| Author |
Message |
    
David Andersen
Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 28
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 11:06 pm: |       |
The attached cutting is from 'The Times' of Thursday November 29th 1888. It was the day following this report that Montague was dismissed from Mr Valentines school. Speculations most welcome!!
Regards
David |
David Andersen
Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 29
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 11:10 pm: | |
Here is the rest of it:
Regards
David |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 325
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 4:06 am: | |
David
Thanks for posting this report - coincidentally it was discussed the week before last here:
../4920/10624.html"#C6C6B5"> |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 565
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 10:56 am: | |
Is there any chance of checking the Times for the following Monday (December 3) to see if this case came back before the Court on Saturday December 1, as the above article seems to indicate it would? This could be significant as Saturday December 1 is the probable date of Druitt's suicide. Perhaps I need to get off my behind and check this out myself, but I just don't have the time to do library research right now.
Andy S. |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 225
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 11:19 am: | |
Hi Andy,
In order to put your mind at rest (mine too) I checked The Times again for Monday3rd and Tues day 4th. The case that was put back to Saturday was not the one in which Monty appeared, please see below note from my files.
THE TIMES NOVEMBER 29TH. 1888
LAW REPORT NOV. 28
High Court of Justice
Queens Bench Division
(Before Lord Coleridge, Mr. Justice Hawkins and Mr. Justice Manisty)
The Court, as constituted sat yesterday to hear registration appeals, of which there were only four entered, the first was
SMITH v CHANDLER
2nd JONES AND OTHERS, APELLANTS – KENT AND OTHERS,
RESPONDENTS
3rd HARTLEY, APELLANT – HALSE, RESPONDENT
4th DRUIT, APELLANT – GOSLING RESPONDENT
5Th NEWELL v HEMINGWAY
THE TIMES DECEMBER 4TH 1888 (Tuesday)
High Court of Justice
Queens Bench Division
(Before Lord Coleridge, Mr. Justice Manisty and Mr. Justice Hawkins.)
Registration Appeals.
Smith v Chandler.
“In this case heard on Friday….(etc)”
This then must be the case referred to previously by Lord Coleridge.
In The Times of Monday 3rd. Dec. Lord Colerdige and others heard the two following cases:
Queen v Allison, Judd, and others
Queen v Williams, Secretary of the National Refuge for Homeles and Destitute Children.
Montague Druit does not appear in any of these cases.
Hope that is clear, but let me know if you have any further questions
Best Regards
John Savage |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 383
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 11:53 am: | |
Hi, John
Will you let Stephen know about this? If that last line refers to an entirely different case, then my transcription in the Press Reports sections needs to be corrected to avoid further confusion (I can't do anything about the transcription in the other thread).
Cheers,
Dave |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 566
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 1:13 pm: | |
Thank you, John. Now we can both rest at ease! 
So...
The latest date we can categorically state that Druitt was alive is Tuesday November 27. The unused portion of a rail ticket found on his body and dated Saturday December 1 implies that he was still alive on that day and suggests that this was the date of his suicide. So nothing really new here except the information that Druitt was able to function normally -- even skillfully -- in court as late as 27 November.
What is interesting is that this disappointing legal defeat may have contributed to his decision to commit suicide. We'll never know.
Andy S.
(Message edited by Aspallek on August 18, 2004) |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 57
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 2:26 pm: | |
I can't help but wonder what MJD meant when he wrote that he was afraid he was going to be "like Mother" ?
Was he referring to mental illness in general? His mother suffered from depression and paranoia, according to the A-Z. If he was depressed enough to commit suicide, how did he manage to conclude a court case?
I suppose he may have found some tendencies that worried him and was projecting into the future. Or maybe whatever happened to get him dismissed from the school plunged him into a fit of despondency that,though appropriate to the circumstances, may have frightened him.
Still, I have a lot of tropuble reconciling the athlete and barrister with the utterly despondent soul who could throw himself into the river.
I don't at all think he was the Ripper, but still he's the person in this case that I wish we could find out more about.
