Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 05:38 am |        |
Hi, Simon,
It's my opinion that the sites were chosen by the victims: that then, as now, the street prostitute working in the open air or from car pick-ups would direct the punter to her own preferred quiet spot. (Any life of the Yorkshire Ripper will demonstrate how Jean Jordan and Helen Rytka did just this).
Hi, CMD,
Clearly one or other reporter misheard the 16 or 60 figure. The precision of the Acton, Chiswick and Turnham Gazette in citing two cheques makes me suspect that it had got the sums right. And it is my conjecture that they represented his final quarter's pay, and a month's pay in lieu of notice following his dismissal. (For anyone in doubt, 'conjecture' is a posh word for 'just a guess' when you want to stay looking scholarly. But it's better to admit to guessing than to present your guesses as if they were facts or deductions, which too many people do, and which seems to lead to much of the squabbling that goes on).
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 11:31 am | |
Dear Martin,
So, not knowing the time and date of death...nor the circumstances...there is a presumption of suicide... driven by his dismissal, and we also learn, some vague intuition of impending 'madness'
which may have been based on a degree of paranoia,
a feeling of being 'watched', maybe?
Not having cashed his cheques...his only means of identity - and what a damning identity too- he goes and jumps (was he pushed?) into Father Thames...at the penultimate moment of Jack's
'getaway'.
But, if Druitt was our Jack or Jack was our Druitt...some other poor bugger went into the water...to satisfy MacNaughten's rather 'odd'
insistence on a MEMORANDUM...for what/whom?
Another strange tale, I think.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 11:50 am | |
I'm not clear whether this is meant to be a serious question about Macnaghten's probity, or what, Rosey? (There were some rather wild and apparently ill-informed dismissals of him in other people's earlier postings). All one can say about Druitt is that his name was included on a list of suspects placed on the official file by a senior officer who might reasonably expect repercussions if he just put down his own mad speculations or the outcome of some silly gossip. And that officer was already sufficiently at loggerheads with his own immediate superior that at one point he contemplated asking fora transfer to the uniformed branch, so he would be unlikely to act recklessly where he left a record.
Of course there's a lot we don't know, and we have nobody's word for it but Macnaghten's that Druitt was suspected 'officially', and we know that Macnaghten was inaccurate in his autobiographical recollections of some other cases. Isn't that about par for the course in this maddening case, and what keeps us all beavering away at the documents?
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Rachel Henderson
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 11:56 am | |
Martin, I'm not sure that Druitt could have been all that dim (third notwithstanding) if he went on to be a fairly successful lawyer. I assumed that his sporting endeavors as well as his 'county' obligations were more to blame than his lack of intellect - what do you reckon?
Rachel |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 12:54 pm | |
Martin,
I guess so (sigh). :-)
Rachel,
An atheletic and devious (lawyer) character. :-) |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 02:37 pm | |
Hi Rachel,
'A fairly successful lawyer' would not qualify for serious association with the Apostles. Note Russell and Wittgenstein as really keen members!
All good wishes,
Martin |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 03:08 pm | |
Ah yes , a good question : Did the prostitutes lead the killer to the murder sites or vice versa ?
Given the evidence on the ground it would seem most likely that Martin is right , that the victims chose the locations of their own death. And yet...can we really believe that the Ripper went along with this as meek as a lamb , finding himself in locations overlooked by windows and where he could have been stumbled upon at any given minute by another prostitute and her client ? In his mind he would have known that he would need a certain amount of time to cut up and mutilate his prey's body , not counting the time he would need to overcome the victim and render her helpless. It would have been so simple to say " No , not here - I know a better spot " and then move the affair to a location of his choosing. Why did he not do this ?
One might argue also that it would have been a whole lot safer for the killer to have lured the women back to his house or a rented room , and then disposed of them there. He could then have done what he liked with their remains , dumped them anywhere he wanted.
By the way , the mysterious M on the ground which I outlined in my last post also corresponds with the M carved into the face of Kate Eddowes ; I feel the fact that the killer bothered to do this at all suggests it was of some significance.
Rosey , the main worry I have about what was found on Druitt's corpse is this : where were his keys ? Not only to his chambers but his rooms at the school as well. And if this is a man who has just written a suicide note then might he not have a pen or pencil on him as well ?
Just some thoughts !
