Does anyone believe MJD was murdered?

[aspallek]

Folks, there are all sorts of scenarios that are possible. However, the overriding evidence comes from two sources:

The Registry of Montague's Death shows clearly that he was "Drowned by his own act whilst of unsound mind." Authorities were familiar with suicides and with drowning victims. It is not likely they would mistake a murder victim for a suicide.

The report of his inquest points to his being of unstable mind and capable of suicide. His brother introduces a letter ostensibly written by Druitt hinting at suicide and clearly showing him to be on the border of insanity. Even if this letter is a fake, as it may well have been, it only makes sense if Druitt committed suicide. Furthermore, brother William's untruthful testimony that Montague had no other relatives only makes sense if Montague committed suicide.

And yes, people do commit suicide by weighting their pockets and jumping or wading into the water. And people do purchase return tickets when contemplating or intending to commit suicide.

Anything is possible but only one thing makes good sense.

[Robert]

Hi Andy

I believe that Druitt committed suicide.

However, if he was murdered - say, because he was a spy - then it might make sense for William to cover up his relatives. After all, Monty might have talked and William wouldn't want the rest of the family on the hit list!

[aspallek]

Hi Robert,

I guess anything is possible but Montie Druitt as a "James Bond?"

Given his views on Bismarck, I doubt that he spied for the Germans!

Stick to your first belief, that he committed suicide.

[Robert]

My name is Druitt, Monty Druitt. Licensed to kill myself.

[Grim]

Hi Andy

I believe that Druitt committed suicide.

However, if he was murdered - say, because he was a spy

What if he was murderd say, because he was Jack the Ripper?

[Robert]

It's been suggested that his family bumped him off, but I don't see any reason to think so.

[ChrisGeorge]

Folks, there are all sorts of scenarios that are possible. However, the overriding evidence comes from two sources:

The Registry of Montague's Death shows clearly that he was "Drowned by his own act whilst of unsound mind." Authorities were familiar with suicides and with drowning victims. It is not likely they would mistake a murder victim for a suicide.

The report of his inquest points to his being of unstable mind and capable of suicide. His brother introduces a letter ostensibly written by Druitt hinting at suicide and clearly showing him to be on the border of insanity. Even if this letter is a fake, as it may well have been, it only makes sense if Druitt committed suicide. Furthermore, brother William's untruthful testimony that Montague had no other relatives only makes sense if Montague committed suicide.

And yes, people do commit suicide by weighting their pockets and jumping or wading into the water. And people do purchase return tickets when contemplating or intending to commit suicide.

Anything is possible but only one thing makes good sense.

Hi Andy

Granted, the circumstances would seem to indicate it was suicide. The fact that he had recently been sacked from his teaching position at Mr. Valentine's school at Blackheath, depression in the family, the supposed suicide note that spoke of him being afraid that he was going like mother, i.e., developing mental instability, and the stones weighting down his pockets.

On the other hand, Andy, you say:

"Authorities were familiar with suicides and with drowning victims. It is not likely they would mistake a murder victim for a suicide."

Montie's body had been in the river for a full month and his corpse would likely have deteriorated in the weeks it had been submerged. Would evidence of any bruising from blunt force trauma, say, have been detectable after all those weeks? Or would the prima facie idea that it was suicide have overridden any thought that the death was other than suicide?

Just some things to think about.

All the best

Chris

[aspallek]

Hi Chris,

Granted decomposition would pose problems and forensic medicine and pathology were certainly in their infancies in 1888. However, Diplock was an extremely experienced coroner and a physician himself. His territory included (obviously) a stretch of the Thames. Thus he must have been very familiar with drowning victims. I just believe that he and his medical examiner (if he had a different medical examiner) knew a suicide when they saw one. That doesn't mean they couldn't have been wrong but I don't think it's likely that they were.

I also agree that the "suicide note" and the loss of his teaching position are the "clinchers" in the suicide theory. Unfortunately, both of these are part of the testimony of Montague's brother, William Harvey Druitt. I now believe that we cannot entirely trust William's testimony. However, if William was concocting the suicide note and story of Montie's being sacked this really only makes good sense if it was a foregone conclusion that he committed suicide. The note and the sacking would support the claim that Montague was of unsound mind when he took his life, thereby avoiding some of the stigma of suicide, especially within the Church, on the rest of this deeply religious family.

