Author: Julian Rosenthal
Wednesday, 18 December 2002 - 08:02 pm |        |
Whilst I was browsing through an Australian newspaper dated 3 January 1889, I came across an amazing article relating to the trial of Montague Druitt for the murder of 5 women of Whitechapel during the Autumn of 1888. The article contained a complete transcript of the procedings which I am more than happy to relate here.
PLAYERS:
JUDGE: Mr Justice James Fitzjames Stephen.
PROSECUTION: John Addison QC.
DEFENCE:Sir Charles Russell QC (Probably not the best).
JURY: 12 illiterate Lancashire men, A convicted wife beater and assorted labourers.
OPENING STATEMENT BY THE PROSECUTION:
"Your Honour, blokes of the jury. It is the intention of the prosecution to prove beyond doubt that this man before you is indeed guilty of the atrocities perpetrated against five women of the unfortunate class in Whitechapel last year.
The prosecution will provide evidence that this man, through guile and cunning, tried to establish himself with alibis on the nights of the murders and by committing suicide tried to avoid justice. Once you have heard all the facts and have seen the evidence there will be no doubt in your minds that this man was in fact Jack the Ripper".
OPENING STATEMENT BY THE DEFENCE:
"Your Honour, fellow City Darts drinkers. The innocence of this man is as plain as the beer in front of you. The defence will not only prove this but will also establish it would have been impossible for him to committed these murders. This man is an educated Englishman whose integrity and ability to scull a yard glass is legendary. Should this man be found guilty of murder the greatest travesty of justice in the history of English law will have been committed.
The Defence rests its case!
JUSTICE STEPHEN: Defence, the case hasn't started yet.
DEFENCE: Oh. I guess we'de better get started then.
JUSTICE STEPHEN: Prosecution, would you please call the condemned to the stand.
PROSECUTION: Druitt, get your fat butt up on the stand so I can intimidate the c**p out of you.
DEFENCE: Objection!.
JUSTICE STEPHEN: Overruled.
PROSECUTION: Druitt, for the sake of the jury would you please state your full name, address and occupation.
DRUITT: Montague James Druitt, of 9 Eliot Place and I was a Doctor. Um, no I was a Barrister.
PROSECUTION: Make up your mind, were you a Doctor or a Barrister?
DRUITT: Well some copper reckoned I was a Doctor but I was trained as a Barrister.
PROSECUTION: Which is it to be?
DRUITT: A Teacher.
PROSECUTION TO JUSTICE STEPHEN: Can I hit him?
JUSTICE STEPHEN: Better not, there's people watching.
PROSECUTION: O)K Druitt, are you a teacher of law or a doctored teacher?
DRUITT: I think I'll stick with teacher.
PROSECUTION: Good idea. Now to the best of your recollection, where were you on the morning of 31 August 1888 between the hours of 2.45 and 3.30?
DRUITT: Probably sleeping.
PROSECUTION: Can you prove it?
DRUITT: No, but I was playing cricket the next day against Wimborne and I needed my sleep.
PROSECUTION: So you play cricket Druitt?
DRUITT: Well I like to think I'm a a batsman but I tend to slash around a bit. The Captain wants me to have a stab at bowling but I need more practice. Do you play cricket?
PROSECUTION: I'll ask the questions Druitt. So you like to have a slash with the bat do you?
DRUITT: Oh yes!, It's ripping fun, espescially when you don't get caught.
TO BE CONTINUED. |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 08:53 am | |
Hello Julian,
It's true. It's true. I have a copy of the Geelong Gazette of the same date and it exactly corresponds word for word what you have posted.
Andy.
P.S. Anyone who drinks Australian, thinks Australian. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 12:17 pm | |
SILENCE IN THE PARLOUR IF YOU PLEASE MR PUBLIC GALLERY!!! (or should that be the other way round? Where's me blasted pill-box?)
Can we get on with it please?
Justice Stephen |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 06:28 pm | |
BRB with continuation of Court Case.
JUles |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 06:52 pm | |
PROSECUTION TO JUSTICE STEPHEN: Do I have to keep going?
JUSTICE STEPHEN: 'Fraid so. There's still four more murders to convict him of.
PROSECUTION: "Druitt. Where were you at 5.30am on the morning of 8th September?
DRUITT: "Probably asleep. I had to play cricket later that day.
PROSECUTION: "And I suppose you were asleep during the mornings of 30th September and 9th of November?
DRUITT: Probably, I think I was playing....
PROSECUTION: "Let me guess? Cricket the following day?
DRUITT: "How did you guess? Well I was goping to play cricket on the 10th November but decided to kill myself instead.
PROSECUTION: How did you get to these cricket matches?
DRUITT: "By train. A couple of tickets were found in my coat when I was dragged from the Thames.