Do you ever wonder what people like Druitt would think if they knew that over a hundred years later we would be delving into their personal lives? Imagine what his reaction would have been if someone had said"Hold off on the river til spring,mate, or they'll be talking about you being the Ripper in the next millenium."
Mags |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 567
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 2:51 pm: | |
Mags,
I think we can conjecture that Druitt's being sacked from the school (probably on Friday) perhaps coupled with a disappointing courtroom defeat earlier in the week pushed Druitt over the edge and prompted his suicide, probably on Saturday. As to his functioning normally earlier that week, this is not surprising. You will find that to be the case in the majority of suicides. Some years ago one of our local TV meteorologists committed suicide late one night. A couple of hours earlier he had just done his live weather forecast on television. No one noticed anything amiss.
Druitt's reference to his fear of "being like mother" are almost surely a reference to his mother's mental illness and his fear -- perhaps triggered by the setbacks of the week -- of being afflicted in the same way.
But wee should remember that the "suicide letter" is never quoted exactly in any extant report. The newspaper reporter only says that the letter was "to this effect...."
Andy S. |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 226
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 4:49 pm: | |
Hi David,
I have sent an e-mail to Stephen to alert him to the matter.
Andy,
Perhaps Monty would not have been too depressed by losing this case, after all he was a lawyer, and win or lose he still got paid.
Best Regards
John Savage |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1058
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 5:24 pm: | |
I have read such a lot about how unlikely Druitt was to have been the ripper.The fact remains that he was the prime suspect of the high ranking police chief Machnaghten.Maybe we owe it to Druitt to find out what made Machnaghten suspect HIM above the other two-Kosminski and Ostrog.
As Donald Rumbelow pointed out Machnaghten"s memorandum was internal,only for the eyes of the police,not for anyone else,and that makes it all the more mysterious.If Druitt was a completely innocent man why on earth did Machnaghten "finger" HIM?-and him above all other suspects!A seemingly highly intelligent upper class gentleman who was apparenly a first rate cricket player as well as a lawyer and part time teacher.Further,he was the son of a doctor[surgeon?] the nephew of an eminent surgeon.the cousin of a doctor and moved in the highest circles of society.Why then did Machnaghten an old Etonian and upper middle class man himself cast such an abiding shadow over Druitt? If he was simply telling lies this is outrageous given his occupation.It mustn"t be forgotten too that IF he was inventing this about Druitt he was telling bare-faced lies to his fellow police officers and must have known he could have been exposed.Unless he DID have something on Druitt that nobody yet knows about.And he genuinely[albeit wrongly]concluded from this secret information that Druitt must have been the ripper.It would be great to know what it was he had learnt about Druitt that made him think these things.
But one things certain.Either Machnaghten did know something he kept secret or he was telling the most appalling lies.
Natalie |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 232
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 12:10 am: | |
Hi Natalie,
It seems logical that the main (if not the only) reason Druitt was even in the frame at all was that the timing of his death would explain why the killings stopped (or appeared to stop, depending upon the view). Thinking that there had to be more to it than that assumes that they would have had to have more evidence to put someone on the list, and the inclusion of Ostrog shows that it was very easy to get on the list.
It's the difference between bald-faced lies and simple wishful thinking. You've seen on these boards how some people will swear up and down that some person or another must have been the killer for reasons that are flimsy to nonexistent. The same thing was going on back then too, and the police officials weren't immune.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 276
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 9:04 am: | |
May I direct readers attention to the Press Report section. LLOYDS WEEKLY NEWS of 22 September 1907?
Here George R Sims, prominent playwright, crime reporter and columnist.A man with impeccable police connections, draws together his recollection of all the whispered stories passed on to him by the likes of Melville Macnaghten(and Littlechild?).
A careful reading of his description of the "doctor" seems to jumble up the lives of several suspects: a hatred of a certain class of women of the streets; lived with his relatives; six miles from Whitechapel; given his complete freedom from his asylum, whereupon his concerned friends - who, suspecting his homicidal mania, raised a hue and cry (through the proper authorities) as to his whereabouts.
