| Author |
Message |
    
Kristen R.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 8:03 pm: |       |
does anyone know how tall druitt was?
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 289
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 5:25 am: | |
Hello Kristen,
There are only about three known photos of Montague Druitt.In two of these he is seated.So it is difficult to guess.And I for one do not know.
Now if he had been a shamed aristocrat who fled abroad, we might have put our hands on his passport!
If you reside in London you might like to contact Scotland Yard and see if the Persons Reported Missing Registers for late 1888 are still around. If they are, they will answer your question for you. |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 271
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 6:14 pm: | |
Hi Kirsten,
I am unable to give any definite answer to your question, but from "The Ripper Legacy", by Martin Howells and Keith Skinner, comes the following (page 101) "Jack the Ripper was a respectable young man of about thirty and of medium height, with a somewhat foreign appearance, but - as Donald Rumbelow points out - it also paints an uncanny portrait of Montague John Druitt".
However having checked my copy of Rumbelow's "The Complete Jack the Ripper", I can find no further reference to height.
Best Regards
John Savage |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 622
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
It is difficult to tell from the existing photographs. If we can make the assumption that he was of typical proportion (i.e., that his legs were not shortened due to disease, etc.) then it would seem safe to say that Montague was probably of some what greater than average height. He has the appearance of a slender, tall person.
The photo of Montague seated at table with head resting on hand appears to show an individual of normal proportions. In this photo it appears that Montague has his left leg crossed over his right with that leg rather flat atop the right. His crossed knee is at or just slightly below table level. When I replicate this posture, my crossed knee comes to exactly the same level with respect to my desk. I am 6'1". To be sure, the height of Montague's table and his chair are unknown. Also, Montague's head is resting on his right fist with his right arm bent and elbow leaning on two stacked books. Yet he still must incline his upper body downward to make his head meet his fist. This is about the position of my upper body when I strike Montague's pose without the books, i.e. with my elbow resting directly on my desk. This would suggest that Montague was a tall man. We might also consider his athletic prowess, which suggests that he might have been rather tall.
In addition to the two photos on Druitt's "suspect" page here at the Casebook, where can the third photograph be found?
Andy S.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3401
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 3:19 pm: | |
Hi Andy
Donald Rumbelow's book (at least, the old edition) has Druitt wearing a blazer and a sports cap with peak. It is part of a team photo by the looks of it - he is sitting, but there are others standing behind. It is a close-up of Druitt. And yes, the hands do look snow white, and the fingers long and tapering.
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1215
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 3:36 pm: | |
There is a formula used by school photographers from as long as I can remember.The tallest stand at the back towards the middle,the middle sized
in the middle rows and the smaller sit.I wonder did the photographer of the cricket club use a similar formula and if so was Druitt possibly smaller than the average team player?It may be worth asking a few photographers if there is a formula used today for sportsmen"s group photos
and whether it varies much.
Natalie |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 272
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 7:40 pm: | |
Hi All,
Here is the picture that Robert mentions, not a very good scan, but the best I can do.
It is from a paperback edition of Donald Rumbelow's "The Complete Jack the Ripper", published 1976
 |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 299
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 10:06 pm: | |
Natalie,
I can't speak with any authority about team photos in England (in 1888 or 2004), but I have taken or been in many dozens of such photos in the States and the simple answer to your question is NO -- or at least no order based simply on height. Order may be based on captains, starters, classes (in school athletic photos), natural affinities among individuals or simply whim. Indeed, it is often deemed "funny" by the participants to have someone short flanked by super-sized teammates even if they are all kneeling and the disparities not so obvious.
Don. |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 293
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 7:02 am: | |
Hello Kristen,
I should imagine there are some retired portrait photographers of the Old School who may have a rough formula derived from many years of observation, who might be able to give you a rough guess at Montague Druitt's height. I suppose computing him standing next to objects of fixed or known dimension would do the trick.For instance a well-known building or street corner.
Andrew S.,
By now you will have seen the three Druitt photos.
The head on hand reading a book one; the seated on the ground wearing white and a cap one; and the closer head shot with huge Edwardian tie-knot
and extraordinarily wide parting in the centre of his hair.His cleft chin is noticeable in that one.
This last appeared in Dan Farsons JACK THE RIPPER
(Michael Joseph 1972).
What mystifies me about all of Druitt's known photos is the fact he is not engaging in eye contact with the camera in any of them!
Was this an 1880's macho pose for virile young sportsmen? Often the photographer decreed the subjects pose.
A GENERAL QUESTION: When did people start faking smiles for the camera? |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 623
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 11:07 am: | |
Thanks for the scan. I do recall seeing that photo now. Does anyone have the uncropped version as it might help us determine Montague's size in relation to his teammates? Still, from this particular pose it is difficult to determine height. It's too bad he's not holding a piece of equipment with which we might measure size.
