Druitt's room

[David Andersen]

Friday 30th November...Druitt sacked instantly from Valentines School.
Saturday 1st December...Druitt buys return ticket from Charing X to Hammersmith.`Does not use the return portion of the ticket.
4th Dec...Druitt last seen alive.
31st Dec. Druitts body found in the River at Chiswick.

[GUT]

Friday 30th November...Druitt sacked instantly from Valentines School.

That one is questionable, the inquest evidence says sacked 30 December, now was that a miss-print or a fact?

Saturday 1st December...Druitt buys return ticket from Charing X to Hammersmith.`Does not use the return portion of the ticket.

4th Dec...Druitt last seen alive.

Possibly

31st Dec. Druitts body found in the River at Chiswick.

[David Andersen]

I find it difficult to accept that he was sacked on 30th December considering that at that time he had been dead in the river for almost a month.

[Mayerling]

I find it difficult to accept that he was sacked on 30th December considering that at that time he had been dead in the river for almost a month.

I have been racking my brains out on this point, but can any of you think of any case (I can currently think of only one) where a party disappeared and nobody really noticed the disappearance for far too long after the actual events?

The one case that I can think of is that of the notorious disappearance (still officially unsolved) of New York State Supreme Court Judge Joseph Force Crater in 1930. Crater had left his wife in Maine (they were on vacation) when he got some personal telegram message that angered him. He packed and returned (supposedly for a week or so at the most) to New York City. He went to his office going through files, and was seen doing this. Then he returned to his apartment. Later that night he was seen on Broadway, where he was going to see a play. And he was last seen entering a cab to get to the theater (the ticket at the theater later turned out to be used that night). It was not for nearly two weeks that Mrs. Crater returned to New York City to find out what was keeping her husband, and found nobody had seen him for nearly two weeks. At that point the police got involved, but as two weeks had passed much of the trail had gone cold.

Unlike Montie's case no body turned up within a month of last sighting of the victim alive. There have been attempts to locate remains of the Judge on several occasions - usually due to rumors of a secret burial by killers - but nothing has ever been found.

But can any of you think of anything more similar to the time-line and events in Montie's case?

Jeff

[Jonathan H]

But the sporting association on Dec 21st did sack Druitt for being AWOL, for apparently being abroad. Actually his corpse was on its journey back to the air-breathing surface.

I do not think the club would have done so if the brother had already found the letters alluding to self-harm.

I have been arguing that the Dec 30th date in that 1889 source likely refers to William's arrival at the school.

This near conjunction of William's arrival and the body turning up the next day is arguably confirmed by a Sims/Dagonet column from 1902.

[caz]

But the sporting association on Dec 21st did sack Druitt for being AWOL, for apparently being abroad. Actually his corpse was on its journey back to the air-breathing surface.

Hi Jonathan,

You know what I'm going to say at this point, so it's not directed at you, and not said to make you cross.

Nobody used the word 'apparently'. The minutes stated the fact that Druitt was removed from his post at the club, 'having gone abroad'.

This was true - he had indeed gone abroad as far as they were concerned. He had left his home, his chambers, his school, the cricket club, and eventually fetched up in the Thames over at Chiswick. In the vernacular of the times, until he was found, he was just as much 'abroad' as if he had actually gone overseas - which we know he hadn't.

It's just another way of reading it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Dictionary of the English Language, 1881 -



Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

To Mayerling

See what I have yo put up with?

Note the word cross rather than angry, as the former denotes a child and the latter an adult. Classic passive-aggressive condescension, which will be denied as per usual.

Only I can be unpleasant, never my critics.

As if I have any problem with dissent with people who are civil about it. All my friends on these boards do not agree with me or I with them.

The worst aspect is the lack of any generosity on by some people, and that is so sad. Their inability to even say, hey I don't agree, but I can see why you interpret newly discovered sources as backing your take.

Oh, no, none of that.

That is why you seeing that the Camp affair backs me was very moving. Which is not the same as saying you agree, just that you can see what I was getting at and why.

To sum up:

In 1888 in the official minutes of a club Druitt is apparently abroad and has to be fired. The word apparently applies to their point of view, because he wasn't abroad--he was dead.

In 1905 a source, openly a mix of fact and fiction and with links to Sims and Macnaghten, has the Druitt figure falsely claim he is going abroad when he is off to never come back, e.g. a ruse.