Given Druitt was appearing in court on November 27th, he was hardly blood-smeared and slavering like a wild-eyed dog, in court (one assumes)..
Mind you his performance in court might have been less than scintillating. It was a case of a minor, though complex nature, and, unless I'm misreading it, Lord Coleridge seems to have thought the appeal was wrong-headed to begin with.
The Sims account of 1907, does not accord with the Druitt of November 27th.
The importance of Macnaghten's inclusion of Druitt amongst his list of suspects is that he is the only Anglo-Saxon.
I agree. Still more detail of Druitt's activities need to be unearthed.
Perhaps Macnaghten and Sims were wrong. Perhaps the Ripper (at least outwardly)did not completely lose control of his ability to perform social functions after the Millers Court murder.
If it was Druitt who was the Ripper, then it was only after set-backs other than the loss of the court case and despair at the private knowledge
of the monster he had become, which drove him to end his life..
|
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 227
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 2:03 pm: | |
Hi John Ruffels,
You say that the case in question was of " a minor though complex nature". However I think we must remember that this case was heard in the High Court in front of a Law Lord, so I do not think we should consider it to be minor. Minor Cases are heard before magistrates, or judges below the rank of a Lord, so it is my opinion that
Montague is shown to be more successful in his occuptaion, rather than less.
Although Lord Coleridge may have thought the appeal wrong headed, it would, I think, have first of all been heard in a lower court, who would have granted the right to appeal.
Best Regards
John Savage |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1061
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 4:59 pm: | |
Thanks for the replies everybody,I must admit that just hearing about Druitt appearing in court so near his suicide makes me think it highly unlikely that he was the man who carried out such a deranged murder on Mary Kelly and whatever drove him to kill himself wouldnt appear to have been connected with the activities of 9 november 1888.However it would appear he did commit murder----if only on himself!A violently unhappy man at the time---it would appear and no "teenager" at 31.And yet he seems to have been able to compartmentalise his distress when necessary and not have allowed it to influence his court work or his cricket commitments too much.Maybe the depression was "clinical" and came on suddenly.
I know several of his relatives committed suicide
so possibly it was something he had no control over.
Best Natalie |
J. Whyman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 5:26 pm: | |
Andy,
I think you have to bear in mind that Druitt's being sacked from his teaching job, especially if it was for some serious (and possiably scandalous) trouble would not just have been a 'dissapointment' but would have resulted in the loss the good reputation he had undoubtably built up for himself. In 'Mid Victorian Britain' Geoffrey Best describles respectability as "the sharpest of all lines of social division" and as "[having] the same cachet as being a good party man in a communist state". Therefore in losing his second job Monty wasn't only losing an additional source of income but friends and social connections. Also if word got around its quite likely it could have done irreparable damage to his legal career. Perhaps its not suprising he concluded that suicide was the only option. |
Vincent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 9:46 am: | |
I agree with Mr. Spallek. It could be a very interesting search for someone willing and able to take it up.
Regards, Vincent |
Vincent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 10:05 am: | |
Natalie wrote concerning Macnaghten: "Unless he DID have something on Druitt that nobody yet knows about." Exactly right.
It all boils down to the "private information": what it was and where he got it. We have absolutely no clue what it was but we do know that it came from Druitt's family. Whether directly from them or not is still a mystery. Macnaghten does NOT say: "From private information I have I believe him to be the ripper." What he says is very different and he is clearly being very cagey for a reason. Perhaps to avoid a lawsuit since he knows that the source (William perhaps?) will never back him up in court by exposing Monty as the fiend.
It is possible that either Macnaghten or the Druitt family member was wrong, but I don't believe that Macnaghten simply picked Druitts name out of mid-air to pin the murders on.