[Dave O]

Hi Chris,

It's all speculation as all we have are a few sparse accounts of Druitt's death, some better than others. For what it's worth, and maybe it's not much, but I think that marks of violence would have been discernable even after a month submerged. Consider the case of Captain Richmond, which though it's been awhile, was mentioned in Rip 64 (p. 28):

Dr. Diplock held an inquest at Twickenham yesterday concerning the death of CAPTAIN HENRY FULLEROTN RICHMOND, a retired military officer, aged 59, whose body, in an advanced state of decomposition, was found in the Thames on the previous Friday. Mr. Gustavus Watson, tea merchant, of 16, Rosendale-road, West Bromwich, identified the body as that of his wife’s brother, formerly a captain in the 10th Hussars. Henry Harper, a mason, deposed to finding the body of the deceased in the river Thames at Cross-deep, Twickenham, on Friday afternoon. He brought it ashore, and gave information to the police. Miss Blanche Barclay, residing at No. 1, Harewood-road, Harewood-square, Marylebone, deposed that the deceased left home between 3 and 4 o’clock on the afternoon of the 27th of November. He had been ill for some time previously, and had had no sleep for several nights. He was low-spirited, but had never spoken of being tired of life or of his intention to destroy himself. Dr. Martindale C. Ward, police divisional surgeon, said he had examined the body externally. There were marks of injury on the forehead, but witness was unable to say whether these were caused before or after death. The right hand was completely smashed. Deceased appeared to have been drowned. The jury returned a verdict of “Found drowned.” Times January 8 1890.

So here's a guy going into the river at just about the same time of year as Druitt, and pulled out at just about the same time, though it is all a year later. I do not know how the temperature varied between 1889 and 1890. But it's very similiar to Druitt, and here the medical witness was still able to determine injuries on the man's forehead, though he couldn't say how they were caused. He could have been attacked, or his body may have collided with something in the water during his month of submersion. That's reflected in the jury's open verdict--"Found drowned"--they're really unable to say what happened to this person, though there was evidence that he was 'low-spirited', it evidently was not enough for them to return a verdict of suicide.

So it's different with Druitt: there they've got a note, and they know there's a history of mental instability. I think Druitt's note probably counted for a lot with his jury in 1889. And no hint of violence, which I personally find interesting because I suspect--given the reference to a lack of visible wounds in the first place--that there was probably a medical witness there who examined him, someone not mentioned in the press (who else but a doctor would the medical coroner Dr. Diplock have allowed to testify upon the subject?). If this is correct, the witness would have been either a divisional surgeon or a local qualified practitioner who was called to the scene by the police.

It's admittedly hazy because there is also a good possibility that there may have been no medical witness at all as whether to have one was up to Diplock's discretion, and he may have thought it an obvious suicide--in which case, why waste the ratepayers money? And the magistrates were always up the coroners' backsides about expenses. But since we are told that there were no obvious wounds, that logically suggests some sort of examination by someone, so I think he likely had a surgeon conducting at least an external examination, as he did in the case of Captain Richmond, simply to try to rule out foul play.

But it's all speculation! We don't have much to go on, and all that is really safe to say is that the jury hearing the case, who besides sifting through the testimony, saw and heard the witnesses and made a judgement on their reliability, was satisfied that it was suicide even if some today aren't. If they were in any doubt, you would see the open verdict "Found drowned, but how he came to be in the river, we do not know." Something like that.

Cheers,
Dave

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Dave

I appreciate your opinion on the matter of the coroner's enquiry into Druitt's death. The comparison with the inquest into Captain Richmond's death is a good one and I do remember that you covered that enquiry in your article on Diplock in Rip 64.

Thanks

Chris

[Dave O]

Thanks, Chris. I see that I crossed posts with Andy. Ditto to what he says about Diplock's experience.

[Robert]

We don't know what was in the suicide note. It could, for all we know, have been a desperate, rambling affair, and many suicide notes were of this type.

[Dave O]

That's true, Robert. I think the description of it we have says something like "to the effect".

[Robert]

That's right, Dave. It's described as "a paper" which certainly doesn't suggest reams of stuff, but on the other hand it may have been more explanatory than the one sentence handed down to us.

[aspallek]

A wonderful book that Tom Westcott put me onto called I Guarded the Waterfront by a Thames waterman named A.P. Woods describes a number of drowning victims in detail, some of which were suicides. Interestingly, Woods also relates "'the police held the belief that a certain man who committed suicide in the Thames at the end of 1888 was the real criminal, and other murders that came after were merely imitative.'" Woods was writing circa 1944.

The "suicide note" that I referred to is the "Since Friday" note that William "produced" at the inquest. Although we have the reported contents (or approximate contents) William's testimony is not entirely trustworthy and therefore we must not take the note as fact.