|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Montague John Druitt
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
Montague John Druitt
Author: judyjanes
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 02:27 pm |        | Hi Chris George,
As usual you have enlightened me again. Druit is
certainly a good suspect but the real bummer to all of this is that there are several good
prospects that even though there is no evidence
proving guilt there's no evidence disproving
guilt. A lot suspicions, lunatics, etc and then there's blotchy face. Wouldn't he have stood out
like a sore thumb? no pun intended. Unless there
were as many blotchy faced characters as there
were lunatics and so on. I'm stumped for sure
more than ever.I think the only way we may be
able to solve this mystery is to have a distant relative of one of the victims and take him or her to John Edward. What do you think?
Regards judy |
Author: Gregory Boston
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 01:22 pm | | How do we really know that the body fished out of the Thames was that of M.J. Druitt?
When a body is in water for a period of time it becomes discolored and severely bloated. When that body is removed from the water and exposed to air it becomes very fragile and the flesh rips and tears very easily - maiking it very hard to identify the body by sight alone.
I doubt that in 1888 the technology existed to identify a body by dental records, and fingerprints, although no one knew about them in any detail at the time, would have been almost useless anyway due to the water factor.
As a police officer you would want to check missing reports, etc. Also, what kind of identification was issued to folks back then?
Was there any identification on his person when he was fished out?
So, I guess what I'm saying is.....do we really know who was fished out of the Thames? |
Author: Timsta
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 02:18 pm | | Gregory:
I imagine the body was ID'ed on the basis of the checks found on his person, although I'm guessing here.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 02:47 pm | | Greg,
On the forensics question, fingerprints had been developed but were not in widespread use at the time. Dental record examination and comparison was in use, but was spotty due to the fact that most people didn't get regular dental checkups.
Like Timsta said, there were checks made out to him on his body, and he also had a watch and chain that were particular to him that he was identified by. He also had two rail tickets on him that linked him to his address (he had a season rail ticket for Blackheath, Druitt lived in Blackheath).
As for the "floater" comments, you are right...it's almost impossible to tell a floater by looking at them, especially one in the water about a month. Hideous to look at, and the skin comes right off. I saw a photo of the hand of a floater in one of my forensics books - the skin had come completely off instact and it looked like a glove. Freaky.
B |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 11:47 pm | | Hi all,
According to Sugden's book, William Druitt, Montague's older brother, identified the remains.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 02:26 pm | | | Double post, ignore. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 02:27 pm | | Rich,
That doesn't necessarily means that he recognized the body. It could simply mean that he recognized the clothes, the watch, etc. The body would have been quite unrecognizable.
Check out "Practical Homicide Investigation" by Vernon Geberth. There's a section with glossy color photos, and they've got one of "floater" who was in the water for 3 weeks. It's not for those with weak stomachs.
Just want to be clear that his ID was probably based on the clothing and belongings, not what the body looked like.
B |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 11:03 pm | | Hi Brian,
According to the reported deposition of William Druitt, Montague's brother, January 5, 1889, William identified Montague's "corpse."
Now, you may choose to believe that this was based on his clothing and belongings - and you may very well be right. However, I am aware of no recorded evidence supporting that contention.
Because the photograph of some other body you saw, in some other body of water, under presumably different conditions looked distorted, does not mean necessarily that Druitt's body was in the same condition.
You may be right - but at this point it is entirely speculative.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 01:52 pm | | Rich,
What part of this case, beyond that somebody killed someone in London in 1888, isn't speculative?
C'mon. Knock off the contrarian bit.
B |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 03:55 pm | | Brian,
Much of the case isn't speculative and much is. And I have no problem with speculation - we all engage in it.
What I think mucks of the history of this case is when people act as if their speculation is fact.
You wrote that Druitt was identified by his watch and chain.
I replied that the deposition of Druitt's brother stated that he identified Montague's "corpse" and that I am unaware of any published information indicating he was identified by his watch and chain. Perhaps you have a source?
Citing facts may be "contrarian" depending upon the perspective of the person processing the remarks.