Regards, Vincent
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1077
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 9:53 am: | |
I have thought too that Druitt may have suffered from the same illness as his mother but in a milder form so that like her he could have thought people were "out to get him".His mother was concerned about being "electrocuted" amonst other things.Maybe then he suffered from "command hallucinations" in which he thought he was being ordered to do the same things as the ripper was doing and told his worried family of these "instructions".Then conveniently for those whose job it was to catch the ripper,Druitt drowned himself giving such concerns the "key" or way in to Machnaghten denouncing him as the ripper.Even so it would be so useful to have sight of that "information" that Machnaten says he destroyed for the sake of his family.
Natalie |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 60
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:14 am: | |
McNaughten seems to want to have it both ways-- naming Druitt as a suspect then withholding "information" for the sake of the family.
I would think that just the act of naming him was enough of a breach of secrecy. If McNaughton really had solid inro on Druitt he should have published it all or not stated so surely that Druitt was the best suspect.
This teasing on McNaughton's part has always made me very skeptical that he knew much of anything more than gossip that was floating around at the time.
Mags |
Vincent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 11:37 am: | |
"...from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer."
The question is always posed: what made Macnaghten suspect Druitt? But the real questions should be:
1. What made the family suspect him?
2. Was it connected in some way to his dismissal at the school?
3. When William made inquiries at the school for his whereabouts, what else if anything did he find out?
Short of turning up a diary (groan!) from someone who was a student or teacher there at the time we may never know these answers. But until we do, Druitt simply cannot be dismissed.
Regards, Vincent |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 568
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 4:37 pm: | |
Well stated, Vincent -- except I would back up a bit. It first must be determined whether McNaughten was really speaking of Druitt or whether he got two suspects confused and was actually speaking of a doctor also found dead in the Thames. I think it likely that two suspects became confused in someone's mind and then this confusion was passed along. The question is, which one was suspected by his family, Druitt or the drowned doctor? Or both?
Druitt's functioning normally between the time Kelly's murder and his suicide is not surprising to me at all (if he is the killer). Take John Gacy, for example. Gacy carried on in a perfectly successful construction business all during the time he was murdering young boys and burying them in his crawlspace. Bundy and others continued to function fairly normally.
I also agree that of the known setbacks late in Druitt's life, being sacked from the school was the more significant. However, losing a legal case might have created doubts in his mind at the moment that he could be successful at anything.
The question remains -- what was Druitt looking for on the night of December 1? He seems to have been searching for something or someone to go on a journey out of his way like that and he must have originally planned to return (hence the return half of the rail ticket). Something happened that evening to convince him to kill himself. But then there is the suicide letter to deal with, which implies premeditation of his suicide.
Any way you slice it, Druitt's last few weeks are a real puzzle.
Andy S. |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 85
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 4:43 pm: | |
Andy S.,
Maybe Druitt did not commit suicide. There is enough suspicion to believe he was murdered.
STAN RUSSO |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 569
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 4:45 pm: | |
Stan,
I have considered that as a possibility. Something seems almost "too neat" about his suicide note. It seems to "almost fit" but not quite.
Andy S.
|
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 87
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 4:57 pm: | |
Andy,
You should read Andrew Holloway's 1990 article. It will blow your mind. Most people dismiss it because they enjoy the crazy suicide theory, even if they know it most likely was not Druitt who murdered these women.
STAN RUSSO |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1082
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 5:07 pm: | |
I agree with Stan here.He was apparently found a few hundred yards from "The Osiers" a rather risque gay meeting place for poets and literary
types and said to be where JK Stephens held court If Druitt was gay and we have no proof of that whatever I admit this might have caused him to be thought of as sexually insane.Just thinking of the prjudice displayed by Machnaghten and Anderson over Kosminski"s alleged "solitary vices"
gives an indication of the prejudice that existed in Victorian England towards almost everything sexual.But IF Druitt happened to be gay and a reasonably respectable teacher and lawyer to boot
someone could have been blackmailing him because of it.And if someone started it up I would think anything could have happened to him.
Natalie |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 277
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 3:57 am: | |
Hello John Savage,
Point taken. I agree the case was not of " a minor though complex nature".I had overlooked the fact it was being conducted in the High Court.
Though, I must confess, I was having trouble following some of the arguments put.
