the year. The Acton , Chiswick and Turnham Green Gazette states ' Witness then went to London to make enquiries and found that deceased had got into serious trouble at the school , and had been dismissed. That was on the 30th December. Witness had deceased's things searched where he resided and found a paper addressed to him ( produced ). '.The use of the phrase '...serious trouble' sounds as if the problem was that Druitt had been missing for some time , thus the above date of 30th December for his dismissal would be right. There is support for this too. The London Echo carried the news that ' another letter addressed to Mr Valentine was found which alluded to suicide . ' (H/S p.272) as did two Dorset papers , but this letter cannot have been a suicide note or it would have been produced at the inquest. Let me make a supposition here - it could have been a letter from Mr Valentine telling Druitt that as he had not turned up for a month he was sacked. This would support the Dec 30th date too , Montague could not be told to his face because no-one had seen him. What about Druitt's homosexuality however : this rests on Macnaughten's phrase describing Druitt as ' sexually insane '. There is another possible meaning that this phrase could have , however - that Druitt was a sex maniac. This is supported by the statement of W.W. Williams , Sir Charles Warren's grandson , in that he says " My impression is that he ( Warren ) believed the murderer to be a sex maniac who committed suicide after the Miller's Court murder-possibly the young doctor whose body was found in the Thames on December 31st , 1888. ". Thus Macnaughten's term possibly derives from this same belief , that Druitt was a sex maniac.
Author: Simon Owen Friday, 31 March 2000 - 09:02 am
The date of Druitt's suicide is estimated from the fact that he had the return part of a railway ticket from Charing Cross to Hammersmith dated 1st December 1888 on him when he was dredged up. His identity would have been determined from two cheques on his body as well. It is probably true that his brother William heard he had been missing from his chambers for some time on December 11th , but that does not mean he assumed he had been killed. Montague was after all a grown man and could look after himself. If anything William may have put off going to look for him until after the Christmas period , and it may have been the news that Montague's body had been found which sent him up to London. William Druitt may well have gone to the school to see Mr Valentine , before searching his brother's rooms , to see if he could obtain any information from him first. Then he went to Montague's chambers at 9 King's Bench Walk to see what he could find.
Author: Simon Owen Friday, 31 March 2000 - 09:18 am
Howells and Skinner make a suggestion that Anne Druitt , Montague's mother , was suffering from the advanced effects of syphilis ; that Montague believed the insanity was a hereditary condition is supported by his suicide note. He felt he was going to become like his mother i.e. mad , also his grandmother had been in an asylum. The syphilis could have been contracted in an innocent way from Montague's father William as he was a surgeon and may well have worked with syphilitic patients. Maybe Montague had been to visit a physician on the Friday and had found out he was also infected , this would give him his reason for worrying he would turn out like his mother. The question is : how did Montague get syphilis ? Well , if he was a sex maniac it is possible he had visited many prostitutes - law and medical students had a reputation for being dissolute and the poor neighbourhood of Seven Dials and Drury Lane were not far away. He may have even taken to visiting the East End and may have had a knowledge of the area.
