Druitt's room

[GUT]

I also suspect that hilts Mac had enough to satisfy himself, he didn't have enough to say "Case Closed".

[Jonathan H]

Macnaghten 'firmed up' when he wrote the so-called Aberconway version, whose opinion was projected onto the Edwardian public by his pal, George Sims, as 'case closed' on the Ripper (but even the official version of, arguably, four years before claims that Druitt was "believed" by his family to be the murderer and that he was definitely erotically fulfilled by violence).

'Case Closed' was confirmed by Macnaghten himself at his 1913 farewell press conference and by his 1914 memoirs (except that the killer could never have his day in court).

Both Anderson and Macnaghten were certain. Both might be wrong, but, then again, one might be right too.

[GUT]

I meant Case Closed as in closing the official file.

[Jonathan H]

I think he did that in 1892.

[GUT]

I have just had a thought (dangerous I know) about why the family may have approached Mac.

We all know that murders after Montie's death were being attributed to Jack, Coles and McKenzie ping to mind, if Montie's family were awa of this (and why wouldn't they be?) they may have felt that if they didn't come forward someone else would literally get away with murder.

I can see this as being ample reason for a family of their social conscience to go to Mac.

[Jonathan H]

It is certainly a possibility, especially with the white hot heat on Tom Sadler.

In 1913 one newspaper will report Macnaghten as claiming that the killer's identity "... came to me subsequently."

His 1914 memoir implies information received from the un-named Druitt's own people.

[caz]

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.

Thank you, kind sir! That is precisely how I imagine my great grandparents would have read and interpreted those blasted minutes, given that nobody did have a clue where Druitt had disappeared to until his body surfaced in not-so-exotic Chiswick. There was clearly no call to be ambiguous and leave the reader to speculate if the club understood him to be in foreign parts.

On page 53 of Prosector's The Real Mary Kelly, he observes that Elizabeth Weston Craig would hardly have 'been abroad' by herself at 'that time of night' as a respectably married woman. So even today it can mean 'out and about' or simply 'away' from one's usual haunts.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Hi Jonathan,

You keep saying this but it doesn't make sense. William is reported as saying, in the context of the inquest into his brother's suicide, that he had got into 'serious trouble' at the school where he had until recently been an assistant and had been dismissed. Not only does 'serious trouble' imply some form of disgrace, but 'at' the school implies it took place there and he was sacked as a result. 1+1=2 except when you want it to equal 0.

This is presumably why you have lately taken to argue that what William actually said may have been misreported. But the source is the source, and as it stands it does indeed suggest what you repeatedly resist, and I'm not sure how you are getting round the problem that if William did not want the dismissal linked to the suicide, or didn't believe there was a link, why did he create that link himself by mentioning the former in the context of the inquest into the latter? The reporter could hardly have made it up.

Assuming William did publicly admit that his brother had been fired from the school for serious trouble, very shortly before he committed suicide, wasn't he just being as open as he felt his duty to be? Was there anything to be gained from saying it if it wasn't true?

Love,

Caz
X

[Jonathan H]

To Bridewell

I disagree. I think that they would have been concerned and worried about a missing Druitt if they had no clue as to his whereabouts. How woudl they know he had not had an accident or met with foul play?

I actually think this line of interpretation is untenable.

It is more likely that Montie had left word he had gone suddenly gone overseas and then no further word was heard and this void inevitably triggered his dismissal from various institutions to which he was connected.

I suspect his chambers in the city had been told the same thing, gone overseas, but William wanted this element veiled at the inquest perhaps to give the impression of a breakdown, rather than a very lucid attempt deceive and take his own life with his body never recovered.

Notice that Druitt was sacked from both the school and the club, not allowed a face-saving resignation, suggesting he was not there.

Confirmation came in 2013 with Jan Bondeson's discovery of the extraordinary 1905 source by Guy Logan, in which the disguised Druitt figure exits his place of abroad whilst leaving false word that he is going overseas, when he is actually going off to die.

