Author: Peter Birchwood
Saturday, 30 January 1999 - 05:36 am |        |
Mysteries
Although the entire ripper story is full of mysteries of one sort or another I thought that if we could list some of those problems on this page with suggested answers we might be able to get some interesting comments. For example:
Montague John Druitt.
His body was found in the Thames in Chiswick. Now to those unfamiliar with London, Chiswick is a western suburb where the Thames makes a sharp dogleg. Now, why Chiswick? It's miles away from MJD's usual haunts. If he wanted to drown himself he wouldn't have far to go from Valentine's school at Eliot Place: there's a nice deep pond just across the road where I used to sail my boats when I was 5. A couple of miles down the road is Greenwich where the Thames gives ample oppurtunities for self-destruction and where he could see across the river to (possibly) familiar East End territory.Of course there's Martin Howells' theory that he was visiting friends at Chiswick and certainly the possession of an unused return part of a Charing Cross-Hammersmith ticket in his effects might show that he intended to return. Any ideas?
Peter. |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 30 January 1999 - 11:35 am | |
Hey, Peter,
For what it's worth, a suicide might also be ashamed, both of their commitment to the act of suicide and to whatever causes led them to that drastic conlcusion. If influenced partly by shame, Druitt may not have wanted to be found by those with whom he lived and worked, or to "pollute" (can't think of a better term) his friends', associates', etc. environment by committing suicide in their vicinity. A suicide obviously has a very negative self-image -- even if they ostensibly kill themselves over "outside" causes like financial ruin; suicide as a solution demonstrates that the suicide feels he/she doesn't have the ability to cope or remedy his/her situation or problem.
The ticket, especially a return ticket, might only show that Druitt hadn't yet reached a definite conclusion to kill himself OR he was covering his plans with the fiction that he would be back at work, home, among friends, etc. No one might try to find him if he maintained the fiction of his return; a vain attempt to hide his suicide.
Yaz |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Sunday, 31 January 1999 - 12:20 pm | |
Yaz:
A barrister would be familiar enough with inquests to know that wherever his body was found there would be involvement with his family as indeed there was. He also left a note. A return ticket more probably just shows that he was accustomed to buy this sort of ticket and wasn't bothered about saving the money this time. The stones in his pockets must have been fairly formidable. I wonder where he got them. The area was pretty much pavemented then.
Now adding to the above:
Mysteries 2.
Why on earth was Swanson's suspect "identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us..."? Now if the Swanson Marginalia is genuine, then the Seaside Home was where sick or injured Policemen were sent to recuperate. Why send Kosminski there? Is it possible that the witness who identified him was the City PC who Macnaghten mentions as having been on a beat at Mitre Square? If so, then providing we accept Anderson, the PC would have to be Jewish. Were there any Jewish police in the City or Met at the time?
Peter. |
Author: Julian
Sunday, 31 January 1999 - 10:32 pm | |
G'day guys
Just to throw a spanner in the works, was it ever proven that Druitt committed suicide? I think all we know is that his body was found floating in the Thames which could mean he could have slipped while answering a call of nature. He could have come a cropper to foul deeds. His body wasn't found till several days after his death so that could've erased serious suspicious evidence.
As for where he was found, could it be that he drifted there? As previously mentioned, he was in the water for a few days and the Thames does have a bit of a flow.
OK let me have it.
Jules |
Author: Jon Smyth
Sunday, 31 January 1999 - 10:51 pm | |
I asked the same questions on the old board Peter, namely:
- Was the Seaside Home for Met or City PC's
- Were any PC's sent to convalece following the murders.
- were any PC's Jewish.
- Kosminski must have been taken to Brighton to be brought face to face with a Policeman. So is there a Police witness who's records have been lost.