Author: Simon Owen Friday, 31 March 2000 - 10:00 am
This is a controversial theory : On 17th December 1888 Eddy himself turned up in Wimborne , Dorset to join Lord Wimborne's shooting party. This was unexpected as the Royal Family were mourning Prince Alexander of Hesse , Eddy's lack of protocol or consideration did not go unnoticed. However a ball was arranged...and Montague Druitt and his mother were invited !!! This suggests strongly that there was a connection between Eddy and Druitt , otherwise why invite an obscure lawyer and his mother , why not invite Druitt's brother William who was now head of the family ? Now also , we know that Druitt bore an astonishing resemblance to Eddy as pointed out by Don Rumbelow... My speculation is that Druitt had acted as a double at some time in the past for Eddy ! Perhaps while Eddy had been visiting 19 Cleveland Street or Annie Crook , Druitt had gone to the theatre in his place or something. Now this may have been useful in the murder of the prostitutes , maybe Druitt posed as Eddy to lure the women to their doom. No poor woman could have resisted royalty. This would implicate Druitt directly in the affairs of the Ripper or the Ripper gang. Now this is not quite as ludicrous as it sounds : Donald McCormick traced a doctor whose father had been at Oxford with Druitt , and who said : " My father always told me that the story about Druitt being the Ripper arose through the barrister being blackmailed by someone who threatened to denounce him as Jack the Ripper at the school where he worked. Whether this was a heartless hoax or a cruel method of exhorting money from a man who was just recovering from a nervous breakdown is not clear. ". ( Howells and Skinner p.213 ) If Druitt was going to pay off a blackmailer this would explain why he had so much money on him when he was found ( circa � 2,800 in todays money in cash and cheques ) but it would be ludicrous to threaten a man with nothing to hide with blackmail. This suggests Druitt did have something to hide connected with the Ripper. Secondly , Sugden tells us that MCarthy's man Thomas Bowyer saw Mary Kelly with a suspicious man in the pub ; this man had strange eyes and wore a high collar and long cuffs. Could this have been Druitt in disguise as Eddy ? Thirdly , Walter Sickert told Joseph that Druitt was involved in the Ripper murders but that he was the ' scapegoat '. This could have been the way he was involved , but the blackmail attempt might have exposed the Conspiracy. Thus Druitt was sent to a ' meeting with his blackmailer ' and murdered to secure his silence , then a fake suicide note was placed in his room and his body dumped in the Thames. Notice no doorkeys were found on Druitt's body. Fourthly William Druitt obviously knew or believed something about his brother's involvement , hence his perjury at his trial - he wanted to protect his family from any connection with the Ripper. Fifthly , Macnaughten claimed to have ' private information ' passed onto him by his suspect's family implicating Druitt even further in the Ripper crimes. The above is all speculation but I hope someone finds it interesting or inspiring !
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Friday, 31 March 2000 - 11:57 am
Can someone remind me as to the date of death on MJD's death certificate and on his Administration? I think it uses the form "died on or about..." but I can't remember. Peter
Author: Neal Glass Friday, 31 March 2000 - 12:26 pm
Simon, I always appreciate your comments. And as a fictioneer I would be lying if most of what you are playing with here did not occur to me as a story-teller. Of course it has. It would cross the mind of anyone wanting to spin a good involving yarn. I also appreciate that you do allow for the possibility that the date on the newspaper clipping is simply accurate and that it may indicate a lapse of time between when William heard there was a problem and the time he finally acted on it. But personally I do not know the first thing about McCormick. If I have come across the name before, it never made much of an impression on me until Stewart Evans mentioned him to me in our e-mail a few days ago. Stewart's comments did very little to encourage me to pursue McCormick! I'll leave it at that because Stewart is a writer and has to get along with other writers. I know how that is, even though it was clear in his message that he, shall we say, favors the direction Sugden has taken things to McCormick. If you have some other source then I would like to hear it, but I'm serious when I say that I will be writing a novel where the speculation never dominates over the known facts. Fiction will always indulge in the possibilities of what could have been. I have fun with the Druitts in my story. I play with many things that I know probably never happened, but I also manage to take it all back roundabout in the end and get down to the heart of the matter. A Ripper story where there is no cloud of suspicion around the conventional suspects would be cheating the reader. It's simply part of the suspense. But I'm quite serious about either naming the strongest suspect or planting the possibility of the most probable Ripper's guilt in the reader's mind, while maybe leaving open other candidates for the dishonor. I do play with the Prince Eddy angle. Any novelist does. But I don't play with it so seriously that the Windsors have to worry. Then again, I am naturally very interested in a possible connection between the Druitts and Albert Victor. But not if it is in relation to someone named McCormick or Knight. That said, Montague did look like Eddy. Eddy was bisexual, and there is this issue of "sexually insane" from Mcnaughten (a man whom I am disillusioned with at this point). I have read Michael Harrison's book accusing James Stephen. His hysterical accusations suggest to me the old Shakespearean adage that he is protesting a bit too much. Prince Eddy was probably now and then in the wrong place at the wrong time doing things that would have destroyed the monarchy if