PROSECUTION: "Do you think your poor show at cricket might have lead your team mates to throwing you into the Thames with your pockets full of stones?
DRUITT: "No. I did that by myself. I was trying to build my arm muscles up and I thought swimming with stoned suit might help.
TO BE CONTINUED.
Jules |
Author: Vicki
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 12:24 am | |
Regarding the stones in Druitt's pockets.
Does anyone know how big Druitt's pockets were? What kind of stones could possibly weigh someone down, if they could fit in someone's pockets?
Vicky |
Author: Ky
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 11:59 pm | |
Vicky
I think that is was common for men to wear waistcoats back then. Coat pockets would have been roomier than pants pockets. Make any sense?
Ky  |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 12:29 am | |
Vicki,
He had four in each pocket--I'm assuming they were river stones he gathered at the scene, and which were described as large. Considering he felt he needed eight, I'm thinking that roughly, each was a little smaller than a fist? Whatever their size, they certainly assisted him in his goal since the self-preservation instinct didn't land him back on shore.
Maybe some testimony about this matter will come up in the Druitt trial!
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Chris Phillips
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 07:32 am | |
I wonder whether the stones are really intended to overcome the "self-preservation instinct"? After all, if the self-preservation instinct was strong enough, why shouldn't it cause him just to pull the stones out of his pockets?
But if the person felt another instinct - just to disappear and conceal the suicide (as well as whatever led up to it) - the stones could serve the purpose in the short term without being terribly heavy. I seem to remember the human body isn't far from being neutrally buoyant.
Obviously after a month had gone by, natural processes took their course and the stones couldn't keep the body hidden any more. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 08:39 am | |
| or the stones were meant to hide a body that was already dead when it went into the water, ---a "possible" not a "probable". |
Author: Vicki
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 10:53 am | |
Ky, David, Chris, and Warwick,
Thank you for the information. Sugden's book said there were 4 in each pocket, but I didn't know how many pockets there were.
Chris,
Maybe there was a river current to contend with, making the "self-preservation instinct" difficult.
I don't know what London weather is at the end of December, but some places there is ice formation. If a river has a strong current or is well traveled, the ice is usually along the river's edge only.
Vicky |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 06:23 pm | |
I would still like to know if the files of
the Thames River Police were ever searched for
either a file on Montague Druitt's case, or even
a morgue photograph. According to George Dilnot,
in THE STORY OF SCOTLAND YARD (Boston and New
York: Houghton, Mifflin Company, 1927), p. 169:
"Since 1872 it has been the practice to photograph
all bodies found, so that it is possible to identify an unknown person months and sometimes
years, afterwards."
Also I hope more of this illuminating court
transcript will be given to us, so we can hear
Sir Charles Russell ask Mr. Justice Stephen why
he does not recuse himself, as his own son is
another likely suspect - not to mention the
gentleman from Liverpool whose wife Mr. Justice
Stephen did so much to help convict.
Jeff Bloomfield |
Author: Chris Phillips
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 07:05 pm | |
Howells and Skinner, in The Ripper Legacy, say that E.T. Woodhall, writing in the 1930s, claimed to have been shown a mortuary photograph of the Ripper by "an old pensioned police sergeant of the H or Whitechapel division who had taken part in the investigation of the crimes."
For consistency with Woodhall's bizarre story of a blacked-up man known as "White-eyes", who was found three weeks after he drowned himself in the Thames, this would presumably have been a photo of a drowned corpse which had been in the water for a long time.
H and S suggest there was a grain of truth in the story about the mortuary photograph, but obviously Woodhall is a wildly unreliable authority. |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Monday, 27 January 2003 - 06:34 pm | |
G'day everyone and sory about the delay in keeping this board going but we've just had some pretty bad bushfires here in Canberra and I haven't been able to get on-line.
Anyway, After Druitt is dismissed from the stand for being a complete idiot the next person called to testify is none other than Mary Anne (Polly) Nichols.
Unfortunately you'll have to wait till tomorrow to hear her story:-)
Jules |
Author: James Jeffrey Paul
Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 11:31 am | |
JOHNNY COCHRAN (Summation for the defense):
And Sir Melville is up to his old tricks of planting evidence again, saying that Mr. Druitt was "sexually insane." We've heard from Dr. Ruth who had sex with Mr. Druitt and pronounced him "sexually normal." My friends--if the label doesn't fit, then you must acquit! |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 06:57 pm | |
JUSTICE STEPHEN TO MR BLOOMFIELD: Sor. You will leave my sone out of this or I will hold you incompetent. As for Mrs Maybrick, she'll get a fair trial after she's murdered her poor, long suffering husband who had to put up with her affairs.
*The jury notes with interest the comments from the gallery - in particular those of Mr Parminter - regarding the possibility that the rocks found in Monty's pockets were in fact placed there to help weigh the body down after the cricket team murdered him. These comments and others made by Vicki, Ky, David and Chris will be answered when Monty takes the stand again later.
