Reasons why?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I've got a case of Guiness that needs breaking into....

You're too late.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The question 'which Friday?' is the point, I would think.

The day of the murder was a Friday (9 Nov.), and his body was found on Monday 31st Dec., but had been estimated to have been in the water for over a month. Which suggests he killed himself in November, and there are only four Fridays that qualify - 9, 16, 23, 30. I just think if the official estimate was correct we must dismiss 30 Nov., I know it's borderline but we either select 'a month' or 'over a month'.
So, I think we are required to look at the 9th, 16th & 23rd.

Didn't Montie visit William sometime in November, or was it October?
It's so long since I read up on this, if we can rule out another November Friday it might help to clarify which Friday was referred to in the suicide note.

The problem is that the train ticket that he had on him was dated December 1st Wick.

[Wickerman]

How many times do we have to explain this PI. WE have no evidence. But clearly Macnaghten felt that HE did. We have no way of assessing this without jumping to conclusions.

Had Druitt been found in compromising positions with the female staff at the school, he could have been fired, but the reason need not be made public. Wiliam could have found this out, or Mac. could have heard this from the Headmaster.

I don't think Mac. suggested he thought Druitt was a suspect before his suicide, it was only after, when his suicide was investigated.
He is also an unusual suicide victim to choose as a Ripper suspect given the number of suicide's in the papers that we would have no knowledge about, wasn't it over a hundred between 9 Nov. for the next six weeks?, yet Mac. chose Druitt, a wealthy man of some importance with responsibilities. Very odd choice if there was nothing behind it.

[Wickerman]

The problem is that the train ticket that he had on him was dated December 1st Wick.

Right, so you're thinking the Friday must have been the closest one to the purchase of the ticket?
Some have suggested this also, yet others think "since yesterday' would have been more appropriate, if he wrote it the next day.

Some suicide victims do not kill themselves at a first attempt, they loose confidence, and try again a day or so later, or a third time perhaps.
In such a case the 'since Friday' is a Friday several days before perhaps over a week, or more?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It has been reported that Druitt was dismissed on 30 November, which was a Friday.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Are you seriously suggesting that although Macnaghten may have been told that Druitt was a school teacher, he mis-remembered him as a doctor?

If he knew his occupation, then he must have known that he was dismissed.

You are not, presumably, going to suggest that Macnaghten thought Druitt had been struck off the medical register.

PI, there are only so many times that I can reasonably be expected to repeat the same points.

It’s entirely possible, and not at all far-fetched, that when passing on the private information that person might have mentioned Druitt’s occupation (although it can’t be a certainty). It’s also entirely possible that there was a quite considerable gap of time between this passing on of information and the time that Macnaghten decided to write his memorandum. A gap of time might easily have resulted in Macnaghten misremembering Druitt’s profession and the suggested ‘doctor’ is even more understandable considering Druitt’s father. It’s also worth pointing out that a brief mention of his job as a barrister would have paled into insignificance during a conversation where one person is suggesting that another might have been Jack The Ripper!

This ‘doctor’ issue has been blown out of all proportion over the years. Unless someone could suggest that Macnaghten was talking about someone other than Druitt, and they can’t, then what does it matter? It’s a triviality. To be honest I’m tired of hearing it being used in desperation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've got a case of Guiness that needs breaking into....

Sounds good to me Wick. I hope it’s not that 0% alcohol stuff?

[Wickerman]

It is not just that Macnaghten did not mention Druitt's dismissal, but the fact that he evidently was unaware that Druitt was a school teacher.

Had he known of Druitt's dismissal, then he could hardly have thought that he was a doctor.

Druitt was a solicitor/Lawyer by profession (called to the Bar, in 1885), the teaching position was only part-time wasn't it?

[Wickerman]

It has been reported that Druitt was dismissed on 30 November, which was a Friday.

When you say 'reported', do you mean it is in writing somewhere?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

PI, there are only so many times that I can reasonably be expected to repeat the same points.

It’s entirely possible, and not at all far-fetched, that when passing on the private information that person might have mentioned Druitt’s occupation (although it can’t be a certainty). It’s also entirely possible that there was a quite considerable gap of time between this passing on of information and the time that Macnaghten decided to write his memorandum. A gap of time might easily have resulted in Macnaghten misremembering Druitt’s profession and the suggested ‘doctor’ is even more understandable considering Druitt’s father. It’s also worth pointing out that a brief mention of his job as a barrister would have paled into insignificance during a conversation where one person is suggesting that another might have been Jack The Ripper!