I think the "head on hand" photo is the most useful for estimating height. I can only give a very approximate guess, but my estimate would be about 5'9 or 10" to about 6'2". I wonder if I'm misinterpreting the pose. I have difficulty even replicating it myself. If I rest my elbow on two books atop my desk and put my head to my hand I can barely do it due to my hand being elevated so high. My upper body is certainly not inclined to the extent that Montague's is. This leads me to think that either Montague's table was very low (or his chair very high) or his upper body at least was very tall. Actually, the "necktie" portrait is very useful as well. It shows a man with a very long neck, a characteristic of tall, slender people in general.
As to when people began "smiling" for photographs, in America at least I would say this became common around 1920. There are notable exceptions. The famous Gardner portrait of Abraham Lincoln taken just after the end of the Civil War (1865) and just before Lincoln's assassination (the photo with the cracked plate) clearly shows a broad smile. I think this is less a pose and more genuine relief over the war's end. Also, the famous photo of Billy the Kid shows him with a silly grin. I also remember seeing one, and only one, photograph of Queen Victoria smiling.
Andy S.
(Message edited by Aspallek on November 09, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1249
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 11:28 am: | |
Hi
someone probably said this already, however,might there be records that record his height.
Now the only records i know for sure record height are military and i wouldn't expect he had those but I just wonder about cricket or BAR records etc? |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 493
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 8:28 pm: | |
Hi,
I'm sure that the photograph of Queen Victoria smiling (she was shot with a granddaughter and a great-granddaughter in the picture) was in Elizabeth Longford's biography QUEEN VICTORIA: BORN TO SUCCEED. Her smiling countenance is quite charming - and pleasant after those stolid, stern faced "grandmother of the Empire" pictures embedded in our historical memory.
I don't know, but is it possible that there could be some photographs of Druitt in the archives of his inn of court?
Jeff |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 494
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 8:31 pm: | |
Post script -
In looking at the photograph John scanned, is it
my imagination or is Druitt wearing a small moustache?
Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2234
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 8:50 pm: | |
Jeff,
As far as I know there exists photos of Druitt both with and without a moustache. So, the answer to your question is yes.
All the best
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3435
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 6:41 pm: | |
Hi Jeff
I agree, it's definitely a moustache.
John's scan is slightly different from the picture I have, because it contains a face visible on Druitt's right.
Robert |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 496
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 9:53 pm: | |
Hi Robert and Glenn,
Actually the moustache looks like a jaunty little handlebar. Somewhat unexpected for the youthful, clean shaven Monty. But it fits strangely enough.
I wonder if he ever twirled it?
Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3441
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 12:36 pm: | |
Hi Jeff
Yes, it is starting to curl at the ends.
One thing I personally find rather awe-inspiring about someone like Monty is the excellent eyesight he must have possessed. A classical education followed by a law degree, all that studying of close-printed books...and then, Victorian newspapers seemed to make no concessions to poor eyesight. And yet after all this, Druitt still possesses the excellent eye of the cricketer, and seems, as far as I know, never to have required glasses.
Robert |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 497
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 8:48 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Perhaps eyesight keen enough to see clearly on darkened streets, midst gaslight.
I wonder if Monty was clean shaven in 1888 or had the moustache?
Jeff |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 296
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 6:55 am: | |
Hello Kirsten, Jon, Jeffrey and All,
The photo of Montague Druitt sporting a jaunty moustache and wearing a peaked (cricket)cap, whilst reproduced in Donald Rumbelow's 1976 book is actually a cropped section from a team photo which first appeared in Irving Rosenwater's significant article on MJD in THE CRICKETER January, 1973. It would be good if someone could scan the whole photo onto this thread. For record purposes.
I think the whole team is named, but I forget the year it was taken.
I only have a dog-eared indifferent photocopy.
The title of the article? "Jack the Ripper: A Cricketing Sort of Person?". |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3468
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 3:08 pm: | |
Hi Jeff, John and all
It would be nice to have the date of the photo. Certainly he seems to me to be looking around late 20s.
I haven't seen lots of photos of barristers of the period, but I imagine that it would have been good policy for barristers to sport a moustache, at least if young - it would have added a suggestion of experience and authority to their appearance.
Robert |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 626
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 9:35 am: | |
Yes, please, if somebody could scan the entire photo. Perhaps Rumbelow still has a copy. It's unlikely I could find the issue of THE CRICKETEER archived on this side of the Atlantic. Sorry, I've tried, but I don't understand cricket!
Andy S.
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 10:57 am: | |
Hi Andrew, Robert & all. I have the latest copy of Rumbelow's book, which is still on the shelves, and the cricket team photo of Druitt is still there. With regard to the moustache, it appears to me that he's also wearing it in the photo showing him leaning on an elbow, and reading a book.