they came out back then. Someone who strongly disapproved of this poison-penned Eddy in an article, naming him as the Ripper. It was vicious thing to do, but the person who perpetuated this knew the Windsors would just graciously ignore it, while it would set tongues to wagging. That is the likely scenario here. Because this smear backfired on this person, because he was sneered at for it, he retreated. Subsequently his family burned the man's papers after his death simply from embarrassment. And as far as I can tell this was really all there was to this. For some reason Harrison felt he had to absolve the Duke of Clarence, even though admitting to the Duke's bisexuality would have to be a part of that. The bottom line has always been obvious. The queen's oldest grandson was gay. It was a cultural trauma to old Victorian who heard about it. Strange things came of the undercurrents of reaction. But as far as Montague being "sexually insane" I am more interested in the facts and the discrepancies than I am in Mcnaughten's innuendo. The facts are more interesting. Montague Druitt had chambers in the vicinity of Whitechapel. His cousin had had an office briefly at Mitre Square several years earlier. MJ was dismissed under unstated circumstances. William probably did take his time checking on him. And, yes, Montague could have been murdered. That can never be ruled out. Were things really that bad for Druitt for him to do himself in? It has already been mentioned, and I heard it the first time on this board from RJ, that Druitt won a legal suit prior to his suicide. Beyond that we have to ask ourselves if his dismissal was really so serious that life was no longer worth living. It was not his only job. He had money. Matthew Fletcher suggests in his dissertation that the crammer's school dismissal need not have even been so serious as everyone on this board is assuming. He posits mere pornographic literature as one possible explanation for Druitt's getting sacked. Fletcher suggests that the parcel bag that someone was seen with in Whitechapel was for carrying around books and magazines that might have eventually gotten the poor man fired. What Fletcher wrote plays into where I am going with the Druitts, but that is not to say I agree with where he is at with Montague's possible guilt. Without a strong witness, the figure of Montague Druitt remains for me only an interesting aside. I have all but abandoned it. The Druitts have to be a part of the background in any responsible telling of the case, fictional or otherwise, if only to exonerate this individual, which is certainly my leaning at this point. That his name merely appears on a list, that this is really all that can be said about it, takes on the same bad connotation for me as a name appearing on a list of suspected subversives in 1950s America. And as long as I feel that way about it, I can assure you that I feel very called to his defense. Have a nice day, Neal
Author: R.J. Palmer Friday, 31 March 2000 - 03:03 pm
Simon--You've touched on so many points that it will take some time for me to digest it all, but I'd like to make a couple of small comments. First, is there a "correct text" of Druitt's suicide note? The ACTON, CHISWICK, AND TURNHAM GREEN GAZETTE says "The Coroner read this letter, which was to the effect: 'Since Friday I felt that I was going to be like mother..." which sounds to me like a paraphrase. THE RICHMOND AND TWICKENHAM TIMES says "a letter had been read in which he wrote to the effect that 'what he intended to do would be best for all concerned'... Again a vague paraphrase. Was this latter letter addressed to Valentine? My guess is that it is. It is also my reading that the letter or letters Druitt left were found by William 'where he (MJD) resided', (ACTON news article) ie., 9 Eliot Place, and not at his chambers in King's Bench walk...if that's even what you're suggesting (?) I think you make a plausible theory in suggesting that there were letters left to both William and to Valentine; that would explain the inconsistency in the various newspaper accounts. However, I feel the main problem with thinking that Druitt was tossed out of the Blackheath for a minor offense and the letter didn't arrive until Dec 30th, etc., lies in the known fact that he was also tossed out of the Cricket Club on Dec 21st. The men at the club (which included Frederick Lacey from the Blackheath School) knew Druitt had 'flown the coop' and would not be back... I'm reading between the lines, here, but I'm reading the word "scandal". And surely William is implying that the dismissal from the school is what prompted his brother's suicide? Neal--I agree with some of the comments you made about my timeline yesterday. I want to make it plain that I don't really dispute the facts used by Sugden, Begg, Matthew Fletcher, and others who have written about the details of Druitt's death. They all generally agree on the facts. I sometimes don't find their interpretation of these facts palatable. I realize I'm knitpicking about details; but it just seems to me that the known information doesn't quite gell somehow. There are missing facts that would make it a tidier picture. I have to cry "whoa!" when anyone suggests that Druitt might have been murdered. I contend that there is NOTHING in the extant evidence that suggests that the verdict of the inquest was not correct. Just think of what the murder of Druitt would have entailed... William and those at the Blackheath School would have almost certainly have had to have been in league with each other, the body brought to Chiswick and dumped, faked suicide notes, convincing Dr. Diplock the coroner, etc. It doesn't fly. Best regards to all, RJP
Author: R.J. Palmer Friday, 31 March 2000 - 03:16 pm
Simon-- One more thing. You write: "On 17th December 1888 Eddy himself turned up in Wimborne..etc...However, a ball was arranged and Montague Druitt and his mother were invited!" Are you denying that Druitt was floating dead in the Thames and his mother was institutionalized on 17th December 1888?