The tired Orthodox theory (tired because the finding of new sources that do not conform to it means zilch) asserts it is a euphemism for having absconded - due to scandal. This is unlikely as they would not put it like that in a club's records.

Also there is no suggestion of scandal attached to Druitt in any extant sources.

More likely Druitt deceived people into believing he had gone abroad, as does his fictional counterpart in 1905.

This matches the brother learning on the 11th of Dec 1888 that he was missing but not yet coming to London, because he too accepted that he had gone abroad (but with-held this from the inquiry).

This matches the club sacking a man on Dec 21st whom they had no idea he had left notes expressing acute distress, because they had yet to be found by the brother. If the notes had been found they would not have done this.

This matches the 1889 source clumsily and ambiguously writing the date Dec 30th: that is when the brother arrived at the school and discovered those notes.

This matches Sims writing in 1902 that the friends of the mad and missing doctor had just begun their frantic inquiries when his body turned up in the Thames, e.g. William arriving at the school on the 30th of December and his sibling's body turning up the next day.

It is also matches Sir Melville Macnaghten writing in 1894 and 1898 that the family believed/suspected that their member was the Ripper, and implying the same in 1914.

Amazing isn't it? The juxtaposition of that timing is not even conceded as a possibility.

On a larger note this is not about proving that Druitt was the killer - as that is impossible (it was impossible in 1891).

It is about showing that the argument, accepted here as fact, that Macnaghten did not know much about the real Druitt -- the rigid Orthodox position - is weak to the point of being untenable.

That this police chief can be shown to be neither callous nor incompetent. Furthermore his biases of class and religion, among others, ran against accepting the Dorset solution. Yet he did so.

Macnaghten believed that Druitt in all "probability" (no trial) was the Ripper. He broadly shared that solution with the public: one of us, not one of them. It was not a mystery, until after the Great War. That is as close as we can get.

[caz]

Hi All,

Dictionary of the English Language, 1881 -

[ATTACH]16902[/ATTACH]

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

Many thanks for this.

As I said, it's 'just another way' of reading those cricket club minutes. I wasn't aiming to start WW3.

Jonathan's interpretation might well be the correct one, and I would be delighted for him if he can prove it. But you have demonstrated that in 1881, the term 'abroad' was first defined as 'at large', with 'in a foreign country' coming in fourth. That's a simple fact, which allows for more than one interpretation - to Jonathan's all too apparent chagrin.

Nothing I can do about it. I wasn't around in 1881 to alter dictionary definitions.

Love,

Caz
X

[Rosella]

Yes, the phrase can be interpreted in different ways, but it has to be in context. In my humble opinion the way that it is written in the club minutes, as in ' having gone abroad' does point to a more specific location than just roaming about. I think they would have written 'gone to the country' (ie countryside) if the club officials believed Monty was just on a short break away from his usual haunts. 'Gone abroad' would have had the same meaning in this context to the Victorians as it does to us, I believe.

[Jonathan H]

To Rosella

Quite right, context is all, so brace yourself for a good deal of sneering and snarling from certain posters which as you can see has already begun against me (e.g. chagrin is being confused with disgust).

The sub-theory of the Disgraced Druitt, due to the "serious trouble" -- which comes from his brother!? -- measured against the minutes of the sporting club meeting, again allegedly showing he was disgraced, is an embarrassingly ahistorical argument.

The sporting club would never have put a euphemism into the official minutes on December 21st 1888 if the brother had arrived by then and discovered that his sibling had left letter(s) pointing to the author being in a state of terrible, perhaps even fatal mental distress.

In the recently discovered 1905 source, "The True History of Jack the Ripper" by Guy Logan, the Druitt solution is [once more] disguised as a mixture of fact and fiction. This element from 1888, of 'going abroad' as a cover for the Ripper actually going off to destroy himself, is arguably confirmed in a source, Logan, that can be linked back to Sir Melville Macnaghten via George Sims.

A source by Sims in 1902 arguably confirms the conjunction stated by the Chiswick 1889 source; that the brother only arrived the day before the body of his missing sibling turned up in the river.

[jason_c]

To Rosella

Quite right, context is all, so brace yourself for a good deal of sneering and snarling from certain posters which as you can see has already begun against me (e.g. chagrin is being confused with disgust).

The sub-theory of the Disgraced Druitt, due to the "serious trouble" -- which comes from his brother!? -- measured against the minutes of the sporting club meeting, again allegedly showing he was disgraced, is an embarrassingly ahistorical argument.