- Then Swanson may have mistaken the site of the identification, confused it with somewhere else, as he did when he mentioned the suspect being taken to Stepney Workhouse that was clearly wrong, so why do we believe Seaside Home, could he have confused it with another place, If Colney Hatch was meant, then it would add another dimension to this puzzle. :-) :-) |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Tuesday, 02 February 1999 - 06:56 am | |
Hi Julian:
Has there been some recent publicity over there that gives us all the new contacts from the antipodes or is it that Shirley and Feldy's books have just achieved publication there. There have been some good correspondents including your good self as well as one or two from persons whose names I can't quite recall.
Anyway, although MJD might have slipped and fell, he did so with a number of large stones in his pocket which, unles he was interested in geology rather mitigates against an accident. As to being pushed this is a possibility and Howells and Skinner (The Ripper Legacy) do mention the possibilty that he was executed by some Oxford associates. (It's pretty complicated but involves the Apostles and Clarence - ask Martin Howells, he lives in New Zealand doesn't he?) Flow of the river doesn't work: Chiswick is upstream of Greenwich. It is below Richmond Half-Tide Lock so there is a certain tidal influence but not enough to carry a corpse that far.
Regards, Peter. |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Tuesday, 02 February 1999 - 06:57 am | |
Hello Jon:
I hadn't read your original posting and presumably you haven't read mine which was also on the original board but certainly we're on similar wavelengths here. I suspect that the Home was for Met Officers: maybe Don Rumbelow would know. Also do we know if the pre-Clarendon Villa "Homes" were in Brighton? We know that a City PC was suggested as a witness by McNaughten and the City records were bombed so it wouldn't be hard to theorise a missing City PC witness. But I think that the reference to the Convalescent Home is very circumstantial and was unlikely to have been confused by Swanson.
Regards Peter. |
Author: Julian
Tuesday, 02 February 1999 - 08:31 pm | |
G'day Peter
I'll try and chuck a couple of ideas in here without getting too obscure.
On several occasions through Druitt's life he has been described as depressed and suicidal. (Probably from watching too many England/Australia Ashes Test matches). However, the behaviour of someone experiencing these traits is more likely to be withdrawn and morose as compared to a calculating homicidal butcher.
With the flow of the river thing, did they have a loch back in those days? I don't anything about Londons suburbs (I can't even find those places you mentioned on the map) but Druitt's body WAS in the river for a month and I believe it was a pretty wet Autumn that year which would help to swell the river and get it flowing a bit more quickly. (now you're going to tell me it was flowing a bit faster, but in the wrong direction!).
Is there any way we can get a hold of his autopsy report? or does someone already have it? I'd like to know if the cause of death was drowning or whether the coroner returned an open finding.
Anyway I think the only connection between Druitt and the Whitechapel murders is that he happened to be in the area during Autumn 1888.
Cheers
Jules |
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela)
Tuesday, 02 February 1999 - 10:37 pm | |
More like he disappeared when the murders stopped, Jules. I've sometimes wondered at what point Druitt became a suspect. The police didn't know at the time his body was discovered that the murders had stopped. Some people believe they continued until 1891 (Coles) and the police had to keep an open mind - they even called in Lawende to assist with a subsequent murder (McKenzie's or Pinchin St?? I can't remember). So was Aberrline right when he quickly dismissed Druitt as a suspect?
I suppose this sort of discussion really belongs on the suspects board. |
Author: Julian
Wednesday, 03 February 1999 - 12:20 am | |
G'day Dela,
See ya over on Druitt's board.
Jules |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Wednesday, 03 February 1999 - 12:16 pm | |
Julian:
It must be fun out there with the Bunyips, Zowies and Thylacines racing around. Now I'm open to correction here (see how reasonable I can be) but I don't think that on any occasion MJD was referred to as depressed. The reference to suicide comes in the note partially read by brother William at the inquest. In fact he seems to have coped pretty well with life almost up to the point he disapeared. Now his mother Ann was depressed from about 1885 to July 1888 when they binned her. The start of the murders a month later may of course be coincidental.