Author: Jon Smyth Saturday, 01 April 2000 - 09:54 am
Simon, a small point.... 'the correct text of Druitt's suicide note is " Since Friday , I felt I was going to be like mother , and the best thing for me was to die. "( Howells/Skinner p.268 ).' The actual suicide note is not known to exist and was never quoted verbatim, as far as is known. It was reported in the Acton, Chiswick and Turnham Green Gazette as a paraphrase by the reporter, said to have been spoken by the Coroner, the 'Since Friday' is not given as verbatim, but only "which was to the effect: 'since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother, and the best thing for me to do was die'". Regards, Jon
Author: Neal Glass Saturday, 01 April 2000 - 12:49 pm
RJ, I am not suggesting anything when I say someone could have been murdered. I am only saying that we will never know. The forensics wouldn't have meant anything under those circumstances. Anyone is going to take the brother's word about a note. It would not have even had to have been in the victim's hand-writing. Nor is faking a note an admission of guilt. It is an admission of a family in crisis. The mother had been institutionalized. Things were falling apart for the Druitts, and I would not blame anyone for writing a note to confirm a suspected suicide if the person was certain that it really was a suicide. So even if it had been murder--and I am not saying for a minute that it was--then it need not have involved some absurd conspiracy with a cricket club. My main point is that despite your own impressive care for detail on this subject we only know in the end that we do not know. I have always said the most intelligent people seem to hang out on this board. All I have to do is sit back and take it in as I wait on the books I have on order to arrive. It's all very interesting. But so long as I am haunting these boards, I stand ready to defend an innocent man who is merely guilty of being on a list written by an individual who was not involved in the case, did not get the suspect's age or profession right, and was obviously confused about whether a constable had ever been a witness. As for what Mcnaughten thought of as "sexually insane", well, it would not take much to be "sexually insane" in someone's eyes back then, now would it? And "solitary vices" is not hard to read as masturbation. I may be a newcomer to Ripper studies, but quiz me on Victorian social history and I can quote a few significant authors. Victorian England was well nigh obsessed with the issue of masturbation as a cause of madness. Certainly "sexually insane" itself might suggest homosexuality, but it could have simply meant he had played with himself one too many times and was now a crazed killer. So how is anyone as literate as the folks on this board suppose to respect the mentality behind the Mcnaughten note? Sugden allows that Severin Klosowski is the strongest suspect. I realize some of the research is hard because it is in another language and lies in another country. In fact there is the American connection, so Kloswoski is hard to get down to because he's so spread out. A non-expert must rely on secondary sources. As a novelist I am only bugged by this situation when the sources are from outer space. I have gotten almost superstitious about it. Sugden is good. But who else? Anybody? Rumbelow has so far let me down twice in major ways. His book is old, so fine. Cut him slack. He moved things in the right direction way back when. But I have found a fatal error in Fido that is simply inexcusable. The essay is still in print. I go over it on the Chapman board. With Fido it is not just error, it is poor judgement. His trust in Mcnaughten over Abberline seems to me at this point grotesque. It is an untenable position. Mcnaughten was not even there! He had nothing to do with anything. And the work of Stewart Evans would have to lead anyone to the obvious inference that Mcnaughten had never heard of at least one major suspect in the case. It just speaks for itself. Later, Neal
Author: R.J. Palmer Saturday, 01 April 2000 - 03:32 pm
Simon: I see on page 207 of Martin Fido's "The Crime, Detection, and Death of Jack the Ripper" the claim that Druitt and his mother WERE invited to a dinner thrown in honor of Prince Eddy. Are you sure this was December 1888? Does this come from Howells & Skinner? --thanks for any information. Neal--Yeah, Macnaughten is a little hard to take. He seems to know something and nothing at the same time. In his autobiography he admits (with pride!) to never having taken notes or kept a journal...no wonder his facts are faulty. If you haven't seen it yet, don't skip Paul Begg's book "Jack the Ripper: the Uncensored Facts". It needs to be updated, but I'm impressed by Begg's caution, fairness, and impartiality. Thanks for your comments. I've enjoyed listening to y'all tossing these ideas around. Best regards, RJP