The apoplectic Orthodox here who fiercely resist this theorizing -- which of course could be wrong, as I have always conceded but I am slandered, as usual, that I have never done so -- think it is the thin end of the wedge. It isn't. The pointy end is whether Macnaghten and Sims are reliable primary sources about the posthumous investigation into Druitt as the Ripper.

For decades we have been assured they are not. I dissent. I argue they were very well-informed, and if Druitt had been simply a troubled man who took his own life due to being dismissed from the lesser of his two vocations, and had nothing to do with the Whitechapel murders, these two fellow gents would have happily embraced such a solution. They judged they could not.

Not a single source from 1889 even hints that he died in disgrace, not even the one that mentions very clumsily and ambiguously, the serious trouble, which I think was being AWOL as with the club.

The pertinent source says, again clumsily and opaquely, that the brother arrived on Dec 30th 1888, so when he was dismissed the soyonara notes had yet to be found.

[caz]

I think that they would have been concerned and worried about a missing Druitt if they had no clue as to his whereabouts.

But not if he had been given his marching orders from the school for getting into serious trouble there, just as his brother openly admitted in the context of the inquest. In that case, both the school and the cricket club (having a Valentine brother in common?) would merely be aware that he had taken himself off the scene as a result.

I suspect his chambers in the city had been told the same thing, gone overseas, but William wanted this element veiled at the inquest perhaps to give the impression of a breakdown, rather than a very lucid attempt deceive and take his own life with his body never recovered.

This is all very well, but if William was into veiling such elements, he would not have been obliged to mention a dismissal from the school either, never mind any serious trouble, because this could have had no possible bearing on the cause of death (the purpose of the inquest) if you are right about his brother going off to commit suicide for other reasons before being sacked in his absence and without his knowledge. In fact, by mentioning this sacking, so shortly before his body was found, William was volunteering a potential cause and effect that you argue didn't apply. Why would he do that? Why would he knowingly give a false impression that his brother had been fired from a boys' prep school for some serious trouble, thereby contributing to the possible reasons for his subsequent suicide?

When taken in conjunction with the 'going like mother' note, it could be inferred, rightly or wrongly, that the poor chap had had some kind of mental breakdown in front of the kids and had to be let go. Valentine couldn't have kept him on in such circumstances to serve his notice, but he could at least pay him to the end of term and include severance pay, and allow him time to collect all his belongings, while discreetly advising him to go and seek treatment. The cricket club would have had little choice but to follow suit and let him go, but instead of saying 'gone like mother' they said 'gone abroad' to reflect the fact that he was no longer in their midst.

Confirmation came in 2013 with Jan Bondeson's discovery of the extraordinary 1905 source by Guy Logan, in which the disguised Druitt figure exits his place of abroad whilst leaving false word that he is going overseas, when he is actually going off to die.

Slip of the pen there, Jonathan. I think you meant 'abode'. Happens to us all.

I argue they were very well-informed, and if Druitt had been simply a troubled man who took his own life due to being dismissed from the lesser of his two vocations, and had nothing to do with the Whitechapel murders, these two fellow gents would have happily embraced such a solution. They judged they could not.

Well couldn't he have been that troubled man because he was, or believed he was the ripper, in which case being dismissed from the school couldn't have helped if he was already near the edge and set to tip over it? I mean most people would accept even today that the ripper was a very disturbed individual with the potential to implode at any time.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jonathan H]

To Bridewell

You see what I mean.

I have stated my position many times -- for which I am also attacked, yet I don't force anybody to read my posts defending myself -- and therefore there is nothing more to argue.

The positions are irreconcilable, and that's that. Rightly or wrongly, that is how I interpret the primary sources.

We have to agree to disagree. A completely normal state of affairs when trying to make sense of limited and contradictory data.

Except here, for some posters, agreeing to disagree is unacceptable. It must be flogged to death like the proverbial dead horse.

Because consider that nothing new is being proposed, just the same old arguments.