Perhaps what made it look so trivial to me was the fact it was whether joint occupants could be counted as two separate ratepayers.But. On reflection, this case could have set a terrifying "precedent" for Town Councils.
You'd think Lord Coleridge would have gone a bit easier on poor old Druitt.After all, they did attend the same Circuit Dinner.
All the remarks above about how Macnaghten got things wrong are useful and right on the money.
My own opinion of the Macnaghten Memorandum is
that Macnaghten was being the perfect Civil Servant: tidying the file up, after it was fairly safe to say, no more Ripper murders were likely to occur.
With the benefit of some hindsight, he could privately, list some of the police suspects, knowing that the files would be closed for a looonngg time.I think he just went round Scotland Yard and the Home Office quietly canvassing senior police officials for their confidential opinion.
After all, there is one thing you will not find in a retired policeman's published memoirs, and that's an admission he hadn't got the faintest idea who the guilty party was in some celebrated case/s that officer was intimately involved with.
Often, a retired senior policeman counted on his
"Now It Can Be Told" memoirs, in newspaper or book as his retirement "nest-egg"- his superannuation.
As for the reason for Montague Druitt's suicide,I agree loss of respectability was a huge factor in those days - even now it counts.
This plus a set-back in a court-case while other problems were tumbling in upon him..
Was he suffering the effects of undiagnosed diabetes? Lack of sleep? Over indulgence in alcohol? Depression?
The fear of following his mother in becoming insane?
Not forgetting his (possible) "sexual insanity".And "serious trouble" at the school he taught at.
And a circle of friends and family who thought he
was in danger, and who contacted the authorities when he disappeared. |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 278
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 4:03 am: | |
Sorry Dear Reader,
I have just spotted the separate thread discussing the Macnaghten Memorandum.
I'll hie me over there for that subject in future. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 446
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 11:37 am: | |
Hi John,
No need to hie it over to the Memorandum thread.
Monty's career and demise is (as I have said before) the most fascinating sub-mystery of the Ripper Case, because it is odd, unexpected, and so pitiful. One wants to know about him, even if it does not explain Miller's Court, or the Double Event. So there is plenty of curiosity in Monty's career to enable any of us to discuss Macnaghten's Memorandum on several threads.
Sir John Duke Coleridge is an interesting figure in his own right. He was a cousin of the poet.
He was also a practicing Roman Catholic. One of the finest legal minds in the law courts of the mid to late Victorian period, I have seen some negative comments about him too.
I refer you to John Juxon's LEWIS AND LEWIS: THE
LIFE AND TIMES OF A VICTORIAN SOLICITOR (New York: Ticknor & Fields, 1984), p. 86. The book is a study of the career of Victorian England's preeminent solicitor, Sir George Lewis. In 1866 Lewis was involved in the prosecution of the Overend Gurney directors, who had defrauded shareholders out of hundreds of thousands of pounds. The lead lawyer for the directors was John Duke Coleridge.
"The arguments on both sides were those already heard before the Lord Mayor. But before the Lord Chief Justice the defence grew bold, even arrogant. How dare these shareholders, men of straw as they were, bring a prosecution against gentlemen of wealth and position? Sensing his lordship's mood, Coleridge blatantly toadied to the judge's establishment prejudices. Working himself into a rhetorical frenzy, Coleridge denied tha his clients could, under any circumstances, be guilty of fraud: 'If the partners are men of large fortunes and ample private means, what evidence of fraud is there?
His speech was an extraordinary exercise in forensic incantation, apparently hypnotic in it's effect. Again and again he used key-words like 'power' and 'money' and 'position' to deaden
the judge and jury to the plain facts of fraud and deceit. Plain facts got short shrift with Coleridge, later characterized by Sir Edward Clarke as a cross-examiner of 'studious unfairness'. He was certainly a master of relentless double-talk: 'As to the mention of a guarrantee, did not that in itself make men of experience in business aware that there had been a loss, that there were liabilities which would require a guarantee.'