Yes, they did have a lock at Richmond then as well as lots of others on the Thames. See "Three Men in a Boat" published in 1888 and even if that Autumn was wet enough to have caused a flood of Biblical proportions it wouldn't have caused the Thames to flow backwards. If you're having trouble with the geography here I can send you a map as an attachment. And we don't have copies of the inquest/autopsy. Only newspaper reports. If you'd like a copy of MJD's death certificate, famously flourished during "Farson's Guide to the British " in the 1950'2 let me know. Additional to the above, MJD wasn't particularly incompetent nor it would seem terribly depressed.Judging by what people have dug out about his life in 1888 he was probably to busy to kick the Victorian equivalent of beer cans. If you think that McNaughten (who was 41 in 1894 when he wrote his memorandum) was senile, then I'd have to ask how old you are? Druitt's still in there close to the top of the tree. I don't think too much of Chapman as a subject: his murders were of a different type and although he was amoral, there's no real reason to call him psycopathic or deranged. He doesn't fit, but may have had suspicians as to who Jack really was. D'Onston at least had a record and for that fact alone we're justified in examining him. The stories about the ties were told about him, not by him and that's an important point. You mustn't make the assumption (which I call the "Maybrick Assumption") that because somebody says something, they're necesarily telling the truth. Melvin makes a good point in that D'Onston signed himself into the London Hospital and as he was a doctor himself certainly could have faked symptons. This of course doesn't make him the ripper.
Regards, Peter. |
Author: Julian
Wednesday, 03 February 1999 - 06:17 pm | |
Oops sorry mate, I've been smokin' too many gum leaves. G'day.
Um, if you have a difficulty with me calling Chapman a psycopath and deranged I would be more than happy to substitute those words with ones that you think more fittingly describe a person who beat his partners (one of whom found a knife under the pillow) and threatened one of them with a pistol. I think psycopath is quite appropriate.
As for Mr Druitt, yep, you got me there. The mind locked onto one word and went into overdrive from there. Please envision me banging head against keyboard saying 'think before you write Jules'.
Thanks for keeping me on track. But I do question why a man who supposedly is doing Ok would want to kill himself.
As for telling you how old I am, I can't. I don't like lying. But does it really matter anyway?
Thanks for the offer of the maps and stuff but I don't think finding out where his body was found or how he died is going to help us find out who Jack was. Maybe I'm wrong.
Jules |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Thursday, 11 February 1999 - 12:47 pm | |
Hi all:
Regarding my previous ps on another board about wanting some research done in Australia, I've got a missing heir case where the deceased was born 5/12/1909 "Australia" I realise there's no country wide registration but if anyone could easily check a State or two I'd be obliged and if it works out we could arrange a fee.
Regards, Peter. |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Friday, 02 July 1999 - 01:30 pm | |
Just putting these bits here for want of time to find where they really should go!
George and Weedon:
We must remember that "Diary of a Nobody" is humourous fiction and shouldn't be linked with the murders. Although the book version of the diary runs from April 3rd to July 11th of the following year, the years aren't actually mentioned. It's not logical to say that missing dates in the diary are "(maybe accounted for by acting or other commitments like holidays or sickness)". Again, the diary is fiction and doesn't reflect the lives of the brothers Grossmith. It's obvios that the piece about the tearing of Pooters diary pages is part of the plot not a veiled reference to Weedon's Maybrick plot.
David:
Yes, Druitt's a perfectly plausible candidate and is currently at the top of my list of suspects. But was it MJD who went into the Thames? The body was only identified by the contents of his wallet.
Peter.
Just a brief word about Paul Feldman's "...Final Chapter." Based on the ludicrous attempts to find illegitimate descendents of James Maybrick utilising what could only, by the remotest sense of the word, be called "genealogical" research, by the obvious errors, mistakes and fallacies and by the reliance on a story which has absolutely no evidence to back it up, I would suggest that all libraries and bookshops stocking this work should re-classify it as "Fiction." |
Author: Caz
Friday, 02 July 1999 - 05:47 pm | |
Hi Peter,
When I said that missing days could be accounted for by acting etc etc, I meant the days on which no episodes actually appeared in Punch, not the missing dates mentioned in the fictional diary, which are obviously total invention. I thought I had made that clear by stating that the last episode submitted did actually appear in the 11th May 1889 edition of Punch, a REAL date to conjure with.