Simon |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 03:48 pm | |
Here is a little Druitt chronology , hope this is helpful :
Friday 30th Nov 1888 - Druitt dismissed from his post at Blackheath school
Saturday 1st Dec 1888 - Druitt buys a return ticket from Charing Cross to Hammersmith
Monday 3rd Dec 1888 - probable last possible date that Druitt was seen alive on ( see below )
Tuesday 11th Dec 1888 - William Druitt hears from a friend that Montague has not been seen in his chambers for ' more than a week '
Sunday 30th December 1888 - William Druitt discovers Montague has been dismissed from his job , and has his chambers searched
Monday 31st December 1888 - Druitt's body is dragged from the Thames near Thorneycroft's Torpedo Works , Chiswick
Wednesday 2nd January 1889 - Dr Diplock conducts the inquest at the Lamb Tap inn |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 06:08 pm | |
Dear Simon,
Your thoughts on this matter are most welcome. A high probability he was in the water for about a month and I think you would agree that there is little chance of identification...without those requisite cheques being lodged firmly about his person. And for me its a problem of INK. :-)Keys, watch, and other valuables, may have been looted by the "water-rats". They may have either missed the cheques or were being cautious in leaving them alone.
Was the identification made of the actual corpse?
I think his brother ID-ed it?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 09:11 pm | |
Dear Simon,
I live in Flushing, New York - and while I can't
recall more than seven murders in the area
over the last thirty years (I really haven't counted them - they include the Wendy's Restaurant
massacre on Main Street, four blocks from here
last year)I have noticed what you can call
"the Kitty Genovese" Effect. That is, you hear
screams in the street, and since you are used to
them, or are comfortably watching television or
reading or on the phone or on the Casebook, you
don't look outside to see if the screamer is
just playing around or being cut to ribbons.
Just because some people are murdered near
buildings or windows does not mean anyone sees
anything, or even bothers to inquire. Bad
citizenship, perhaps, but it is very common.
It is also, unfortunately, too easy to imagine
that luring a person to a "quiet, secluded" location will enable one to murder the victim and
hide the body. Sometimes it works, but more
frequently it doesn't. For example: Haigh, taking
Mrs. Duran Deacon to the garage where he shoots
her and dumps her body into hydrochloric acid.
He is isolated in that spot with the results of the murder - nobody else but he can have committed
it, as he rented the space for "experiments".
Earlier, Thurtell (in 1822), driving his victim,
Weare, to a country lane, where he has to chase
him to shoot him and cut his throat, and then
has to use two accomplices to dump the body in
a pond (and then move it to another pond). One
of the accomplices linked Thurtell to the murder.
Or John Robinson, using the office he was about
to vacate (a block from a police station) to first
have sex with a prostitute and then kill her.
It took awhile, but the killing was only linked to
him too. Or Patrick Mahon renting that romantic
bungalow on the Crumbles for his last trist. Isolating any victim with his or her potential killer is probably the dumbest thing a potential killer can dream up.
Jeff |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 10:43 pm | |
| Simon--according to Cullen, the Thames was very swollen that dismal day in early December. Where do you think Montey threw himself in at? And by the way, I've never been able to quite figure out exactly where the torpedo works were located. Is this near the present Chiswick bridge? Isn't this stretch of river the Oxford-Cambridge boat race course? [By the way, ever look up who was in the Apostles in 1888? Do you really think those fellows were murderers?] Best wishes, RJP |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 05:43 am | |
Simon - Your question about Druitt's keys is a beauty!
Martin F |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 01:52 pm | |
Rosey , would the ' water-rats ' REALLY loot Druitt's keys , yet leave the money ( including £2/10/- in gold !!! ) , his watch and his chain on the body ?
Simon |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 02:20 pm | |
Jon , I would think that a potential killer would be loath to murder someone in a public place for fear of being witnessed or discovered en flagrante , which then would lead to a wanted poster or circulation of his description in the local press. Granted , murdering someone in a place which is more secluded and concealed might lead to the killer getting caught for the reasons you suggest : surely though , it reduces the chance of this happening. Its a tradeoff the killer has to make as it may lead to him totally escaping capture altogether : murdering someone always carries a risk of arrest , surely better though to reduce that risk to the minimum possible. Ergo the most secluded or private place is the best place possible to enact the murder - surely this idea influenced the thinking of Haigh , Vacher , Nielson , Dahmer et al ?
Simon |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 02:48 pm | |
Rosey , the cheques were for £50 and £16 , and were drawn on the London and Provincial Bank. Here we do not know , sadly , who wrote these cheques but I would venture to make three guesses.
(i) The cheques were written on behalf of the Master of Blackheath School , Mr Valentine , to cover pay owed to Druitt and maybe payment up until the end of the term ( hence the two cheques , the £50 which he was owed and the £16 for the remaining weeks of term ). Alternatively the £50 cheque could have been a payment to him for being made unemployed.
