Floating with bricks?

[Lika]

I read in the suspect section that druitt was found floating in the thames (hope I spelt it right).
Wouldnt he had needed a large amount of bricks?
Also how did he float with them the only sorta bricks I know are really heavy so he must had been on the bottom of the thames.

[Mitch Rowe]

They were described as stones but they must have been large enough to cause his body to sink. The cold water slows the rate of decay it doesnt stop it. As the body decays naturally gases are formed and the body becomes bloated. It then rises to the surface. The forces can be powerful and many a murderer have underestimated the amount of weight and the way to attach the weight to keep a body down.

[protohistorian]

I read in the suspect section that druitt was found floating in the thames (hope I spelt it right).
Wouldnt he had needed a large amount of bricks?
Also how did he float with them the only sorta bricks I know are really heavy so he must had been on the bottom of the thames.

Not inherently so. Post mortem decomposition generates gas which accumulates in tissues and results in buoyancy. This occurs at the cellular level and accretion is rapid. Respectfully Dave

[kensei]

For what it's worth, when Virginia Woolf drowned herself by filling her pockets with stones and walking into the River Ouse in Sussex in 1941, her body was not found for 21 days.

[Wickerman]

Virginia Woolf was 60 years old and physically frail. It isn't difficult to imagine her loading her pockets with sufficient weight so she could not overcome her body sinking, do we even know if she could swim?

With Montague, presumably physically fit and a young 30 year old, just wading into waters with loaded pockets seems almost unimaginative.
What happened to the natural urge to fight his body sinking? A fall from a great height (a bridge?) is more consistent with a young mans suicide, but apparently this was not the case.

It just strikes me as strange.

Regards, Jon S.

[Robert]

Hi Jon

Whether or not he managed to surface, isn't it true that he only had to wait a few minutes and hypothermia would do the rest?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

Whether or not he managed to surface, isn't it true that he only had to wait a few minutes and hypothermia would do the rest?

Hi Robert.

Do you think that was part of his plan, to trust in hypothermia?

[Robert]

Hi Jon

He seems to have made the best job of it that he could. Or maybe he was past caring. What I'm saying is that even if self-preservation forced him to fight his way to the surface, surely he wouldn't be forced to strike out for the bank. So if he only wated a whil longer....

[Wickerman]

It seems an almost passive way out for a man who is presumed to have been responsible for a handful of daring exploits, and with a knife...

Regards, Jon S.

[curious]

It seems an almost passive way out for a man who is presumed to have been responsible for a handful of daring exploits, and with a knife...

Regards, Jon S.

Seems out of character, you are saying.

I agree, but . . .

It appears to be human nature to think what is right for someone else (death and mutilation by knife) should not be done to themselves.

No matter how much I read about Druitt, I can't make my mind accept him as JtR -- not at this time at any rate.

[Wickerman]

Seems out of character, you are saying.

I agree, but . . .

It appears to be human nature to think what is right for someone else (death and mutilation by knife) should not be done to themselves.

No matter how much I read about Druitt, I can't make my mind accept him as JtR -- not at this time at any rate.

Yes, it seems out of character, but collectively we always make the mistake of expecting rational thinking from an irrational mind, we expect too much.

There again, what do 'we' seriously expect to see as evidence for any suspect?
Whoever you might suspect (if anyone), you will never obtain evidence of his guilt. So your suspicions will rest on frivolous details like, his appearance, or his social status, or his mental state, not actually on any evidence which at this late date certainly does not exist.

I cannot with any honesty say "Druitt did it", nor anyone else for that matter.
But, I do have reasons why I fail to see Kosminski as the one. These two seem to be the two leading contenders to my mind.
All the arguments put up against Druitt's candidacy by modern theorists simply do not stand scrutiny.
Anyhow, why he ended up in the Thames is another inconsistent aspect to this mystery.....the proverbial, did he fall, or was he pushed?

All the best, Jon S.