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 05:01 pm | | Rich,
You may have no problem with your own speculation, but you attack me every time I do it. I said "probably" in my previous post. If I made you think my supposition was fact, I'm sorry.
He wore a silver watch on a gold chain with a spade guinea as a seal. It is reasonable to deduce that due to the fact that the body was decomposed beyond recognition that his brother's identification of "the corpse" was based not on a visual inspection, but on an inspection of the corpse's personal effects and clothing.
As the inquest details are no longer extant, we only have the Acton, Chiswick, and Turnham Green Gazette of January 5, 1889 report to go by. And it isn't specific about how Druitt was identified by his brother.
Logic would then dictate: What do you use to identify a victim who is unrecognizable, but has personal affects? The personal affects.
I am puzzled as to how you seem to think that you being "unaware of" something is a "citation of fact".
B |
Author: Philip Rayner
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 05:50 pm | | I am trying to understand what is going on on this site. Thread after thread starts off a reasonable discussion about aspects of the case. Given the speculative nature of questioning events over a century old, there are bound to be differing opinions and so there are but the latest trend is for an argument to start.
That in itself is also natural. If people are passionate about the subject they will fight their corner. What I don't understand is why these arguments degenerate into name calling and vitriolic personal attacks. The very nature of the internet allows for all shades of opinion and yes everyone with an axe to grind. It is how we deal with these views that counts.
Ripperologists tend to be quite intelligent and generally nice people. I have not 'met' anyone on this site I wouldn't like to meet in real life. Surely then we should respect each others points of view even if we disagree. What's wrong with a plain 'I don't agree.' Does it have to get personal? Problem is that these posts usually result in stating and restating positions which quickly become not just circular but a downward spiral.
Please understand I am not aiming this at anyone, I would just say that someone at some point has to try to understand what the other guy is trying to say.
In this instance Druitt was identified to the satisfaction of all concerned AT THE TIME. Some may feel that it was not Druitt and that the identification was handled in a slipshod manner Ie merely identifying personal belongings. They are entitled to that point of view. However the little digs are creeping in and we're off again.
It seems to be those areas least able to be proved that cause the most problem. The fact remains, you either think it was or was not Druitt, that his body or just his belongings were identified, that he was or was not the ripper. If you can provide sources to support that contention, well and good. If not and it's just a gut instinct, I can live with that. I just don't see that getting into a long running argument until someone decides to back down does anything to further the case. I and I suspect many other people just ignore posts in this type of thread. This is a shame as other facts etc. may be hidden within them and those who could benefit would miss them entirely.
We all share common goals here so why not respect the other guys point of view unless you can refute it with concrete evidence. Even then there's no need to get personal, it just irritates people.
Phil |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 08:49 pm | | Rich,
"Because the photograph of some other body you saw, in some other body of water, under presumably different conditions looked distorted, does not mean necessarily that Druitt's body was in the same condition. "
OF COURSE the body was distorted. That's what bodies do in the water, especially for that length of time.
Bodies don't just become waterproof magically. We're talking about a fundamental scientific concept. You might as well be denying that things get wet when you put them in water.
Do you really have to go to every thread and post an angry disagreement with anything posted by Brian or myself, no matter how basic and obvious it is?
Please try to save your righteous indignation for something that makes sense.
Next thing you know you'll start arguing on some thread that the killings didn't necessarily take place in 1888, because maybe everyone's calendars were wrong, or time flowed diffferently, and how dare we try to force our beliefs that the Autumn of Terror was in 1888, blah blah blah.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 09:19 pm | | You wrote yesterday that another poster is delusional and now today I am angry. I respectfully disagree with you on both counts, sir.
I don't know if Druitt's body was distorted beyond recognition. The historical record is murky on this point. The deposition of William Druitt says he identified the "corpse." If Druitt were identified entirely on the basis of his possessions, I would expect the wording to say "remains."
Best wishes,
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 09:38 pm | | You expect police documents in this case to be extremely precise in their wording?!?!
Have you read any of the documents? Hop back to the main casebook page and read some of them. They aren't precise *at all*.
There's another delusion that bites the dust.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 10:01 pm | | Hi Dan,
No, I don't expect the wording to be precise.