(ii) The cheques could have been given to Druitt for services rendered to a third party , most probably for legal services.
(iii) Druitt had written the cheques against himself , since there were two cheques he would have two accounts at the bank in this case. He intended here to present the cheques at the bank and exchange them for cash ; he may have intended to draw out all his savings from the accounts in fact. He might have had a personal and a legal account/business account in this case.
All speculation naturally but there you are ! |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 03:02 pm | |
Alternatively , if you like a conspiracy ...
The ink on the cheques does not seem to have run , which might have been unusual for being underwater , although it is possible that they had been kept dry in a leather wallet or sleeve or chequebook.
However they might have been placed recently on the body , in which case we must ask a further question...
The stones in Druitt's pockets had been placed there to weigh the body down , either by himself or a third party. This ploy seems to have worked as the body was not discovered for a month after the death , until it rose from its murky grave on December 31st.
The problem is - the ploy cannot have worked. Because it manifestly failed to keep Montague's body under the water after 30 days had passed !
What circumstances changed so that the body rose up from the bottom to be found floating in the river ?
It may have been Druitt's intent to place stones in his pockets to prevent him swimming up to the surface instinctively after he had dived into the river ; in this case after his death the body would have risen to the surface again , the stones not being heavy enough to way the body down but to prevent the victim from swimming while alive. But in this case - where had the body been for the 30 days prior to its discovery ?
Mysteriouser and mysteriouser...? |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 03:18 pm | |
Here is another explanation for the cheques : Druitt wrote them to pay money to someone ( naturally I forgot to include this simple explanation in the post above ! ). But who ?
It has been suggested that they were to pay a blackmailer , who had been blackmailing Druitt ( see Howells/Skinner ' The Ripper Legacy ' p140-141 pback for details ) by threatening to claim that he was the Ripper.
But another explanation might be though that Druitt had gone to Chiswick to try and get himself sectioned in the Manor House asylum there , the asylum his mother was to ( ironically ? ) enter in May 1890 , and the cheques were to pay for medical care . Remember his note - ' Since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother ... ' ; A logical conclusion to this might be that Druitt determined to seek professional help or possibly to protect other people from the monster he felt he had or might become. If he was turned down then he might have decided to enact what he had threatened to do on his note - to kill himself.
Even if the cheques were not to pay for treatment , it is still possible that Druitt went to Chiswick with the intention of having himself committed to the Tukes Brothers asylum , or at least recieving some medical aid from them. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 08:26 pm | |
Dear Simon,
I agree with Martin...I think YOU are Jack the Ripper!
The body may have surfaced due to an acute attack of GAStro-enteritis. :-) So, we can conjecture that identification of the bloated corpse purely one of possessional-identification?
The honesty of those "water-rats" renews ones faith in mankind.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 12:37 pm | |
A Druitt conspiracy coming ... but first...
I found this in Howells and Skinner : Macnaughten gave an interview to the Morning Post in June 1913 in which he said :
" I have two great regrets in my life - one is that I was not allowed to play in the match against Harrow , having been turned out of the Eleven before the match , and the other is I joined the CID six months after the Whitechapel murderer committed suicide and I never had a go at him." ( The Ripper Legacy , p126 pback )
In his autobiography ' Days of My Years ' Macnaughten states that did "...incline to the belief " that the Ripper " ...committed suicide on or about the 10th November 1888 "
Curiously this ties in with the statement made by Major Arthur Griffiths in ' Mysteries of Police and Crime ' ( 1898 ) about the second and third of Macnaughten's favoured suspects :
" The second possible criminal was a Russian doctor...his antecedants were of the very worst...the third person was of the same type but the suspicion in his case was the stronger...he was also a doctor in the prime of his life , was believed to be insane , or on the borderline of insanity and he disappeared immediately after the last murder , that in Miller's Court on the 9th of November 1888. On the last day of that year , seven weeks later , his body was found floating in the Thames and was said to have been in the water a month."
Despite the reference to him being a doctor , it seems almost certain that Macnaughten and Griffiths are talking about Druitt here and that , in Macnaughten's later years , Druitt seemed to be his favoured suspect.
What I think we should look at though is that both men state that this man disappeared from the 9th November onwards. Could this be correct ? If so , it would clear up the mystery of why Druitt had been dismissed from the school : being absent without giving any notice of his whereabouts. The two cheques he carried therefore might have been his wages from the school post dismissal : the larger cheque covering November and the smaller cheque covering December , he being paid until the end of term. |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 12:50 pm | |
Is this Druitt conspiracy scenario feasible ?
