Archive through 05 August 2002

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

Archive through 05 August 2002

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects: Montague John Druitt: Archive through 05 August 2002

Author: Ashleah Skinner Saturday, 03 August 2002 - 07:37 pm
Reasons for him being Jack The Ripper He wandered the East End streets late at night talking to himself. \image[smile] He suffered frequent violent fits. He fought against his homosexuality by using prostitutes although he hated himself for it. His father WAS a surgeon allowing him access to surgical scalpels. The confidence of the police is compelling because after Druitts body was found police believed the terror was over. Why risk the embarrasement if they weren't absolutely positive? Crucial evidence pointing to Druitt has been destroyed-was this a cover up to save the family name? Druitt certainly had the means,motive and oppotunity and based on that could he be JTR?
Author: Richard P. Dewar Saturday, 03 August 2002 - 10:53 pm
Hi Ashleah, The conjecture you cite against Druitt is often also mentioned by those who support Druitt's candidacy as the murderer. However, to put the record straight: 1. There is no evidence that Druitt wandered the streets late at night muttering to himself. 2. There is no record of violent acts ever being committed by Druitt. 3. There is no evidence that Druitt was homosexual Regards, Rich
Author: Martin Fido Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 06:26 am
And without contradicting anything Rich says, Ashleah, you are quite right to notice that there is nothing amounting to firm supporting evidence, let alone proof, to rule Macnaghten's prime suspect out of court. The FACT about Druitt, is that a man who was on the spot in the Met immediately after the murders stopped; who knew all the people involved in the investigation, had access to all the files, and was, by his own admission, fascinated by the case, reached the personal conclusion that Druitt was the likeliest suspect. Everything else claiming to incriminate or excculpate Druitt is deducation or speculation. All the best, Martin F
Author: Peter Wood Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 11:11 am
"The confidence of the police is compelling because after Druitts body was found police believed the terror was over". P.270/271 Philip Sugden's "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper": "On 14 October 1896, eight years after the first letters, a fresh Jack the Ripper letter was received through the post at Commercial Street Police Station. On 15 October, Melville Macnaghten, then Chief Constable, minuted the covering note: 'This is not, I think, the handwriting of our original correspondent ...Will you get out the old letters and compare?' Chief Inspector Henry Moore undertook the comparison " ...In conclusion I beg to observe that I do not attach any importance to this communication". Swanson wrote a capital A in the margin against Moore's last sentence. Then he endorsed the report: 'In my opinion the handwritings are not the same. I agree as at A'." Now, this may only point towards the police still being confused as to the identity of the original letter writer, but I believe it is also indicative of them being wholly ignorant of the identity of Jack the Ripper. Why? Because if their 'suspect' was either locked up in an asylum or found floating in the Thames then why bother checking the handwriting on the letter at all? I was once tempted into thinking it could have been Druitt, but I went off him when I found out he was playing cricket on the days of two of the murders. Now I can't even imagine why I found him an interesting suspect in the first place. Peter.
Author: Ashleah Skinner Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 01:22 pm
Regarding Druitt and cricket he would have little difficulty travelling to and from Blackheath during the murders which is confirmed in The Jack The Ripper Whitechapel Murders by Andy and Sue Parlour pages 112-113
Author: Ashleah Skinner Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 01:27 pm
Mr Fido, Suicide was a criminal offence in 1888 and when the suicide note was found police would have searched for him so its possible he could have been a suspect BEFORE not AFTER!