And Mr Cochran. I believe Macnaughty may have actually planted his evidence in Monty just to make things appear the way thay do.
MARY ANN NICHOLS TAKES THE STAND.
PROSECUTION: Please state your full name, age, address and occupation.
NICHOLS: Polly Nichols, my age is none of your business, I sleep where I can and with whom I can, Do ya wanna bit:-).
PROSECUTION: Ah, thanks but no thanks. Could you please tell the jury your movements on the night of 30 August till the time of your murder, and if you recognise Druitt as the one who murdered you, don't hesitate to say so.
POLLY: Druitt? Oh him. It could have been but I can't be sure. It was someone who looked a bit like him, Prince um, Prince someone he called himself.
Anyway on the 30th it was raining so I decided to go and have a few pints of gin dxown at the Flying Pan. About 12.30 I stagger off to the White House in Thrawl St to get a roof over me head but the deputy tells me to bugger off 'cause I ain't got me doss money for the night. I tells 'im to 'old a bed for me 'cause I got me this beaut new bonnet which has helped me pick up three punters already today so I shouldn't have no troubles gettin' another one.
About 12.30 I were hoofing it up Osborn St when I runs inta me mate Emily and I says g'day Em, 'ow's it goin'. Em were just comin' back from watchin' them fires down at Shagwell docks and she reckoned I didn't look to good, she reckoned I was looking a bit pickled. "Occupational azzard'" I tells 'er, all me punters wanna get me as pickled as what they is so's I don't look so bad. Anyway Em, I tells 'er, I just gotta get done one more time tonight and I can get a doss for the night.
So's I leave Em and stagger up Bucks Row when this real fine gent come over and says 'ow much. I was gunna say nuthin' 'cause 'e were a bit of all right ya know, but I wanted the dosh so I says 3 pence.
D'ya know what the bastard went and did then? He pulls out this bloody great knife and says "that's too bloody much for a whore like you" and cuts me throat.
"A whore like me! I'll give 'im bloody whore like me next time I see 'im."
"Anyway guv, that's almost about it. Next thing I know I'm lyin' on the pavement with blood comin' outa me neck but this bastard ain't done yet. 'E lifts me skirts and starts carvin' me belly up. I reckon if it weren't for them blokes Charlie n' Bob I woulda been done a lot worse."
TO BE CONTINUED.
Jules |
Author: chris scott
Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 05:00 pm | |
Chris P
Thanks for the info about Woodhall as I am doing some work on him at the moment. You may be able to help - do you know anything about his memoirs? i.e. did they make it to publication, if so under what title etc?
The only mention I have seen of these is a message on the bulletin board at
http://www.cumbria.com/bulletin/messagesq1/139.htm
where its says
"What about the memoirs of Edwin Woodhall, most trusted of Secret Service detectives?, whose many disturbing assignments caused chronic alcoholism and a premature death shortly after the start of the Second World War."
I have messaged the poster but have received no reply
Any help gratefully received
All the best
Chris S |
Author: Chris Phillips
Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 05:55 pm | |
Chris S
I think the "White Eyes" story comes from E.T. Woodhall's "Jack the Ripper, or When London Walked in Terror" (1937).
But Howells and Skinner also refer to his "Detective and Secret Service Days" (Jarrold, 1929), which is probably the one you want. |
Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe
Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 06:42 pm | |
Whatho all,
Let's get this right. White Eyes was blacked up? If he had been bobbing about in the Thames surely the make up would have been washed off.
Anyway, what had White Eyes been up to. Had he been singing "Hello Dolly" with the rest of the Black and White Minstrels at the Victoria Palace?
Cheers, Mark pulling on striped trousers and tuning banjo |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 07:47 pm | |
I guess you guys want Druitt back on the stand. Sorry but you'll have to wait.
Jules |
Author: chris scott
Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 04:08 pm | |
Hi Julien
Many thanks for these extracts from the "trial" article. Can I just double check the date - 3rd Jan 1889? It seems incredible to me that all these details about MJD's life could have been available to a provincial Australian newspaper only 3 days after his body was found. In fact if the date is correct, this article was published only the day after the inquest when, presumably, the identity of the deceased and details about his life would have been made public for the first time.
I was also intrigued by the line:
DRUITT: Well some copper reckoned I was a Doctor but I was trained as a Barrister
As far as i can see, all the avilable accounts of the inquest only mention the professions in connection with MJD of barrister and schoolmaster. The obvious candidate for the "copper" who identified him as a doctor is macnaghten but of course his notes were not written until 1894.
Any ideas you have about how this info in such detail could have got to the other side of the world so quickly would be gratefully received.
Thanks again for the posts
Chris S |