Brian stated that he believed Druitt could not have been identified physically and would have been identified by his personal possessions.
I stated that Brian's view could be true but that the record indicates Druitt's "corpse" was identified which indicates me it was Druitt's body his brother identified.
I will state, in order to satisfy you, that you are right about this question and I am totally wrong and misinformed. Please accept my apology.
Best wishes,
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 11:08 pm | | Guys,
Okay. I'm willing to call a truce with Rich, if he is willing to do the same. Philip is right...this is really stupid.
And, just for the record, now that I'm at home and can check my records, Stewart Evan's "Ultimate Companion" (page 649) has an article from the Wednesday Evening, 2nd January 1889 issue of the Thames Valley Times that reads:
"...On Monday the body of a gentleman was found by Henry Winslade, waterman, in the Thames, off Thoerneycroft's Wharf, and has since been identified by a season ticket and certain papers..."
And the actual police records of the inquest, etc. have been lost.
So it turns out that my memory isn't 100% faulty.
B |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 12:02 am | | Hi Brian,
Your quote, along with Sugden's, may show that the reality of it all is somewhere between our two points of view.
Unless William Druitt was being taken to the morgue each day to look at bodies since his brother had gone missing, the police would have had to have some evidence that Montague was the deceased before asking William to view the remains.
How is this for a scenario:
Druitt was fished out of the Thames. The police found Druitt's documents identifying him as Montague (Evans). The police then had his brother, William, identify the corpse (Sugden).
I think its possible that we both are correct.
Rich |
Author: Philip Rayner
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 05:34 am | | Agreed. Once they had learned that the body was in all likelihood Druitt the next step would be to contact relatives and this would almost certainly lead to a formal identification.
As to whether William had trouble identifying Druitt, this can only be speculation. I have never seen a body immersed in water over a long period but I would imagine it was grim.
Having said that it is possible that Identifying marks might still have been visible or his face was still vaguely recognisable. The only people who can say for sure how the body was identified are long since dead. As I said before though, he was identified to everyones satisfaction at the time. Given the belongings and the identification I think we can say that the body was Druitt with 90% certainty.
I have heard (I can't provide details!) that suicides fall into the 'Cry for help' type and the serious attempts to commit the act. The stones are a bit of a puzzle. They imply, if placed in Druitts pocket by himself that this fell into the serious attempts bracket yet if he was depressed he would normally fall into the 'cry for help' group. If someone else placed them we are heading into conspiracy territory and I'm not going there. I have stated many times that conspiracies are, to me, just trying to chase phantoms or to romanticise the case.
I am interested in getting your opinions as to whether Druitt truly wished to die or just ended up being more successful than he wished. I realise that this can only be speculation and it is your opinions only that I am asking for. If documentary evidence is easily found that'd be nice but I don't want to get tied up in details. This is one area where opinions are enough.
Ladies and gentlemen, over to you. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 07:18 am | | Philip,
I feel that he truly meant to die. When Montague went missing, his brother went to Bournemouth and searched his brother's apartment and found a suicide note that read "Since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother, and the best thing was for me to die."
This note was written before he left for London, so apparently he had, by that point, all ready decided on a course of action.
His mother, according to the press reports, had "become insane" the previous July.
THat says to me, if wasn't a cry for help, it was a well thought out plan. Which, as far as I am aware from reading about suicide, is a rare event: most suicides are spur of the moment kinds of things. And the rocks-in-the-pockets seems to me to reinforce that. Had he merely been trying to get attention, he wouldn't have done anything to ensure that he actually DID die.
It is possible, like you've postulated Philip, that there could have been some identifiable marks on the body, but the face would look completely alien.
For those of you with extremely strong stomachs, or who are used to the gory, here's an autopsy photograph of a suicide victim who had been submerged in water for only seven days:
Warning, not for the faint of heart
Anyway, that being said, I don't think anyone had Monty killed...the evidence points strongly to him committing suicide of his own volition.