Author: Stan Russo Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 01:45 pm
Ashleah, The suicide note was not 'found' or produced until after Druitt's body was found by Henry Winslade. Montague's brother William is the person who attested to it's existence. William Druitt is the reason why we have a belief that Montague Druitt committed suicide, and quite possibly this is what convinced MacNaghten of his guilt. The police never found the suicide note before Druitt was discovered so the above theory that because of his suicide he could have been a suspect before, not after is not valid. There has never been one piece of evidence that the police suspected Druitt before they found his body, or even that they suspected him prior to MacNaghten becoming convinced of his guilt. The McCormick story of the police telling Albert Backert in March of 1889 that 'JTR' drowned in the Thames is nothing more than one of McCormick's 'fairy tales'. STAN
Author: Simon Owen Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 02:44 pm
Just to make a point : Druitt committed suicide which was illegal at that time , but because it was argued that he was unsound in his mind at the time of his death , he was allowed a normal Christian burial. Simon
Author: Stan Russo Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 03:25 pm
Simon, Just a quick question. When did the English lawmakers make the groundbreaking realization that making suicide illegal to commit was a non-enforceable law? STAN
Author: Stewart P Evans Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 03:30 pm
Stan, You are obviously making this statement with regard to those who were successful. However, under the old legislation those who attempted to commit suicide were prosecuted by the police. Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Stan Russo Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 03:58 pm
Stewart, It was a bit of a sarcastic question, but an even harder law to understand. Suicide is generally attempted as a result of depression. This law basically rewards the ineptitude of failing in an attempt to commit suicide by prosecuting the person as a criminal. I only hope that the basis for such a law was to deter people from committing suicide but I don't really believe a person who wants to commit suicide views the future or ramifications that may result after the fact. From this, what real purpose would this law actually serve? Not to get off the subject of what we are talking about here so Druitt's suicide is not a definitely ascertained fact. From the inquest testimony for Montague John Druitt, William Druitt is known to have stated outright lies. Therefore the possibility that Montague did not commit suicide readily exists, despite William Druitt attesting to it. STAN
Author: David O'Flaherty Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 04:08 pm
Stan, As far as Druitt's suicide goes, what about the rocks found in his pockets? Cheers, Dave
Author: Stan Russo Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 04:32 pm
David, They were four large stones. There's obviously no way to determine who placed these stones in Montague's pocket. Why would someone need to weigh himself down if he wanted to commit suicide? All he would have to do is throw himself into the Thames and not come up. There are other inconsistencies with Montague John Druitt committing suicide. There's actually more theoretical evidence that he didn't commit suicide than there is evidence that he did. STAN
Author: David O'Flaherty Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 04:39 pm
Stan, You'd need the stones to overcome the reflex to swim and save yourself at the last second. Virginia Woolf did the same thing when she drowned herself in the 1940s. Moulston's list says there were four large stones in each pocket. I don't know how many pockets Druitt had, but let's go with a low estimate and say there were eight. What evidence is there that someone else placed these rocks in his pockets? Cheers, and enjoy what's left of the weekend Dave
Author: Stewart P Evans Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 04:45 pm
Stan, We live in more enlightened times. Suicide was a felony until the latter half of the 20th century in this country. The crime of suicide was defined as 'A person who kills himself in a manner which in the case of another person would amount to murder is guilty of murder, and every person who aids and abets any person in so killing himself is an accesory before the fact, or a principal in the second degree in such murder.' An attempt to commit suicide was a misdemeanour at common law, and when any person was accused of such an attempt it had to be proved that he intended to take his own life. It was an attempt to commit a felony and was punishable with hard labour. On the other point, I see no reason at all to regard Druitt's death as anything but suicide. Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Martin Fido Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 05:05 pm
Dickens called attention to the absurdity of the suicide law in the 1840s, when Alderman Sir Peter Laurie boasted foolishly of having 'put down suicide', by which he meant that he had given the severest sentences to unsuccessful would-be suicides who tried to drown themselves in the Thames and wound up on the bench in front of him. Laurie believed that this had reduced or eliminated the practice. In "The Chimes" Dickens caricatured him as Alderman Cute, blathering on about his intention to "Put Down nonsense about Starvation" and "Put Down cant about Want". All the best, Martin F
Author: Garry Wroe Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 06:28 pm
Hi Martin. Your observation reminds me of an 1888 case I came across in the newspaper archives. A young working-class woman had felt unwell and went for a late-night walk to clear her head. Whilst sitting by the Thames she was joined by an unknown male who engaged her in conversation. After some minutes, and without warning, the man began kicking and punching her until finally he raped her. When eventually the case came to court, the Magistrate subjected the woman to the most extraordinarily severe cross-examination. Then, ignoring overwhelming evidence against the accused, the Magistrate admonished the woman for having been out alone late at night, insinuated that even if anything untoward had occurred, it had done so because she had behaved irresponsibly and had thus contributed to her own downfall, then promptly dismissed the case! Best wishes, Garry Wroe.
Author: Jon Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 07:13 pm
David Is the comparison with Virginia Woolf fair?, she was a 60 yr old woman who obviously thought she could not fight against the weight of a single stone. And yet she had the strength to pick it up and carry it some distance, and it fit in her pocket. The stone may or may not have helped in her suicide attempt, she succeded, yes, but was the stone any help or really only a type of placebo-in-reverse (she thinks it will hold her down so she makes no effort to fight it). What age was Druitt, 31?..... Let me quote a sentence from Howells & Skinner's work. "Montague Druitt was a keen sportsman. He was one of two masters at a school that boasted its own swimming pool. He came from an educational system where swimming was regarded as a necessary part of a boy's development. He was almost certainly a strong swimmer himself, and it must be regarded as extremely unlikely that given the choice, such a man would kill himself in this way." The Ripper Legacy, Howells & Skinner, 1988, pg 183 I agree. Regards, Jon P.S. reports are inconsistant as to 'stone' or 'stones', re V.W.'s suicide.