The 'gap' during which the canonical five murders occurred becomes all too real if no episodes were submitted to the magazine at this time, for reasons known only to the author(s).
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 24 November 1999 - 03:27 am | |
Herewith a couple of research notes:
John Netley, the crazed coachman.
The A-Z tells us that he was born in Paddington about 1860, a twin, and died in 1903 in a road accident. A problem is that he doesn't appear under any reasonable variation of his last name in the 1881 census. There does however appear at 1 Netherwood St. Hampstead a George A. Netley born about 1858 in Paddington and married to Jessie who does happen to be a Head Coachman. Is George the twin, maybe another brother or did the John Charles Netley mentioned in the A-Z die young leaving only this one brother?
Concerning the "Nickley" who supposedly threw himself into the Thames in February 1892, the A-Z says that this is "a non-existant English surname." This is incorrect: there are examples of this name especially the James Nickley born in Wigan in 1868, son of Anne and the John Nickley born 2/3/1871 in Co. Cork son of Edmond and Mary. Either could be the 1892 suicide.
Thomas Hayne Cutbush.
Born about 1865 in Newington and the son of Kate Cutbush nee Hayne who was already widowed by 1881. They lived at 14 Albert St. Newington with Kate's parents and older sister. Although the Hayne family were from Witney Oxon., Kate herself was born in New York. The Cutbush family were from Kent and Uncle Charles lived with his wife, mother and 5 children at St. Pauls Rd. Newington.
Peter |
Author: Assassmon & Cujo
Thursday, 09 December 1999 - 10:23 am | |
TO BE 99% SURE EQUALS TO BE 100% NOT SURE - AN OPEN CRITICISM TO THE GENERAL VAGUE THEORIES SURROUNDING THIS CASE
During our almost 20 year long interest in this case, we can conclude that most of the researchers, including ourselves, only are speculating on specific facts that actually are no facts. If we would exclude all information which arenīt verifiedly or scientifically proved, we would have a big pile of misinformation.
Do we really want to solve this case? Arenīt we fed up with all those speculations, with no back up whatosever to support these claims? We have to use modern science much better - science that wasnīt possible back then when the Ripper murders occured. To get a breakthrough in this case, we gotta cooperate instead of keeping ourselves to our own theories. If we look back, the examination of this case has virtually stood still ever since Jack cut up East End. This case isnīt about individuals own interests and profits, it is about justice; isnīt it about time after 111 years? Critic against the Maybrick diary only to mention one example that darkens the truth. Such individuals we should exclude in this case - things that canīt be proved should not get any attention: we have to concentrate on the relevant things.
What is the Lusk letter worth without the kidney? How much is Steven Whiteīs statements about the circumstances about Catherine Eddowesī death, if we canīt prove he really took the shawl? How can Stewart Evans be 100 % sure of Tumbletyīs guilty when he doesnīt have 100 % sure evidence? The list of myths can be made long. If we are about to come somewhere in this case, we have to cooperate and take responsibility together. We want to link this to the introduction of this letter, to remark the weight of cooperation, and to use modern science and technic to exclude speculations and wild theories. Nobody out there have the answer. We have to build together all the pieces of this puzzle, and to check all the pieces are true - one false piece could derange the whole puzzle. We canīt have one false piece, although we have the whole puzzle; when we have laid all the pieces in place, we canīt just clap our hands and hit our breasts and cry "We did it!", everytime new so-called "evidence" surfaces - when all the pieces arenīt proved.
Assassmon and Cujo |
Author: anon
Thursday, 09 December 1999 - 07:47 pm | |
| OK, we get the message. You guys talk the talk, but can you...? |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Friday, 10 December 1999 - 04:26 pm | |
Hi All,
Yes, we get the message, especially after it was posted to at least 3 different boards.