Coleridge achieved his aim of obscuring the truth with a web of words. The Lord Chief Justice took up the saem refrain in his summin-up. Like Coleridge, he emphasized again and again the wealth and importance of the accused and huffed and puffed at the audacity of the shareholders in bringing this prosecution at all.
The jury retired for a quarter of an hour and then returned with a verdict of not guilty.
'Really,' the Lord Chief Justice said,'I cannot for the life of me see why this prosecution was ever brought.'"
Fortunately for Lewis, Coleridge's devotion to the status quo and the powerful assisted Lewis and Sir Charles Russell in the Tranby Croft Case of 1891, when Coleridge was the judge against Sir William Gordon Cummings. Lewis and Russell were saddled with the Prince of Wales (caught in an illegal gambling game involved in a cheating scandal) as a witness that Gordon Cummings hoped to use in his defence. Coleridge managed to limit the damage to Bertie's appearance on the witness stand.
Jeff. |
David Andersen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 52
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 7:46 pm: | |
Let us not forget that MacNaghten -(the correct spelling of his name)- not only indicated that he had no doubts but that Druitts family and friends entertained grave doubts about him (Druitt), but that 'factual evidence' pointing to this did not come into his possession until some later time. Obviously MacNaghten had this 'factual' evidence before he wrote his memo. It must also be considered that MacNaghtens memo was never intended for publication. It was prepared as a briefing for the Home Secretary in the event that the HS may be asked questions in the house regarding the Sun allegations against Cutbush. This 'factual' evidence may well have been shown to MacNaghten by his friend Monro. This evidence may have been the 'hot potato' papers apparently kept by Monro and, apparently, destroyed, by Monros son Charlie, after Monros death (coincidentally in Chiswick) in 1922
Regards
David |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2861
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 4:13 pm: | |
Could someone answer a question for me? When an inquest jury brought in a verdict of "suicide whilst of unsound mind" did the "whilst of unsound mind" follow automatically and effortlessly on the "suicide"? (the assumption being that no one in his right mind would kill himself) Or was it possible to have a verdict of "suicide" without an accompanying verdict of insanity?
We need to know whether the "unsound mind" was simply down to Monty's suicide, or whether Monty had been behaving strangely before he killed himself (assuming he did!)
Robert |
David Andersen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 53
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 4:24 pm: | |
Hi Robert, Yes the 'whilst of unsound mind' bit was always tagged to a suicide verdict there was no alternative verdict. Thats why the 'insanity' evidence was presented to Coroner Diplock - prove the insanity and you prove the suicide.
Regards
David |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2862
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 4:58 pm: | |
Thanks David. Re Monty's buying a return ticket before killing herself, I seem to remember reading that the suffragette who threw herself in front of the King's horse did exactly the same thing (though here again, suicide has been questioned - in this case, in favour of an accident).
Robert |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 812
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 3:21 pm: | |
Robert, everyone,
why not buy a return ticket its cheaper and less strange, esp if you are travelling with someone
Jen
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2869
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 4:30 pm: | |
Hi Jennifer
That's a good suggestion - it's possible someone said "I'm going into town too. Mind if I tag along?" Then Monty would have had to buy a return to avoid awkward questions.
Robert |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 570
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 5:15 pm: | |
I agree that it is not terribly problematic that Druitt bought a return rail ticket. But it is enough to raise a certain amount of healthy suspicion.
Andy S.
|
David Andersen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 54
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 6:28 pm: | |
The most obvious reason for Monty buying a return ticket is that- at the time he purchased it he had no intentions of taking his own life. If we accept that then we must also accept that his suicide note was found at his final destination ie possibly Chiswick. On the other hand, given that Monty had friends at Chiswick - a fact that I have established- he may have frequently made that same journey and may have bought a return by habit. It was clear that he wouldnt have been going back to Blackheath so unless he had other lodgings, possibly near Charing Cross, close to, or in the Inner Temple, there would have been no reason for him to buy a return.
Regards
David |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2871
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 10:57 am: | |
Hi David
Was one of Monty's friends at Chiswick a doctor? Someone (I think it was Jeff) suggested that Monty may have been given some shattering medical news which depressed him to the point of suicide.
