Reasons why?

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

You're too late.

[Wickerman]

And if Herlock is smart he will refuse to accept the baton and will instead head to the sidelines to drink beer.

c.d.

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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If he had been told his occupation (not a certainty) he might simply have misremembered. Why is this such an issue? It’s a trivial detail.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Sorry PI, but you’ve ignored my last post where I made a suggestion on this point.

We keep going over this PI. We don’t know what gap of time occurred between Macnaghten hearing the info and him writing the memorandum. It might have been months. If he had been told his occupation (not a certainty) he might simply have misremembered. Why is this such an issue? It’s a trivial detail.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I just think if the official estimate was correct we must dismiss 30 Nov...

Why?

[Wickerman]

It said “since Friday..” and nothing more. There is absolutely nothing the could preclude a longer standing problem which culminated with him deciding on the Friday that he was going to commit suicide. All else is conjecture. When we are faced with an unknown as we clearly are here why can’t you simply accept it? It’s not a sign of weakness to admit that there are things that we simply have no way of knowing but you are reluctant to do so. I’m not.

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.