Best wishes all
David Cartwright |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 505
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 8:51 pm: | |
Hi David,
I looked at the picture. Problem is that Monty seems to have had a thin, prominent nose. That could be a shadow from the nose on his face, or it could be a moustache. But if it is a moustache it does not look like the well groomed small handlebar in the picture of Monty on his cricket team.
Jeff |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 8:11 am: | |
Hi Jeff. I see what you mean about the moustache. At the moment, there seems to be only three photo's of Monty to be found. Looking at these, in trying to put an age on him, it seems like the clean-shaven portrait was the first to be taken. Perhaps the picture of him reading, is showing the early stage of his growing the moustache, and the Cricket photo showing his mature well-groomed preference. It's difficult to say with any certainty, but he appears older on the Cricket-team pic than on the other two. Certainly, on my print of him reading, it looks more like a moustache than a shadow, and I've looked at it through a magnifying lens. Hopefully, someone will turn up more pics of him in the future.
All the best Jeff
David Cartwright |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 687
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 12:26 pm: | |
Hi --
John mentioned this above but it didn't sink in with me until now. In the team photo, Monty is wearing [drum roll] a round cap with a peak! This cricket cap could be mistaken for a sailor-type cap in the dark.
The word "round" always confused me: all caps are round. But maybe the witness didn't mean circumferentially round but round in another sense. Monty's cricket cap is rather hemispherical ("round"), looking like a beanie with a peak (or as we Americans would say, "with a bill")
Andy S.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2458
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 1:32 pm: | |
Regarding the picture where he's reading a book,
I agree, David, I have always interpreted that as a moustache, although thinner and more trimmed than on the cricket photo. I don't think it's just a shadow, but then again with old photos that are reproduced thirty times over copy-on-copy, you might never know, of course.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 205
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 1:42 pm: | |
Good for you re the cap, Andy!I have to admit that my eyes sort of glaze over when I read descriptions of clothes since I'm too lazy to go look up what exactly the terms mean.
Still, MJD looks to be a tall,lanky guy, based on his long neck and fingers. I have trouble equating him with the descriptions of a man not much taller than the victims.
Mags |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 688
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 1:56 pm: | |
Mags --
I agree on the height issue. Yet we simply don't know Monty's height. I suspect one day we might. If only we had an autopsy report. I also realize that may people wore round caps with a peak. But it's just one more piece of the puzzle that seems to fit.
Andy S.
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
Hi Andy....Believe it or not, I thought of the witness-descriptions of the round cap with a peak, the first time I saw the Druitt Cricket photo in Rumbelow's first edition, some twenty years ago, but dismissed the idea of Monty going on a killing spree in his sports cap.
In view of what you guys are thinking and saying now, maybe I should have mentioned it earlier.
It doesn't seem such a silly idea now.
Happy New Year Andy.}
DAVID CARTWRIGHT |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 691
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 12:08 pm: | |
David,
I agree it seems odd and it is probably a stretch. Yet I recall times when I played a lot of amateur softball (in my younger days!) that I would go about wearing the cap I wore on the field. I often still wear a baseball-type cap of a favorite sports team. Perhaps it was even sort of a makeshift disguise on Monty's part.
Andy S.
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 379
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 4:05 pm: | |
Andy,
Times change and so do clothing customs, but I think there were definite notions, at least among those who cared about such notions of propriety, about what garb was suitable for what occasion. Indeed, it is my understanding that a gentleman (MJD was that) who wore a cricket cap anywhere but on the pitch would assuredly be deemed quite mad -- and not just since Friday last.
Don. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 693
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:07 pm: | |
Don,
Quite. Unless he were trying to look "ungentlemanly" as a disguise.
Andy S. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 2:23 pm: | |
Hi Andy.
I'm glad you endorsed the idea of wearing a favourite cap for other reasons than its original purpose.
Perhaps it's just wishful thinking on my part, but wearing that cap appears to me to give Monty a pretty fair "Jewish" appearance too....Does anyone else think so??
I am biased of course, because I have NO doubt in my own mind that he was Jack the Ripper. On the subject of height, my Grandfather used to tell me that men of that era were generally shorter in height on average, by comparison with today's man.
He said that he was considered fairly tall at 5ft-8ins....He died in 1968 at the age of 93. It was he who got me fascinated by JTR when I was 13, which was "his" age at the time of the murders.
Monty, of course, had not come to light when my interest in the case began, but in every way , from start to finish, he fits the bill perfectly.
If any proof is to be found, I can't help thinking that William Druitt is the best subject for thorough research. If there was a cover-up, and I believe that there was, then "he" was right at the heart of it.
Andy, you may be right about the "makeshift disguise" idea.
Best wishes my friend.
DAVID CARTWRIGHT.} |