Aside from spewing a bunch of generalities about how we're going about it all wrong, and throwing in a few inaccuracies of your own (I'm fairly certain that Mr. Evans has never stated that he is 100% sure of Tumblety's guilt), do you have anything specific or remotely constructive to add?
Yikes, I seem to be in full agreement with anon.
Jim |
Author: Jill
Monday, 13 December 1999 - 06:39 am | |
Nope Mr.Evans does not state Tumblety as 100% sure: see post August 10, 1999 02:56 AM from General Discussion -> Miscellaneous -> A statement: archive through August 11, 1999
where he writes "But, all options remain open, and the final answer will never be known for certain."
But he is allowed, as everyone, to have a most likely candidate.
Assassmon & Cujo- You mention "stick with the scientific proof" (which I would like to agree with if we had the chance), there isn't almost any. Even the identity of one of the canonical is discussed. We try ideas and theories to find out where to look for evidence.
I agree we will never have the opportunity to convict someone beyond reasonable doubt. Not only because the villain is dead, but also by lack of evidence and because the accused has no chance to defend himself as should in a democratic system.
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 05 March 2000 - 07:41 am | |
Dear Peter,
I like the idea of this particular message board, though it seems to have been neglected of late.
Of the many little "mysteries-within-the-mystery", the one that has always bothered me is the date of December 4th on M.J. Druitt's tombstone. I think I'd pay $100 to know why brother William set down that date. He too was a barrister, a smart fellow, and no doubt would have noticed that the facts at the inquest suggest December 1st as more probable. That is, unless there is more information that we don't know about, such as Druitt having visited someone in Chiswick. Hmm.
If I had a teacher who was given the sack in mid-year (possibly due to some scandal) and who immediately thereafter killed himself, I'd certainly write a letter home about it. Or jot it down in my journal. Maybe someday we'll get extremely lucky and something will turn up about why Druitt was dismissed; until then, I guess it's just another case of coming up against the Unknowable. Hmmm. But I sure wish I knew.
Best wishes,
RJP |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 11 March 2000 - 01:22 pm | |
Hi RJP:
Maybe the first thing is to verify that the Dec 4th date is really on the stone: it's occasionally unsafe to rely on what someone says in a book so if anyone has a photo, that would be valuable. It's a good idea about checking out the pupils descendants. Of course we know who was at the school in 1881 and the registers for later dates might be at Greenwich record office. I have the feeling that the school didn't last too long but am willing to be corrected.
Keep the $100 for the moment: I'll tell you when to send it.
Peter |
Author: NickDanger
Monday, 13 March 2000 - 12:20 am | |
Isn't there a photo of Druitt's headstone in the hardcover edition of Tom Cullen's 'When London Walked in Terror'?
Nick |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 18 March 2000 - 02:34 am | |
Dear Peter--No doubt you're advice is good; I'll hold onto my $100 at least until I verify that the tombstone does in fact read December 4th! I've found lots of information about Wimborne Minster (where Druitt is buried)along with photographs, etc. but none yet of Druitt's grave.
Nick--thanks for the lead. I'm looking for that edition of Cullen's book. I'll post again if I can find anything for certain.
As for the topic of misinformation finding its way into print, I have found at least four souces that claim that Druitt was 'last seen alive on December 3rd'. They give no explanation nor proof of this strange statement, which, frankly, I think is misleading and innaccurate. I've traced this assertion back to Begg's "Jack the Ripper: The Uncensored Facts", page. 177. But Begg, a careful researcher, qualifies this statement with an end-note, saying that 'Druitt may have "gone missing" BEFORE 3 December'. The later authors (I'm guessing) merely borrowed from Begg without the qualifier, and now this supposed "fact" is floating around out there in print...
(Oh, and by the way... The article on JTR in my 1962 edition of The Collier's Encyclopedia is written by none other than Donald McCormick. Among other things he states that there were DEFINITELY at least six victims and that the killer was almost certainly Dr. Pedachenko!)