[curious]

But, I do have reasons why I fail to see Kosminski as the one. These two seem to be the two leading contenders to my mind.
All the arguments put up against Druitt's candidacy by modern theorists simply do not stand scrutiny.
Anyhow, why he ended up in the Thames is another inconsistent aspect to this mystery.....the proverbial, did he fall, or was he pushed?

All the best, Jon S.

I agree that because of their consideration by the top authorities of the time, Kosminski and Druitt must be considered as top contenders.

I have no "favorite" suspect and have come to believe this is an unsolvable mystery. I would love to be proven wrong.

Anyhow, why he ended up in the Thames is another inconsistent aspect to this mystery.....the proverbial, did he fall, or was he pushed?

Are you suggesting that perhaps Druitt's family may have preferred the scandal of suicide to the scandal of the public learning about his crimes?

Perhaps his brother?? someone else?? realized who he was and took steps to protect the family's reputation? But, gee, wasn't Druitt cooperative?

All the arguments put up against Druitt's candidacy by modern theorists simply do not stand scrutiny.

so my "but he just feels all wrong for it" would not impress you?

curious

[Wickerman]

I agree that because of their consideration by the top authorities of the time, Kosminski and Druitt must be considered as top contenders.

I'd be quite comfortable doing away with all the rest, and focus on these two alone.

so my "but he just feels all wrong for it" would not impress you?

In a word, "No!"

Perhaps his brother?? someone else?? realized who he was and took steps to protect the family's reputation? But, gee, wasn't Druitt cooperative?

All I can say is, "it just doesn't feel right"



Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

I agree that because of their consideration by the top authorities of the time, Kosminski and Druitt must be considered as top contenders.

I have no "favorite" suspect and have come to believe this is an unsolvable mystery. I would love to be proven wrong.

Anyhow, why he ended up in the Thames is another inconsistent aspect to this mystery.....the proverbial, did he fall, or was he pushed?

Are you suggesting that perhaps Druitt's family may have preferred the scandal of suicide to the scandal of the public learning about his crimes?

Perhaps his brother?? someone else?? realized who he was and took steps to protect the family's reputation? But, gee, wasn't Druitt cooperative?

All the arguments put up against Druitt's candidacy by modern theorists simply do not stand scrutiny.

so my "but he just feels all wrong for it" would not impress you?

curious

I agree with Jon that, on paper at least, he's a valid and acceptable suspect...it's something I can quite happily argue with Jonathan, without either of us feeling we're pulling back...but like you Velma, and I can't specifically say why either, somehow I just can't see Montie as the killer...perhaps I'm wrong but I sense that Jon has some misgivings too...

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

I agree with Jon that, on paper at least, he's a valid and acceptable suspect...it's something I can quite happily argue with Jonathan, without either of us feeling we're pulling back...but like you Velma, and I can't specifically say why either, somehow I just can't see Montie as the killer...perhaps I'm wrong but I sense that Jon has some misgivings too...

All the best

Dave

Ah, my misgivings are showing....


Yes well, a good ten years ago, maybe even '98-99 I was decidedly anti-Druitt as far as him being a good suspect was concerned.

Although proof of Macnaghten's suspicions still allude us, some of the recent research by Andy Spallek & Chris have provided a few reason's behind Mac's story.
I would have thought that research conducted since 1965 would have turned up something to show Druitt could not have been in Whitechapel on at least one of those five murder dates.

Druitt was a public figure, his cricket schedules, Legal obligations, schooling commitments, a lot of dates appear in the press and are available as part of the public record, yet, no-one has stumbled across anything that excludes Druitt on those specific nights when murders were committed.

I can't argue that he was the Ripper, but dammit, I can't see anything that tells us he wasn't.
So long as Mac. claimed to know something about this one suicide case (there were plenty of other suicides between Nov. 10th & Dec. 31st), then what he knew, and how he came to know it, and when, is of great importance.
Mac. was not a fool, and he was still Chief Constable when he wrote his Memorandum.

Regards, Jon S.