Druitt's room

[caz]

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).

Hi Jonathan,

I'm more than happy to replace chagrin with disgust, if you prefer.

The dictionary allows for more than one interpretation of 'gone abroad' (even in the context of the minutes, when all the known circumstances of Druitt's disappearance from his usual haunts and later reappearance, found drowned, are taken into account), much to your apparent disgust.

There, is that better?

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.

Arguably not, if you refer to Sims merely observing that efforts were being made to find the missing man when his body fetched up. Or is there another source by Sims suggesting the search was only a day old at that point?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

[In my best Jeeves voice] Indeed so, Jason. Having been fired for getting into serious trouble at a boys' prep school and taking himself off, tail between the legs, the young master Druitt would have benefited from a general tendency at the time for the specific 'ins and outs', shall we say, of such sensitive matters not to be broadcast abroad (as in 'far and wide', you understand). Why, even in recent years we have seen all too many examples of persons higher up in society than Druitt ever was, who would have got into very serious trouble indeed had their activities not been successfully 'hushed up' and swept under the carpet by willing friends and associates while the buggers - ahem, miscreants were still alive and accountable.

Only as a result of the inquest formalities do we learn - from his older sibling - that all was not as it should have been at the school. Nothing else is ever forthcoming.

But I'm afraid there would need to be the most perverse meteorological conditions in the infernal regions before Jonathan would ever concede that the cricket club might just have erred on the side of discretion with its use of 'gone abroad', to cover a multitude of sins, as it were.

Love,

Caz (watching far too much Jeeves & Wooster with Fry & Laurie of late)
X

[caz]

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?

I wouldn't have thought so, Jonathan.

We don't know for a fact that William ever suspected his brother of the Whitechapel murders. But even assuming that was the case, it could still only have been a belief on his part unless he possessed tangible proof which he failed to present to the inquest. I don't think he would have been obliged to express an opinion that could not be tested in a court of law, and there has to be a deliberate intent to deceive, which I'm not sure would apply here. His brother was dead, so it's not as if his silence on the matter could have led to more victims if his suspicions had been correct.

Love,

Caz
X

[Bridewell]

The minutes of the Cricket Club record Druitt as having 'gone abroad'. IMHO this means simply that they haven't a clue where he is. They don't say he's gone to Lambeth, to Birmingham, to Paris or to Germany. Why not? Because they don't know where he's gone. He's not at his last known address; he's not at his place of work and he's not been seen at his Chambers. No-one knows where he is - he's gone abroad. Simon's helpful posting of an extract from the 1881 dictionary demonstrates that the word doesn't mean exactly the same today as it did 134 years ago. MJD was missing from home, hence the vague reference to his location as 'gone abroad'. The Victorians were, in my experience, quite precise in their use of language so (again IMHO) the most common contemporary understanding of the term 'gone abroad' should be applied. The Club Secretary could have described Druitt as having 'gone overseas' if that was what was meant - but he didn't.

[GUT]

The minutes of the Cricket Club record Druitt as having 'gone abroad'. IMHO this means simply that they haven't a clue where he is. They don't say he's gone to Lambeth, to Birmingham, to Paris or to Germany. Why not? Because they don't know where he's gone. He's not at his last known address; he's not at his place of work and he's not been seen at his Chambers. No-one knows where he is - he's gone abroad. Simon's helpful posting of an extract from the 1881 dictionary demonstrates that the word doesn't mean exactly the same today as it did 134 years ago. MJD was missing from home, hence the vague reference to his location as 'gone abroad'. The Victorians were, in my experience, quite precise in their use of language so (again IMHO) the most common contemporary understanding of the term 'gone abroad' should be applied. The Club Secretary could have described Druitt as having 'gone overseas' if that was what was meant - but he didn't.

Really must agree, it means "Young Mont ie's gone a missing and we don't know where he are."

[Phil Carter]

This is going to read very simplistic. I make no apologies for it.
1+1=2.

"Gone abroad" means gone AWOL.
"Dismissed 31st Dec" is not a misprint.

Ipso facto. .Druitt was dismissed for being absent without leave from his position for a month.


Something someone isn't grasping?
Had he returned after this date..He would have returned to no position of tenure.
He was sacked in absentia.


Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Phil

Your interpretation parallels mine; these are incomplete and ambiguous sources that require a judgement based on the most probable solution.

The brother does not seem to have explained to the inquest that his brother was sacked for being AWOL, or the reporter misunderstood.