And to think I used to believe what I read in history books...
best regards,
RJP |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 18 March 2000 - 06:22 am | |
In giving his evidence at the inquest on his brother, William Druitt stated that he had "...heard from a friend on the 11th December that deceased had not been heard of at his chambers for more than a week."
That would mean that M.J. Druitt was last heard of alive just before 5th December, 1888, which date is exactly a week before the 11th (if you include the 11th). Taking the 4th as a mean date for 'more than a week,' then I see no reason why this should be regarded as having any significance as his date of death, other than a best estimate. Indeed, for all we know police enquiries may have tied this date in as the last day on which anyone could say that he was still alive. In the absence of full contemporary records then this is the best we can do. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 18 March 2000 - 12:20 pm | |
Yes, I suppose you're right. Since December 3rd was a Monday, and the 4th a Tuesday, this might well be the time people began to notice that Druitt was missing in his rooms. I just thought it was a bit odd --not sinister, just odd-- that, being at the inquest, William wouldn't have lit on the date of 1 December, considering the unused return ticket from Chiswick. It seems obvious enough to make the assumption that he didn't leave Chiswick again after that date.
I suppose I've been mulling over what amounts to just a bit of trivia. For the record, I don't really think of Druitt as much of a suspect for Whitechapel; I've just become somewhat interested in the enigma of his suicide for its own sake...
Cheers and thanks to everyone for the clear thinking,
RJP |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 09:43 am | |
So as not to bore anyone to tears, I am going to
stop posting on this subject; but I did happen to find a photograph of Druitt's grave. It faces page 247 in the 1965 edition of Tom Cullen's "When London Walked in Terror". Cullen describes his search for Druitt's grave on pages 275-276, writing:
"Montague John Druitt's grave is marked by a crude stone cross spotted with lichen. The inscription at its base has been eroded by time,
but one can still make it out: 'In Memory of Mon. Jno. Druitt, December 4, 1888. Aged 31'. Behind it his parents, William and Ann Druitt, are interred in a common grave. Alongside Montague John lies his elder brother, William, who died a bachelor in February, 1909 at the age of fifty-two."
RJP |
Author: Ashling
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 09:51 pm | |
RJ: You're not boring me one bit. Can you read the date on the gravestone in your picture?
In the sentence preceding your quote, my paperback version of Cullen reads "There in hallowed ground alongside the chapel I found what I was looking for."
I thought suicides couldn't be buried within church grounds. Anyone know who kissed who on this deal? Exceptions have been made throughout history ... just wondering about the details in this instance.
Janice |
Author: NickDanger
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 01:37 am | |
Hi RJP,
Glad to see the Tom Cullen reference bore fruit.
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 06:49 pm | |
Janice--
I wondered about the "hallowed ground" as well. I'm too ignorant and irreverant about such things to make an intellegent comment: is it possible that by the 1880's the church was a little more lenient with suicides? A donation put in the right collection plate might have also helped. (Hmm. I can't offhand think of too many Victorians that killed themselves. There's Rossetti's wife buried in Highgate Cemetery, but if my memory serves me right, her mode of exit was hushed up...)
The appendix to Begg's "Uncensored Facts" has the funeral notice that appeared in the Southern Guardian on 5 January 1889. It states that Druitt's body 'was follwered to the grave by the deceased's relatives and a few friends", so he wasn't utterly shunned. (Though remember that his cricket playing friends releaved him of his duties with the club in mid-December..before his body was even found!) Wimborne Minster looks like a lovely place to be buried. They have their own website, by the way.
To answer your question, the inscription is not legible in the photograph. But Cullen has won my confidence and so I'll take his word for it until I make it to Dorset.
Cheers,
RJP |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 31 March 2000 - 05:03 am | |
| I found out why Druitt was buried in hallowed ground ! Its because the coroner's verdict on him was ' suicide due to being unsound of mind ' which means effectively that he was not responsible for his actions. Therefore he recieved a normal burial. |