Imagine William Druitt had killed his brother Montague and buried him in the woods somewhere ; if it became necessary to produce the body for some reason , William might have had to throw the body in the Thames to suggest a suicide.
Would the coroner be fooled into thinking that Druitt had been dead a month from drowning , and that the decomposition caused had come from being in the water ?
Any suggestions ?
Simon |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 01:41 pm | |
Dear Simon,
Now you mention it...did MacNaughton kill Druitt?
A silly mid-on?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 06:07 pm | |
| He wasn't a demon bowler ! |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 28 May 2001 - 05:03 am | |
It's wonderful, Simon. Write it up in fictional form and it should be in the running for an Edgar, an Agatha or an Anthony. But don't offer it in the non-fiction category!
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 28 May 2001 - 10:02 am | |
Thats two I've got to do now Martin , I've still got to write the ' why it was done in a carriage article ' for Mr Begg - when I get the time that is !!!
Simon |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 28 May 2001 - 04:15 pm | |
All roads lead to Dorset Street. . . Montague John Druitt was from Dorset, Inspector Frederick George Abberline was from Dorset, Sir Frederick Treves of the London Hospital, Whitechapel, was from Dorset. Need I say more?  |
Author: Jim Leen
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 03:14 pm | |
Hello Chris,
You missed out the most important part. Dorset is naught but a crude anagram of Ostred. And Ostred was of course Prince Carl Gustav of Denmark's personal physician, (if my memory of Ronald Coleman swashing his buckle in the Prisoner of Zenda is correct!)
Another royal connexion eh! And well done to the Spice Boys and the Tims for this season's respective trebles.
Thanking you
Jim Leen |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 03:24 pm | |
Thanks, Jim, for those interesting sidelights! Will I be able to meet you in Bournemouth in September?
Best regards
Chris |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 10:10 pm | |
Chris--Funny you should mention Abberline & Dorset, because I happened to find a copy of Dan Farson's book a couple weeks ago (and only a $1.00! yipee) and was once again mulling over all the strange features around Druitt's odd death. Abberline's home town was only about 9 miles north of Wimborne Minster (if my map is at all accurate. He also retired to Bournemouth, by the way) so it wouldn't really be completely inconceivable that Abberline would have known about the Druitts who were prominent in Dorset, or at least knew of somebody who knew of the Druitts. But it's pretty difficult to make the leap that Abberline was in on the 'private information' about Druitt, especially considering the fact that it was Abberline who so adamantly dismissed the drowned doctor story in the Pall Mall gazette. So I would have to say it would be very doubtful, but perhaps something the obsesssed Druitt researcher might want to look into.
Anyway, two things that I can't quite figure out about Abberline's statement. First, he calls the drowned suspect 'a doctor', but then immediately changes gears and refers to him as 'a student.' Second, he seems to be implying that it was Druitt's suicide that convinced Macnaghten & the others that Druitt was JtR.., ie., that it was the fact that the killings ended after this suicide that made them suspect MJD. But I just cant quite buy this. I don't think Druitt's suicide went at all noticed in London. No one knew about it, did they? What must first have drawn Druitt to the attention of Macnaghten was the 'private information', no? My guess is that the knowledge of the suicide came later. What I continue to wonder is whether Montague's suicide somehow got garbled together with some folklore (based partially on truth?) about an insane medical student that perhaps drowned himself. Everyone mentioning Druitt makes the same mistake about him being a doctor...that's the odd thing. We keep seeing the insane doctor motif crop up here & there, it must have reached a mythical status similar to the gladstone bag. Did somewhere along the line Druitt's story get mixed up with this folklore? Or did rumors about Druitt become garbled and turned into folklore? One coincidence, for instance: Matter's story of the syphilitic student who met Mary Kelly on boat race day; Druitt drowns himself along the boat race course and is mistaken as a medical student. Hammersmith Bridge was a popular site for viewing the boat race; in fact, I've read the crowds on it were so thick in Victorian times that it soon had to be rebuilt. But of course, Chiswick is upstream from Hammersmith so Druitt had to walk there..he certainly didn't float. Finally, (sorry for the rambling!) I wonder if Simon's idea of Druitt going to Chiswick for mental treatment might not be valid? I know that Chiswick House was briefly turned into a mental home in the 1890s, so is it possible that Chiswick and/or Hammersmith was known for such institutions catering to the well-to-do? Anyone? |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 11:26 pm | |
Can't answer any of these questions yet...if ever.