The sporting club would never have put a euphemism into the official minutes on December 21st 1888 if the brother had arrived by then and discovered that his sibling had left letter(s) pointing to the author being in a state of terrible, perhaps even fatal mental distress.

In the recently discovered 1905 source, "The True History of Jack the Ripper" by Guy Logan, the Druitt solution is [once more] disguised as a mixture of fact and fiction. This element from 1888, of 'going abroad' as a cover for the Ripper actually going off to destroy himself, is arguably confirmed in a source, Logan, that can be linked back to Sir Melville Macnaghten via George Sims.

A source by Sims in 1902 arguably confirms the conjunction stated by the Chiswick 1889 source; that the brother only arrived the day before the body of his missing sibling turned up in the river.

Isn't that what polite company does during the LVP, use euphemisms? From "solitary vices" and "sexually insane" to "foreign looking" the case is dogged with them. If the police have qualms about using gritty language in official files then a middle class club of cricketers can also be expected to have the same qualms. These cricketers would after all have been friends and acquaintances of Druitt, presumably they had Druitt's best interests at heart. The fact that all these years later we still don't know for sure what they mean by "gone abroad" proves the point. It is a suitably vague use of language.

[Jonathan H]

To Jason C

We will have to agree to disagree.

A Victorian expression, not euphemism by the way (because it is a 'vice' and it is solitary) for masturbation, a mortal sin, is completely different from explaining why a gentleman is being sacked from a club of other gentleman.

Paul Begg had wondered, in 2006, if Montague had literally left word he was going abroad.

I think he did, as this would explain why the brother took so long to get to the school (arguably Dec 30th) because his brother had said he was suddenly abroad.

Confirmation comes in a Sims source from 1902 and Guy Logan from 1905.

If anybody is chagrined it is other people who never mention this extraordinary source, Logan, that further proves the Druitt solution -- at least the particulars about Mr Druitt -- were known to Macnaghten and Sims.

But it does not match the empty, modernist take, treated by many as fact, of the Disgraced Druitt and the Muddled Macnaghten -- and therefore it is rejected out of hand.

[Wickerman]

One other incident where the police came across the expression "gone abroad", was their inquiry into the whereabouts of the insane medical student John Sanders.
However, in the late 19th century, going "abroad" did not have such a narrow interpretation as it does today. It did not solely mean overseas, but rather traveling, or not at home.
It was a term often used by families to explain the absence of one of their members due to incarceration in prison or an asylum.

[Jonathan H]

I disagree re: this particular example.

CID had the wrong address and thought Sanders had literally gone abroad. If they thought he was in an English asylum they would have found
out in which one.

The 1905 Logan source arguably confirms that people who knew the Druitt solution, in detail, knew that the barrister had literally told people, quite falsely, that he was going abroad -- as in overseas -- when he was really going off to kill himself.

I first saw the theory that Macnaghten may have confused and/or conflated Druitt with Sanders in Paul Begg's excellent and incisive "JTR--The Facts" (2006). The author also speculated that Abberline was quite out of the loop about Druitt. I saw it again so speculated, about Druitt and Sanders merging, in the A to Z.

I think this is on the right track, except that based on a 1903 source -- Simon and I agree that this is likely to be Macnaghten -- in which an unidentified top cop says the Ripper was a medical student, long dead, that Macnaghten informed Abberline that Sanders drowned himself. Hence Abberline's series of mistakes about Druitt in 1903, as I do not think he is talking about the drowned barrister at all and, in fact, had never heard of him. Why would he have, since the deceased barrister, as a Ripper suspect, only came to police attention in 1891 via the upper crust Old Boy Net? Abberline is talking about a young medical student who was a suspect in 1888, and about whom a Home Office Report was written also at the time not six years later.

Just as I think Macnaghten told Anderson that 'Kosminski' was long deceased, and told Littlechild that Tumblety probably took his own life in France, and had told Kebbell the lawyer that Grant had died in prison (in his memoir Mac claims that a top suspect for Elizabeth Camp's murder had probably died in an asylum. In fact he got better and was released).

Nobody will agree with me and that's fine, so perhaps if we could step back and consider the overall.

Was William Druitt deceiving the inquest by omitting to mention that he believed, rightly or wrongly, that his late brother had killed himself because Montague was Jack the Ripper?