Author: Ashleah Skinner Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 07:42 pm
As i recall Druitt went missing for a month until his body was found so it would have been enough for police to launch a missing persons enquiry and that could be the begining of suspecting Druitt as being the Ripper In The Mysteries Of Police And Crime of 1894 an article by Major Griffiths stated: "The outside public may think that the identity of that later miscreant, "Jack the Ripper," was never revealed. So far as actual knowledge goes, this is undoubtedly true. But the police, after the last murder, had brought their investigations to the poinnt of strongly suspecting several persons, all of them known to be homicidal lunatics, and against three of these they held very plausible and reasonable grounds of suspicion. Concerning two of them the case was weak, although it was based on certain colourable facts. One was a Polish Jew, a known lunatic, who was at large in the district of Whhitechapel at the time of the murders, and who, having afterwards developed homicidal tendencies, was confined in an asylum. This man was said to resemble the murderer by the one person who got a glimspe of him-the police constable in Mitre Court [sic]. The second a posssible criminal was a Russian doctor, also insane, who had been a possible convict both in England and Siberia. This man was in the habit of carrying about surgical knives and instruments in his pockets; his antecendents were of the very worst, and at the time of Whitechapel murders he was in hiding, or, at least, his whereabouts were never exactly known. The third person was of the same type, but the suspicion in his case was stronger, and there was every reason to believe that his own friends entertained grave doubts about him. He was also a doctor in the prime of life, was believed to be insane, or on the borderland 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 for a month. The theory in this case was that after his last exploit, which was the most fiendish of all, his brain entirely gave way, and he became furiously insane and commited suicide, It is at least a strong presumption that "Jack the Ripper" died or was put under restraint after the Miller's Court affair, which ended this series of crimes"
Author: David O'Flaherty Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 07:57 pm
Hi, Jon Yes, Druitt was a fine athlete and I'm sure he was a very good swimmer--he seems to be in fine shape, judging from his photographs. But why does that make it so unlikely he'd drown himself? The evidence points to the fact that he did. Suicidal depression ran in his family. He was being fired. Money, a check, and his pocket watch were found on his body, so he wasn't a robbery victim. And while we don't know their weight, we're told the stones were large and that he had four of them in each pocket. There's no evidence someone else put them there (that I know of, anyway), so Druitt must have done it himself, knowing his own strength and what it would take to weigh him down (or wear him out). A rock that can fit in one's pocket can still be dense and heavy. The comparison with Virginia Woolf is fair, because she and MJD killed themselves in the same manner. I don't compare his physicality with that of Virginia Woolf's (and I'm ignorant of how many rocks she filled her own pockets with, and this is a tangent, but you know I'm a detail man--why would she need to carry them anywhere when river stones were probably right there on the bank?). I haven't read The Ripper Legacy, and today is the first I've ever heard M.J. Druitt's suicide questioned. I'm unfamiliar with Howell, but I think a great deal of Keith Skinner (thru his work with Stewart Evans). What's the thinking behind the theory, other than the fact that MJD was a good swimmer, and therefore incapable of drowning himself? Don't read sarcasm into what I write--I honestly would like to know why Keith Skinner, Stan, and I guess you, believe this, because it seems to be a clear-cut case of suicide to me. Best, Dave PS-I'll also pick up a copy of The Ripper Legacy
Author: Jon Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 10:44 pm
Dave Howells & Skinner basically point to brother William as someone who was central to the mystery of the death of Montague and that the details that remain to us raise serious questions concerning Montague's apparent suicide. They point to certain facts that argue against such a verdict. I urge you to find a copy, they bring a convincing perspective to the mystery. Regards, Jon
Author: David O'Flaherty Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 11:16 pm
Anyone have any ideas where to purchase a copy? I can't seem to find this title at Amazon, B&N, or Powells. Dave
Author: R.J. Palmer Monday, 05 August 2002 - 12:24 am
David--It's out of print; the best bet is to check bookfinder.com which has had it listed in the past. Stan--My apologies for disagreeing with you, but surely Druitt's suicide note was found before Winslade discovered the body? Re-read the Acton, Chiswick, & Turnham Green Gazette and let me know if you don't agree. The context is somewhat confused, but it clearly states that William Druitt contacted the Blackheath school soon after he heard from a friend on the "11th of December" that MJ had gone missing. Depending on how one interprets the article, this may have been as late as December 30---but certainly not later than that date. Either way, the suicide note would have been discovered at least one day prior to Winslade finding Druitt in the Thames. There has always been huge problems with the theory that Druitt was a murder victim. Since one news report has the suicide note addressed to Valentine --and surely the headmaster would have known his own employee's handwriting--- it seems very unlikely that William Druitt or anyone esle would have risked 'planting' such a note. The minutes to the Blackheath Cricket club in mid-December make the curious remark that Druitt had "gone abroad" --so clearly everyone already knew something bad was up & probably even suspected the worst. As for William Druitt, he couldn't have known whether or not the school had rummaged through MJ's person items or not---so he wouldn't have risked planting a suicide note. Beyond this, it seems to me that drowning is one of the most difficult forms of murder. Wouldn't it be extremely difficult to drown an athletic man such as Druitt without leaving obvious marks of violence on the body? Best wishes.