But I am not allowed to reject those arguments, which in the real world are in tatters and always have been

It is a form of harassment because I dissent, and that challenge to orthodoxy cannot be allowed to stand. Not one single bit of the Druitt solution can be allowed to be revisited. It is a form of attrition which does work in the end, because you just find that you cannot be bothered anymore.

That's sad as there are other posters here who disagree -- all of them actually, bar one -- who articulate their dissent from my dissent and move on, completely politely and without venom or rancor or sarcasm.

[caz]

'Attacked', Jonathan? 'Not allowed' to reject arguments? 'Harassment'?

What is wrong with you? Did you not see my final paragraph, trying to support your Druitt the ripper theory, using the same sources?

Just ignore my posts if you really 'cannot be bothered' any more, or report them to admin if you see 'venom or rancor' where none is ever meant. But you can hardly expect to have a 'debate' by yourself, where you can get away with arguments that only work if your sources don't mean what they actually say.

Could you just address my point about which came first: the decision to go off and commit suicide or the dismissal from the school?

If, as you have argued, Druitt went off to kill himself and was subsequently dismissed in his absence and without his knowledge, the dismissal could have had no possible bearing on the cause of death, which makes William's public statement about the 'serious trouble at the school' needless and inexplicable. His brother's suicide (apparently because he feared going like mother) would in that case merely explain his unauthorised absence (the 'serious trouble'), but the dismissal itself would not be remotely relevant to his suicide as he never knew about it.

There is nothing wrong with reworking and correcting old and tired takes on a theory as long as the new arguments actually make sense. If you can make sense of this particular aspect of it for me, fine. I'd support you to the hilt.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jonathan H]

To Bridewell

Passive-aggressive intimidation is always couched in terms of: hey, I'm on your side! And, you have never answered my questions! And, you're over-reacting.

In other words it's venomous b.s. through and through and as predictable as clockwork. I could write these bilious posts myself as they are so textbook unhinged -- whilst the content being 'debated' is quite irrelevant.

Even my many detractors here do not accuse me of shying away from putting my positions, e.g. ad nauseum.

What it comes down to is an inability to leave it, to leave a disagreement as a disagreement that cannot be reconciled without being disagreeable.

But among the Orthodox Buffs the counter-opinion cannot be allowed to stand, even though nothing new is presented. Even when new evidence turns up backing the counter theory. Again, quite, quite irrelevant.

Rightly or wrongly, I have outlined what I think probably happened a thousand times over many years. The school and the club dismissed Druitt because he was AWOL; because he had left word he was going overseas. The brother arrived at the school, the day before the body had surfaced in the river, and perhaps discovered notes that his sibling was in such a distressed state he was going to harm himself. The single source that mentions his dismissal is ambiguous and clumsy about all this. But it does not suggest disgraced and no other source mentions it at all, or implies disgrace.

After all, William Druitt would never have implied such a thing at the inquest, and sure enough it was not reported that way. Rather he may have tried to explain his AWOL status and it was misunderstood, or he wanted to suggest a sudden breakdown and did not want the cold lucidity of Montague's suicide plans (deceitfully informing various institutions he was going abroad) to be part of the official record, and it wasn't.

Compared with other sources what we do know is that Sir Melville Macnaghten and George Sims judged the dismissal to be of no significance compared to other evidence he killed himself because he was, or believed he was Jack the Ripper.

[Steve S]

I'm not proposing this...But throwing it in as a theory given at the recent conference....That Druitt left Blackheath to stay at the Tuke Asylum at Chiswick.....Explaining return ticket...Whatever finally turned him to suicide occured there, within a short walk of the site..........

[GUT]

I'm not proposing this...But throwing it in as a theory given at the recent conference....That Druitt left Blackheath to stay at the Tuke Asylum at Chiswick.....Explaining return ticket...Whatever finally turned him to suicide occured there, within a short walk of the site..........

Sounds fine, but why not tell Valentine or the Cricket club or His Chambers.