Robert |
David Andersen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 55
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 11:14 am: | |
Yes Robert. It was no coincidence that Montys Mother Anne was sent to the Manor House Asylum. I believe that was Montys destination. I believe that is where he spent his last few days, and, I believe that is where he left his note. - If there was ever any shattering news it was probably the fact that his friends couldnt help him. These may also have been the friends who, according to MacNaghten, 'entertained grave doubts' as to Montys sanity.
Regards
David |
David Andersen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 56
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 11:29 am: | |
The Manor House was about 4 minutes walk from the spot where Druitts body was found. Here is a, fairly contemporary, map showing the location.
Regards
David |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2872
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 1:11 pm: | |
Hi David
Thanks for that. Food for thought indeed.
Robert |
J. Whyman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 1:53 pm: | |
Daivd,
What an interesting theory. It would certainly put the Sims article in a different light. However how could Monty had decided to send his mother to Manor House Asylum when he was dead at the time? I believe his mother was placed in that particular asylum in late 1890, after having been placed in a establishment in Brighton? Also didn't his brother William have his room at 'the place where he resided' searched, which to me would mean his rooms at 9 Eliot Place, where he lived. And is there really much evidence that Monty was friends with the Tukes apart from one having attended Oxford at about the same time (albeit a different college) and that they all played cricket (a rather common hobby in those days). Isn't the Apostles a Cambridge club?
About the return ticket: I travel on public transport a lot and believe me when one makes the same journey repeatedly it becomes kind of automatic. Also I wouldn't be suprised if the ticket collectors etc. recognised him; simply gave him the usual. If Montague was going to Chiswick to kill himself I doubt he'd had wanted to draw others attention to anything they may have considered unusual.
J. |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 6:30 am: | |
The correct spelling of his name is Macnaghten, the 'n' is in lower case, not capitalized. |
Vincent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 11:50 pm: | |
Mr. Russo wrote: "You should read Andrew Holloway's 1990 article."
Is this the theory that Druitt was murdered to cover up some of Eddy's misdeeds or do I have it confused with something else?
Ms. Severn wrote: "Just thinking of the prjudice displayed by Machnaghten and Anderson over Kosminski"s alleged "solitary vices" gives an indication of the prejudice that existed in Victorian England towards almost everything sexual."
I'm sorry Natalie, but even in today's enlightened times if I saw someone on the street doing what Kosminski was evidently fond of doing in public I would display a distinct lack of tolerance myself! I don't think there was anything particularly "solitary" about Kosminski's vices at all!
Also, has anyone ever found a scrap of hard (or soft) evidence to suggest Druitt was gay?
And finally to Mr. Spalleck: I'm fully prepared to admit the possibility that Mac got confused. What I don't understand is how Druitt's name was brought to the attention of Big Mac in the first place. I mean, suppose there was a contemporary suicide of a prominent doctor who was also a ripper suspect. Did Macnaghten just happen to read about Monty's suicide in the paper and the name just stuck? I don't mean to sound dismissive but I just can't see it. Druitt had to be a contemporary suspect.
Regards, Vincent |
David Andersen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 57
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 8:32 pm: | |
AIP - my mistake.
J.Whyman - It was also said that Monty had left a note for Mr Valentine, and, given that Valentine, when told of Montys death, expressed surprise and expressed his belief that Monty had gone abroad, suggests that Montys note, to Valentine,if there ever was one, did not mention suicide.
The transfer of Anne Druitt, from the care of Dr. Gasquet in Brighton, was arranged by William Druitt.
The cricketing link, and some correspondence, is all I have at the moment - but I'm working on it.
Yes The Apostles were, and still are, made up of Cambridge men.
Regards
David |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 468
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 3:41 am: | |
It was also said that Monty had left a note for Mr Valentine, and, given that Valentine, when told of Montys death, expressed surprise and expressed his belief that Monty had gone abroad, suggests that Montys note, to Valentine,if there ever was one, did not mention suicide.