Author: Christopher T George Monday, 05 August 2002 - 12:38 am
Hi, all: I think the comparison with Virginia Woolf's suicide is apt, the fact that both Montague John Druitt and the author of A Room Of Her Own committed suicide by weighting their pockets with large stones. Note also that both Woolf and Druitt lived for parts of their lives in farming communities where such a form of suicide was probably common enough to be the talk of the community even if suicide was then illegal as Stewart has stated. Woolf when she died lived near Lewes, Sussex, and drowned herself in the River Ouse and Druitt of course was from Wimborne, Dorset. At the time of her death, Virginia Woolf, 59, was living at Monk's House in Rodmell, near Lewes. A recent news story on a Brighton website reported that the walking stick she took to the river with her when she committed suicide was up for sale. So the Woolf and Druitt comparison is apt--and the fact that Monty had large stones in his pockets is also an excellent argument against there having been foul play in Druitt's demise. Here by the way is an interesting site on Virginia Woolf's manic-depressive episodes. There is I think an uncanny similarity in the wording between Woolf's note and the one left by Montague Druitt. Virginia Woolf wrote just before committing suicide on March 28, 1941, "I am certain now that I am going mad again. It is just as it was the first time ..." Druitt meanwhile wrote in his suicide note that he feared that mentally he was deteriorating in the same way his mother had: "Since Friday I felt I was going to be like Mother and the best thing for me was to die." Best regards Chris George
Author: David O'Flaherty Monday, 05 August 2002 - 08:29 am
Chris, many thanks for the link on Virginia Woolf--I'd forgotten about her visit to the HMS Dreadnought, which is what made me really start liking her in the first place Cheers, Dave
Author: Jon Monday, 05 August 2002 - 09:49 am
The note written by V.W., goes like this. 'Dearest, I feel certain I am going mad again. I feel we can't go through another of those terrible times. And I shan't recover this time. I begin to hear voices, and I can't concentrate. So I am doing what seems the best thing to do. You have given me the greatest possible happiness. You have been in every way all that anyone could be. I don't think two people could have been happier till this terrible disease came. I can't fight any longer. I know that I am spoiling your life, that without me you could work. And you will I know. You see I can't even write this properly. I can't read. What I want to say is I owe all the happiness of my life to you. You have been entirely patient with me and incredibly good. I want to say that - everybody knows it. If anybody could have saved me it would have been you. Everything has gone from me but the certainty of your goodness. I can't go on spoiling your life any longer. I don't think two people could have been happier than we have been. V.' http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/malcolmi/suicide.htm http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/malcolmi/SUMMARY.HTM I think we have an obvious history of mental illness with V. W., not so with Montague Druitt, or at least no known personal history is extant, family history is, however. And that could be a reason this method was chosen, assuming foul play is the correct verdict. The suicide notes are similar in respect that suicide victims tend to blame themselves and have a low self esteem, I know this, many know this, its possible William knew this too. However, Howells & Skinner makes an engrossing read. Regards, Jon
Author: Jon Monday, 05 August 2002 - 10:08 am
Just as a refresher, here is all we have of the M.J.D. suicide note, and its a paraphrase, so comparisons are difficult to determine. "Witness (William) had deceased's things searched where he resided, and found a paper addressed to him (produced). The Coroner read the letter, which was to this effect: - "Since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother, and the best thing for me was to die." Witness, continuing, said deceased had never made any attempt on his life before. His mother became insane in July last. He had no other relative". To create such a false note would be no great feat of imagination. Regards, Jon
Author: David O'Flaherty Monday, 05 August 2002 - 10:08 am