However, I note one thing (from left field,
naturally) regarding Monty's suicide by drowning
and his politics. If you recall, when he was
in college, Monty debated on the subject of
Count Bismarck's politics, and he insisted it
was "morally...a curse on the world." There is
a funny thing about old Otto von Bismarck - he
was quite busy in 1888 manouvering the dying
Crown Prince, Friedrich, as quickly out of power
as the old Kaiser (Wilhelm I) died. The result
was a rather scandalous three month reign for
Friedrich (who hoped to liberalize Germany), with
Bismarck helping the new Crown Prince basically
steal the throne. Two years earlier, another
German monarch who disliked Bismarck and Prussia,
died under mysterious circumstances. It was
Ludwig II of Bavaria, who had been deposed because of his castle building mania bankrpting the state. Ludwig was in an asylum in the care
of a Dr. Gudden. Then, one day, both men were
drowned at a lake near the asylum. Officially,
Gudden's death was attributed to Ludwig, in a
mad attempt to escape, only to die of a sudden
heart attack while trying to escape. But to this
day, many Bavarians still wonder if Bismarck's
agents murdered both men. The use of drowning to
kill an opponent is interesting. Just a thought
anyway - probably erroneous.
Jeff |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - 07:15 am | |
Dear RJ,
Do I detect the implied suggestion that such likely tales have a common source?
Rosey bn Dar!
:-)) |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - 06:08 pm | |
A bit more information on Druitt , from ' The Ripper Legacy '...
The London and Provincial Bank which had a branch in Blackheath , therefore the cheques could have been drawn on Druitt's own account ( it might have been convinient for him to bank at this bank since he worked in Blackheath ) , Mr Valentine's own personal account or on the school account.
£50 would have been about a term's ( 12-15 weeks ) salary for a teacher according to Howells and Skinner , therefore if the £50 cheque was drawn on the school Druitt would have recieved a term's salary as a payoff ( the £16 cheque would have been wages up until the end of the year ).
Simon |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - 06:25 pm | |
There is also support for the theory that Albert Bachert had been told the Ripper was dead in March 1889 ; although this comes from Donald McCormick and is potentially unreliable , Bachert's own remarks to the Pall Mall Gazette on the day before the Coles inquest opened collaberate it :
" If evidence is brought forward which can prove that it ( The Coles murder ) has been committed by the late Whitechapel fiend , I shall at once reform the Vigilance Comittee and appeal to the public for aid." ( The Ripper Legacy , p.144 , pback )
Bachert was of course refused permission to serve at the Inquest by Wynne Baxter , maybe because he would inquire too deeply , maybe because he was thought of as a troublemaker. But the word ' late ' above shows Bachert believed the Ripper was dead. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 04:34 am | |
No, Simon, it doesn't necessarily. We've been through all this before somewhere.
If you re-phrase the sentence, you can make it read:
"If evidence is brought forward which can prove that it has been committed by the fiend who operated 'of late' or 'lately' in Whitechapel..."
Love,
Caz |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 04:54 pm | |
It makes you wonder sometimes how we know anything at all about this damned case !!!
 |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 07:50 pm | |
Simon,
At last...a breakthrough!
Rosey:-) |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 01 June 2001 - 01:55 am | |
 |
Author: Louis van Dompselaar
Saturday, 02 June 2001 - 09:30 am | |
I've just uploaded the scorecard for Bournemouth v Parsees on 3-4 August 1888 to the CricInfo master server. In this match Druitt scored 12 and 0 and took 5 wickets in the Parsees' first innings. Thanks to go Darren Senior at Yorkshire for unearthing this card for me from a contemporary magazine. I had not seen it published anywhere yet.
It should be available on the CricInfo mirror servers in a short while. Try here
Any more complete cards of matches in which Druitt played are greatly appreciated . . .
Louis D |
Author: Louis van Dompselaar
Monday, 04 June 2001 - 04:07 am | |
I've now uploaded the scorecard for Druitt's match of 8 September 1888 to CricInfo as well. It should become available here.
Thanks to Philip Bailey for supplying this card. Note that there is a G Hutchinson playing for Blackheath as well. Now who will go and build a conspiracy theory on that? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 04 June 2001 - 08:07 am | |
Was G Hutchinson trying to bowl a maiden over, perhaps?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Sabine Maria Buechers
Monday, 03 September 2001 - 05:30 am | |
| I have said it before: The Cricket schedules don't prove anything, because, first, they were just schedules, and when scheduled, you may actually play or not. Secondly, somebody who kills for an urge feels highly elated after it and would be quite likely to perform well or even excellent. After all, Druitt was - alas - too old for my liking as a serial killer starting out but still he was only a young man and physically fit! I still think that the raid in Cleveland Street the year after the murders is one of the most striking proves that it must have been Druitt. |