I don't remember reading that about Valentine previously - I only remember (I think) that the cricket club had been told he'd gone abroad.
I've always assumed that there was one note at Eliot Place, which was described in slightly different ways.
If the note was found at the asylum, wouldn't the people there have given evidence at the inquest?
Chris Phillips
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 281
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 8:32 am: | |
Hello David Andersen,
Interesting thinking, linking Druitt with the Tukes. But it needs more work.
Shirley Richards of the Australian Mayo family line, thought Montague Druitt might have been heading for Chiswick to visit his eldest (and closest) sister, Georgina (b 1855), who was by 1888 married to the Reverend WILLIAM WOODCOCK HOUGH. There is a possiblity the Reverend was incumbent of a "living" in the Chiswick area in 1888. However, the Church might have transferred
Hough and wife by then.
Can anyone check Crockfords for us? Please.
The Reverend William Hough was later Bishop of Woolwich.And Georgina, who possibly also suffered from diabetes, was nursing a twelve month old daughter by late 1888.
She, it was, whom Farson mentioned dying from a fall whilst " sleepwalking ", from an upstairs window late in life.
As regards the buying of a return ticket:I agree he could have bought it out of habit; or because he was careful with money (returns being cheaper);
or because he was convinced he WAS returning that
day.
Finally,David Andersen: Would it be possible for you to put a larger area of your Chiswick map on to Casebook, as a useful tool for Druittists, please?
And if you have a similar vintaged map of Eliot
Place Blackheath and environs that would be excellent too.Thanks.
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 470
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 9:06 am: | |
John
On the Houghs, this was something I looked into at Shirley's suggestion last year:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=66719#POST66719
As far as I could tell, it seemed they would have been living at 32 New Cross Road in late 1888 (though I forgot to include the evidence in that post last year!). That would have been near to Druitt, but unfortunately far from Chiswick.
Chris Phillips
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 572
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 12:49 pm: | |
David -- the problem with Druitt's not intending to take his life when he departed his dwellings is that the "suicide note" was said to have been discovered in a search of his dwellings and was not found on his person. This suggests the suicide was premeditated. Hence, the return ticket remains problematic. Sorry folks, I really don't accept the "force of habit" or "avoidance of suspicion" theories. I believe that at the time he purchased the ticket he intended to return. But the note, if authentic, suggests he did plan to commit suicide in the near future.
BTW, Did we ever settle on a date for Druitt's mother's transfer to Manor House Asylum? It is an interesting possibility that the trip way have been a "last farewell" to Mum.
Vincent -- I do indeed believe that Druitt was a suspect. I think it is possible that Macnaughten confused suspect Druitt with another suspect, a doctor who drowned himself in the Thames.
Andy S.
|
David Andersen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 58
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 9:18 pm: | |
Hi. At Montys inquest William says that he had Montys things searched 'where he resided.' This has been taken to be (a) Valentines school, (b) Montys chambers at KBW, (3) somewhere else. If his note was found anywhere other than at the Tukes then it must be accepted that he intended suicide before he made his journey. If this is the case then he must have written it on the Saturday before he made his journey. But my feeling is that if this was the case is it not more likely that he would have written 'since yesterday' and not 'since Friday'. 'since Friday' has a sense of having been written on a Sunday, or a Monday. We know that Monty was seen alive on the 3rd yet he evidently had not used his return portion. My feeling is that Monty went to the Tukes, realised his situation was hopeless, wrote his note, or notes, and took the 3 minute walk down to Thornycrofts.
This may also help to explain how his 'badly decomposed' body was identified so quickly. The cheques would probably have been illegible after 3 weeks immersion and we are told that 'no papers or letters of any kind' were found on the body.
It is possible that the Tukes had already passed on their concerns to the police and they were already looking for Montys body for a couple of weeks before it surfaced.
Anne Druitt was transferred from Dr Gasquets asylum - 127 Eastern Road, Brighton, to The Manor House on the 6th June 1890.
Regards
David |