B |
Author: Philip Rayner
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 08:28 am | | Brian
Thanks for that link and I see what you mean. Identification would have been very difficult and very harrowing for William. Which leaves us with the same question. What was the basis for the identification? Sadly, as I said, no one can now tell us but surely William would feel he needed to be sure for his own peace of mind.
Having said this I still believe, and bear in mind that I reject the conspiracy angle, that the body was that of Druitt. I also agree that he meant to die, the suicide note being corroborative evidence of this. |
Author: julienonperson
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 08:34 am | | Hi Ally
I thought for a minute that I was really in the dark , that maybe I qualified as short in the brain mass area.
Thanks for the response. It sure doesn't hurt to have fun while debating. I use that term loosely.
regards julie |
Author: julienonperson
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 08:41 am | | Brian
I just reread your dissertation. Very well done.
My compliments.
julie |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 09:08 am | | Julie,
Thanks!
B |
Author: Chris Phillips
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 01:27 pm | | Brian Schoeneman wrote:
When Montague went missing, his brother went to Bournemouth and searched his brother's apartment and found a suicide note that read "Since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother, and the best thing was for me to die."
The note wasn't in Bournemouth, but "where he resided" - almost certainly at the school in Blackheath [thus according to the report of the inquest in the Acton, Chiswick and Turnham Green Gazette, printed by Howells and Skinner]. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 01:56 pm | | Chris,
Right, right. Got the two confused. I knew the both started with B. 
Wow, it's been a bad coupla days for me here.
B |
Author: Chris Phillips
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 06:31 pm | | I thought it was worth mentioning as the West London Observer report, printed by Begg (The Uncensored Facts), did say that "Papers found in his possession indicated he was a resident of Bournemouth" - presumably through confusion with his brother being a resident of Bournemouth!
Funnily enough I was in the library today and idly looked into some Post Office directories of London from the 1880s. I was mildly surprised to find Druitt's listing, from 1886 to 1889, as follows, in the "Court" section:
Druitt Montague Jn. 9 King's Bench walk, Temple EC & 9 Eliot pl. Blackheath SE
Quite how, in the light of that, people like Farson could have argued that Druitt could have lived elsewhere (in the Minories), or that others could have argued that he lived at the Temple address rather than in Blackheath, I don't understand.
Surely a barrister living in chambers would have given that address only, and not added the address where he worked as a part-time schoolmaster. |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 08:45 pm | | Hi Brian,
I have just looked at the photograph you were
kind enough to attach, showing the woman who
had drowned herself. I have to admit, I never
saw a human tongue expanded that large, but it
does make sense. Not the worst photo I ever saw
(probably Mary Kelly's death photos share that
"honor") but it was gruesome.
But that doesn't mean that the corpse so recovered
is unrecognizeable. I recall seeing a television
show (on the history channel) dealing with the
fall of the Romanovs. The assassination of Gregori Rasputin was discussed, and it turned out
that Rasputin finally died, not from the poison,
gunshots, or knife wounds, or bludgeoning that he
suffered from by Count Felix Yousepoff and his
associates, but from drowning. And a photograph
of Rasputin, pulled out of the Neva, was showed.
It was fully recognizeable as Rasputin. Whether
it is due to the brevity of time, or that the
water was frozen is a matter I am unaware of
(I noticed the woman whose pictures you sent was
in water of 20 degrees celsius, but Rasputin was
in colder water). Montague Druitt was in the
Thames in December and January.
Jeff Bloomfield |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 09:55 pm | | Jeff,
I was thinking about the temperature as well, and I know that temperature is a mitigating factor in the absorption of water, but I think it's safe to assume that the extra time would make up for the difference.
I think we need to get Scott Medine's opinion on all of this, because his knowledge of forensic science makes me look like a two year old wearing his daddy's britches.
B |
Author: Caroline Morris
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 05:41 am | | Hi All,
If a close relative goes missing and a body is later found, and one is called upon to identify it, I imagine the temptation would be to say, "Oh no, that's not my husband//brother/daughter...", even if there were items on the body that had belonged to that person - and even more so if the corpse is in a terrible state and nothing like the person looked in life.