Good morning, Jon But mental illness ran in his family--that's a pretty good indicator (for me, at least) that a man found drowned in the Thames, with rocks in his pockets, all his money and a fine watch still on his body, killed himself. I'll leave the note out of it, since there's to be a question about William Druitt, and since I haven't read the research on the subject, which everyone seems to believe is excellent, even if they don't necessarily agree with the researchers' conclusions. Jon, about the quote from Howells/Skinner you provided--I thought about it last night. If Druitt was an excellent swimmer, he would have known about the dangers of water--isn't it natural that he would have selected the river as a good vehicle to kill himself in? Now I'm eager to read Ripper Legacy and after reading a couple of reviews, now I won't be happy until I've run down a copy. It does indeed look engrossing--thanks for the recommendation. Best, Dave
Author: Jon Monday, 05 August 2002 - 10:15 am
Dave Don't get me wrong, I have no suspicion of any clandestine reason for the murder of M.J.D. I am relaying an opinion I have that the issues raised by Howells & Skinner are of great interest. I agree with their summary, and that is that we are possibly looking at dubious circumstances surrounding the death of M.J.D. Regards, Jon
Author: Jon Monday, 05 August 2002 - 10:57 am
I think it only fair to add, the Howells & Skinner proposal is not without critisizm. I do not agree with their conclusion that M.J.D. was Jack the Ripper and that he went to Chiswick to meet someone, intending to return but was murdered and his body deposited in the Thames. I think the points raised concerning the suspicious death are valid but their attempt to seal up the story by identifying J.T.R. and the group (Apostles) who killed him are a little too much for me to accept. But then, no theory is perfect. Regards, Jon
Author: Christopher T George Monday, 05 August 2002 - 12:20 pm
Hi, All: Again, the rocks in Montague's pockets and the money found upon his person are, to me, pretty strong indications that there was no foul play. I find Howells and Skinner's conclusion as reiterated by Jon "that M.J.D. was Jack the Ripper and that he went to Chiswick to meet someone, intending to return but was murdered and his body deposited in the Thames" significantly less plausible than the intriguing possibility that Kate Eddowes had a suspicion that she knew who the Ripper was, and that she went to Mitre Square, or at least the Aldgate area, and specifically the prostitute's church, St. Botolph's, to meet him. Best regards Chris George
Author: Richard P. Dewar Monday, 05 August 2002 - 12:51 pm
Hi all, I wonder if the same person or persons who "murdered" Druitt had also manuevered Druitt to be fired from his position shortly before the "faked" suicide? Tongue firmly in cheek, Rich
Author: Jon Monday, 05 August 2002 - 03:39 pm
According to The Acton, Chiswick and Turnham Green Gazette, Jan 5, 1889. William, residing in Bournmouth, heard from a friend on the 11th Dec. that Montague had not been heard of in his chambers (in London) for more than a week (Dec 4th?). William left for London and found that his brother had got into serious trouble at the school at Blackheath, this he discovered on Dec 30th, 19 days since he recieved the message from a friend, (Dec 11th - Dec 30th. William knew where M.J.D.'s Chambers were and he knew where the school in Blackheath was. It is rather strange that it took him 19 days to find Mr. Valentine, the headmaster at Blackheath. The County of Middlesex Independent tells us... "...from certain papers found on the body friends (not relatives) at Bournemouth have been telegraphed to." And yet, according to the testimony of P.C. George Moulson, who searched the body, there were no papers or letters of any kind found on the body. However there were two cheques on the London & Provincial Bank. These cheques have been assumed to have been written by Mr Valentine, but as we have read above, "certain papers" were found on his body which allowed 'friends' in Bournemouth to be contacted. This makes one wonder if these 'certain papers' (cheques) were not written by this friend in Bournemouth. This is an angle I have not seen pursued. Regards, Jon Its very unfortunate that the PRO appears not to have retained the file papers.
Author: Kevin Braun Monday, 05 August 2002 - 05:17 pm
It makes me wonder how George Moulson was able to read 'certain papers' and or (cheques) after a month in the Thames. That damn ink and paper again.