This ‘doctor’ issue has been blown out of all proportion over the years. Unless someone could suggest that Macnaghten was talking about someone other than Druitt, and they can’t, then what does it matter? It’s a triviality. To be honest I’m tired of hearing it being used in desperation.

I have read through your reply carefully, but I cannot see anything in it that addresses my main point, which was:

If he knew his occupation, then he must have known that he was dismissed.

This is not a trivial matter.

Macnaghten does not mention the dismissal and evidently did not know that Druitt was a schoolmaster.

Had he known that, then he would hardly have thought that he was a doctor.


I have no idea what you mean by 'desperation'.

Perhaps you would explain.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

When you say 'reported', do you mean it is in writing somewhere?

On Friday 30 November 1888, Druitt was dismissed from his post at the Blackheath boys' school.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montague_Druitt

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Druitt was a solicitor/Lawyer by profession (called to the Bar, in 1885), the teaching position was only part-time wasn't it?

Yes.

He was a barrister, not a solicitor.

I suppose you could say both positions were part-time.

But his legal position has no known bearing on the case, whereas his teaching position does.

And not only does Macnaghten not mention his dismissal from it, but he thinks Druitt is a doctor.

Had he known that Druitt was dismissed from his teaching post, then he would have known he was a teacher.

Therefore Macnaghten could hardly have known about the dismissal.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have read through your reply carefully, but I cannot see anything in it that addresses my main point, which was:

If he knew his occupation, then he must have known that he was dismissed.

This is not a trivial matter.

Macnaghten does not mention the dismissal and evidently did not know that Druitt was a schoolmaster.

Had he known that, then he would hardly have thought that he was a doctor.


I have no idea what you mean by 'desperation'.

Perhaps you would explain.

I’ll be absolutely honest here PI, I really can’t make my mind up if you’re simply making these points to get some kind of ‘reaction’ because no matter how clearly or how often I explain things you keep repeating the same points as if I haven’t posted anything.

You keep repeating ‘if he knew his occupation…” Well he clearly didn’t know his occupation because he said that he was a doctor. So why keep making the ‘if he knew his occupation’ point? It’s not valid.

The point that I also made in regard to this is that……if there was a gap of time between him receiving the information and him writing his memo (and yes, I’m only making a suggestion here) this might explain why Macnaghten misremembered the actual occupation of this son of a doctor.

What I mean by desperation is that the whole point about Macnaghten getting Druitt’s occupation is a fairly trivial,one and yet it’s raised as if Macnaghten was some kind of pathological liar. People make errors of memory all the time. It doesn’t mean that nothing that they say can ever be trusted.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Right, so you're thinking the Friday must have been the closest one to the purchase of the ticket?
Some have suggested this also, yet others think "since yesterday' would have been more appropriate, if he wrote it the next day.

Some suicide victims do not kill themselves at a first attempt, they loose confidence, and try again a day or so later, or a third time perhaps.
In such a case the 'since Friday' is a Friday several days before perhaps over a week, or more?

I have to admit to being rusty on ‘Druitt’ details Wick. I might have to try and fit in a bit of reading up over the weekend. I don’t have any fixed ideas though.

William said that he had been contacted by Monty’s friends on the 11th to say that they hadn’t seen him for a week. So this suggests that he was last seen alive around December 4th, which was a Tuesday. Obviously that meant that the next Friday was the 7th. Which would have meant him being in the water for 3 weeks.

Your point about failed attempts is a good one though Wick. I was going to suggest ‘ maybe he’d been sacked because he’d attempted suicide at the school’ but then I thought ‘how could he have done it without leaving physical evidence that would have shown up at the inquest?’ Maybe a cleaner found a suicide note? Yeah, I’m pushing it now.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You keep repeating ‘if he knew his occupation…” Well he clearly didn’t know his occupation because he said that he was a doctor. So why keep making the ‘if he knew his occupation’ point? It’s not valid.

Of course it is valid.

The reason I have been making that point is that it means that Macnaghten could hardly have known about the dismissal.

The suggestion you made in # 189 - 'Perhaps they had just told Macnaghten that ‘he’d recently been sacked from his job,’ without mentioning that it was at a school?' - would imply that Macnaghten thought that Druitt had been struck off the medical register.

Do you find that plausible?

In that case, one could reasonably expect Macnaghten to have written that Druitt was said to have been a doctor who had been struck off, rather than just a doctor of good family.

Would you not therefore agree with me that it is most unlikely that Macnaghten knew of the dismissal?

What I mean by desperation is that the whole point about Macnaghten getting Druitt’s occupation is a fairly trivial,one ...

Can we take it then that your comment about desperation is not directed at me?