I'm only guessing, but I think most people would know, deep down, that this was indeed their close relative, from the bodily remains, unless they were a lot worse than that very sad photograph shows (thanks Brian). And if that were the case, a natural response might be to say, "I really can't be certain, but from other factors I have to assume it's him/her".
Love,
Caz |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 11:48 pm | | Hi Caz,
In my view, as stated earlier, the body was recovered, the authorities identified the victim by his possessions, then Montague's brother identify the corpse.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 12:13 am | | Richard,
Yes, we all know you believe that, so you don't have to repost it. We are still waiting on an explanation for what evidence would support that belief in contrast to everything we know about decaying bodies and so forth.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 12:57 pm | | Hi Dan,
Since you believe nothing needs to be reposted, and the answers to your questions are in the previous posts, I am a bit baffled.
Nonetheless, it is only my view that the Druitt was probably identified physically by his brother.
As quoted earlier in previous post, the body was recovered and the police identified the vicim by his papers.
As you know, as quoted in a previous post, the deposition quotes Druitt's brother as identifying the "corpse." To me, that means body.
Now, it is possible that Druitt never identified the body - that he merely confirmed that papers or belongings of the deceased belonged to his brother. But there is no evidence of this.
I am not sure what evidence you are referring to regarding decaying bodies. As noted earlier, in a previous post, there are instances when a drowning vicim under water for periods of time becomes distorted beyond recognition.
However, there are other circumstances, as noted in previous post, in which the victim can be identified.
Whether a body is preserved from drowning so that it can be identified depends upon the circumstances (depth, water temperature etc). I am unaware of any information or study about this case which would make clear one way or another.
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 02:37 pm | | Guys,
We're missing the point here. The whole reason for this thread was that Greg wanted to be sure that the body that was fished out of the Thames was that of Montague Druitt.
I think that we've established, to as reasonable a degree of scientific certainty available at the time, that it was him.
Who did the indentifiying, etc. - while important - is not exactly relevant, as there is no evidence to support that the body was NOT Druitt.
My conjecture that the body was not identified by looks because of the decomposition was merely that - conjecture. I wanted to illustrate the point, because I wasn't sure how many of us out there besides me had seen a "floater" before. Now we all have. While I stand by my conjecture, as I think it is logical, and not directly contradicted by the press reports, we can't prove it.
But in any event, I think we DO have enough evidence to confirm that the body was indeed that of MJD.
B |
Author: Philip Rayner
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 02:49 pm | | Has it occurred to anyone that nobody can win this one?
The only way to prove anything is to contact a medium. You pays your money and takes your choice! I for one think the body was Druitts, I don't know even after the presented evidence how he was identified and I can't prove anything. Even Cornwell has more proof than I can offer.
This is the essence of the casebook, review all the opinions, think about which sounds likely and decide what that evidence says to us.
Richard, I can't understand why you are constantly asked for proof of everything you utter on these boards and Dan, some things just can't be proved. I respect both your opinions as obviously knowledgeable students of the case. You both present evidence to back up your arguments, but if that evidence is unconvincing to one of you nothing you can add will make it more so. The only evidence we have is over a century old, it won't change so we have to do with it what we can. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 03:51 pm | | Hi Philip,
I agree with your post entirely. Thanks for your measured and sensible post.
We cannot know for sure exactly how Druitt was identified - we can only base our guess on the avialable evidence which is subject to different interpretations.
Best wishes,
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 08:02 pm | | Phillip,
I wasn't asking for proof, I was asking for evidence. He just assumes that the body was identified by its features, which flies in the face of everything we know about how bodies decompose and how water effects a corpse.
All I ever ask from people here is that they make a logical argument based upon evidence. Some people simply are unwilling to do that, jump to wild illogical conclusions, and get all bent out of shape when they are questioned on it.
Now, when the same poster makes up lies about what people said here I think it's only fair to ask them to prove what they claimed, as that should be easy enough. But then he doesn't do that either. He's a fan of the Cornwell methodology to Ripperology: use flimsy or no evidence at all to try to support assumptions, ignore counter claims, and insult anyone who disagrees.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
|
|
|
|