Author: Neal Glass Sunday, 02 April 2000 - 12:19 pm
Simon, I have to second RJP's query about Druitt and his mother actually going to a dinner for Eddy. Of course, Fido completely exasperates me. So I have to be very cautious if he's the source here. In the old days Fido seems to have accepted the People's Journal article about a PC eyewitness on its face and may have never even read it himself. And recently I can't respect his essay on David Cohen found in the Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper (where he has at least forsaken the PC witness legend and is at a more sober distance from Mcnaughten than he once was). But whatever my impression of Fido or anyone else, I want to keep abreast of all the rap on the Druitt end of the spectrum. I'm at a serious disadvantage when it is about the Druitts because I have yet to get a copy of Howells & Skinner's book, even though I've sent an inquiry to Abebooks.com that never got back to me. And, RJ, I'll do my best to hunt down Begg's book. His name keeps coming up in my reading. So thanks, Neal
Author: Neal Glass Sunday, 02 April 2000 - 03:05 pm
Oh, and, RJ, I have gone over some of your previous messages and upon reflection it does not really seem to me that Montague can be said to have been "tossed out" of the Cricket Club. He had been missing for over two weeks. We might assume that his absence was being felt at the meetings, and that this had more to do with it than anything else. By December 21 it was obvious to everyone that something was wrong. You might check to see if his being removed as honorary treasurer was followed soon after by the club getting a replacement, which might have been more the issue than that a major scandal hung over the man's good name. It's true he was part of this circle because the head master had got him in good with everybody. And if he had been an object of serious scandal, then it would have been awkward for him to remain with the club. Under normal circumstances he would have been expected to simply resign under some pretext. What would suggest scandal to me would be more a situation where he was removed from the club very soon on the heels of his losing his teaching position--sooner than the date you have given. His dismissal from his job does not necessarily mean that his social reputation was ruined. But then it doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't ruined either. We just don't know. Happy hunting, Neal
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 03 April 2000 - 08:34 am
RJP , Eddy went to the shooting party at Wimborne on 17th December 1888 ( Howells and Skinner p.263 ) thus MJD WAS dead and his mother insane , but Lord and Lady Wimborne did not know this at the time or the Druitts would not have been invited. Howells and Skinner find Druitt's inclusion on the list unusual for Montague was not the head of the Druitt family ( His elder brother William , who actually lived in the town and was a prominent solicitor , was head from 1885 onwards ) and he had not lived in Wimborne for seven years ! Thus the assertion that Druitt was an aquaintance of Eddy in some respect. What other reason would there have been for inviting Druitt to the shooting party ball ? It might seem unlikely that Druitt could have been murdered , but this is the very conclusion Howells and Skinner come to themselves ! Why would Montague be going to Hammersmith ( his mother was not yet in Chiswick asylum ) with so much money on him in coins and cheques ? As I pointed out , this sum was equivalent to over �2,500 in modern money ( $4000 U.S. I think ). If it was some sort of payment from the school , why did he not leave it in his chambers or deposit it at a bank ? As to the cricket club , the minutes recorded that Druitt had ' gone abroad ' and should be removed from his post.( H/S p.237 ) Was this an assumption by the members or had they been passed information from somebody involved in Druitt's disappearance ? An entry in the minutes for 7 February 1889 notes ' the Directors had heard with much regret of the death of Mr M.J.Druitt who had zealously and faithfully fulfilled the duties of Hon.Sec. of the company for three and a half years '. This doesn't sound as if Druitt's name was tainted with scandal , it sounds genuinely affectionate I think. It seems Druitt lost his position as Secretary merely because he had disappeared without trace , without giving any notice. That Druitt had gone abroad might also have been an assumption his brother William might have made , thus he didn't search for him until he heard news Montague had been found.