Author: Christopher T George Monday, 05 August 2002 - 05:26 pm
Hi, all: This is, I suppose, a small point and probably is not helpful but it is interesting to note that, as kindly quoted by Ashleah, in Major Arthur Henry Griffiths' discussion of the unnamed drowned man who was a prime suspect, evidently meaning Montague John Druitt, the Major states that the man was suspected by his friends ("there was every reason to believe that his own friends entertained grave doubts about him"), while, by contrast, in his memoranda on the major suspects, Sir Melville Macnaghten states that the man, whom he names as M. J. Druitt, was suspected by his family ("from private information I have little doubt but that his own family suspected this man of being the Whitechapel murderer and it was alleged that he was sexually insane"). Not a very big deal maybe--and both accounts wrongly name the drowned man as a "doctor" and not a barrister--but it is interesting to note this difference in the versions related by Griffiths and Macnaghten. Best regards Chris George
Author: Jon Monday, 05 August 2002 - 06:16 pm
Kevin The very same thought has crossed my mind too, printed paper & ink in the water for a month?. but then we are reading news stories and we already know how inaccurate they can be. Possibly the cheques were found in M.J.D.'s belongings, not on his person, maybe the Dec 30th date is a misprint for Nov 30th, and it does not refer to Williams discovery of the dismissal but the date of M.J.D.'s actual dismissal (Friday 30th Nov.), which maybe the event that sent M.J.D. over the edge?. If the Middlesex Ind. story is wrong and the 'certain papers' that were found were not on his person but actually in his residence then Williams story is suspect. And if the Middlesex Ind. is correct and the testimony of P.C. Moulson is wrong then the cheques may not be dismissal cheques at all. Also we have two stories about the addressee named, one has William as the intended recipient the other has George Valentine as the intended. It's so very difficult to settle any question when you have to rely on news stories. A minor question is asked in the Ripper Legacy, "if yesterday was Friday, and you were to write about some event which happened yesterday, would you normally write, 'Since Friday', or would you more usually write 'yesterday'?. Howells & Skinner propose that if the suicide note was written on Sunday, or some other later day, then 'since Friday' is perfectly sound, but, if it was wrote on Saturday, as we are led to believe, then 'yesterday' is more apt. And, if the note was not written on Saturday then M.J.D.'s death was not suicide. regards, Jon (which only goes to show that mysteries are more often the result of a lack of accurate information, nothing more.)
Author: Christopher T George Monday, 05 August 2002 - 06:23 pm
Hi, Jon: I suppose you are following the reasoning of Howells and Skinner when you say, "And, if the note was not written on Saturday then M.J.D.'s death was not suicide." How is that so? If Montague had written the note, say, on Sunday or Monday why couldn't it still be suicide? All the best Chris George
Author: Jon Monday, 05 August 2002 - 07:10 pm
Yes Chris, all from The Ripper Legacy. The suicide note was said to have been found at Druitt's residence, either his chambers in Kings Bench Walk in London or at Eliot Place, reports are not clear. What is known is that Druitt bought a return ticket from Hammersmith to Charing Cross dated Dec 1st. The unused portion was found on his body, thereby implying the suicide note had to have been written no later than the purchase of the ticket. Therefore it could not have been written anytime after Saturday Dec 1st. I think its a good point to make. Regards, Jon
Author: Christopher T George Monday, 05 August 2002 - 09:53 pm
Hi, Jon: Maybe I am just thick but I don't understand the logic of this. If Monty Druitt had a return ticket in his pocket dated December 1, 1888 how does it make sense that "The unused portion was found on his body, thereby implying the suicide note had to have been written no later than the purchase of the ticket. Therefore it could not have been written anytime after Saturday Dec 1st." How does that follow? Surely the return ticket does not imply that at all. The suicide note could have been written and the suicide have occurred any day from December 1 onward. Or am I missing something here? Please explain it to me gently, Jon. Best regards Chris George
Author: Jon Monday, 05 August 2002 - 10:41 pm
Chris. The flow goes something like this..... Druitt writes the note and leaves it at his residence, he buy's a return ticket dated Dec 1st from Charing Cross to Hammersmith, commits suicide at Chiswick and the return portion (Hammersmith to Charing Cross) is found on his body. Thereby he could not have wrote the note after the date on the ticket. Or, at least a genuine suicide note could not have been left at his residence unless he returned from Hammersmith to write it. Regards, Jon (back next weekend, hopefully)