Whatever, the dismissal of Druitt from the lesser of his two vocations made no impression on any of the primary sources we have about him from 1889 onwards. Even the source that mentions it, does not suggest it was a dismissal in disgrace or that it was linked to his suicide. The other 1889 sources regard his death in the same way: unexpected and inexplicable (perhaps due to some kind of inherited mental weakness).

Whatever was actually meant, the club source provides the likely reason just as you say: AWOL. I think he left word he was going abroad -- meaning overseas -- and then nothing more was heard triggering his dismissal from the school and the club.

The club's decision was December 21st 1888. This strongly suggests that by then the note(s) had not been found and the older brother had yet to show up at the school. Because if this had already happened the club would not have sacked a man believed to be in torment, or capable of self-harm, or even deceased by his own hand.

This also argues in favour of the December 31st 1888 date being correct: the brother arrived the day before the body surfaced on Dec 31st. We have two other sources that point in this direction: George Sims in 1902 conjoining the two events (the friends' search and the doctor's body surfacing) and the 1905 mixture of fact and fiction by Guy Logan (in which the mad doctor leaves misleading word with his landlady that business calls him abroad (and it is also mentioned that Mortemer Slade's family has a history of suicide).

I agree with you about 1 + 1 + 2.

[GUT]

This is going to read very simplistic. I make no apologies for it.
1+1=2.

"Gone abroad" means gone AWOL.
"Dismissed 31st Dec" is not a misprint.

Ipso facto. .Druitt was dismissed for being absent without leave from his position for a month.


Something someone isn't grasping?
Had he returned after this date..He would have returned to no position of tenure.
He was sacked in absentia.


Phil

Yep. But that's logical so won't float around here.

[c.d.]

I always thought it quite strange that a member of the Druitt family or someone they had taken into their confidence would approach Macnaghten in the first place. For what purpose? You would think that they would have asked him for a promise of confidentiality before divulging the information. But since this was still an ongoing investigation regardless of when Macnaghten received the information could he have given his word to remain silent?

c.d.

[GUT]

I always thought it quite strange that a member of the Druitt family or someone they had taken into their confidence would approach Macnaghten in the first place. For what purpose? You would think that they would have asked him for a promise of confidentiality before divulging the information. But since this was still an ongoing investigation regardless of when Macnaghten received the information could he have given his word to remain silent?

c.d.

Some people just need to unload that sort of information.

Mant criminals even today are turned in by family and friends, it would, I expect, be easier to do when the family or friend was beyond punishment.

[c.d.]

But if it were still an unsolved crime wouldn't Mac have had an obligation to follow that lead?

c.d.

[GUT]

But if it were still an unsolved crime wouldn't Mac have had an obligation to follow that lead?

c.d.

We don't know what the lead was, so don't know if there was anything to follow.

We also don't know that there wasn't another memorandum that said, stop looking he's dead. Indeed I'm not even sure when Macnaghten came into possession of this "private information".

[c.d.]

Well if the information came from a friend of the Druitt family wouldn't Mac have then spoken with the Druitt family itself?

Even if Druitt were dead, the police would still need confirmation that he was the Ripper.

c.d.

[Jonathan H]

I think the initial lead was the West of England MP story breaking in the press two days before it was 'discredited' by the Ripper's murder of Frances Coles on Feb 13th 1891. I think the family secret had leaked.

The Druitt clan then had two pieces of incalculable luck -- to put it callously. Another poor prostitute was murdered by ' Jack' in the East End, and the police official who investigated the "curious story" emerging from Dorset was a compassionate, upper class gentleman who regarded himself as quite apart from his colleagues, especially when it came to protecting a good family and the reputation of his beloved Yard, and who loathed his superior.

I don't think the family approached the Chief Constable. I think he approached them, entirely privately.

Textual evidence shows that Macnaghten likely met with Henry Farquharson, and then members of the Druitt family, between Feb 18th 1891-- when the MP was still adamant about his "doctrine" despite the Coles' murder -- and March 1st 1891, when Sims/Dagonet suddenly reversed himself about really resembling the fiend, according to a coffee-stall owner and alleged witness (and recast this amusing trifle as a deadly serious tale, one happening on the morning of the double murder -- when this "crank" was selling his wares in the wake of the McKenzie murder in July 1889).

Macnaghten and the Druitt family's dilemma, I theorise, is that an Anglican Vicar (likely a family member too) was going to reveal the truth on the tenth anniversary of Montague's death. What to do ...?

[GUT]

Well if the information came from a friend of the Druitt family wouldn't Mac have then spoken with the Druitt family itself?

Even if Druitt were dead, the police would still need confirmation that he was the Ripper.

c.d.

I suspect he did, especially the way he firmed up between MM and "Days".