Upon what basis did the Druitt family suspect Montague?

[jason_c]

The Oxford Dictionary defines if as meaning 'feeble' or 'effeminate'. I can't see any justification for applying either adjective to MJD. He may have been so, but I see no evidence that he was.

Regards, Bridewell.

I haven't had time to read all the thread but I agree. I don't know where the idea that Druitt was effeminate has come from. There's no mention of him being that way. In fact being such a good sportsman suggests Druitt was not(though it does not exclude the possibility).

[Robert]

Monty may have been gay. I don't dispute that. But i don't infer his gayness from his photo, or from his love of sport. Now, if he came out to bat wearing a bonnet and dress....

[Wickerman]

His season ticket from Blackheath to London, presumably to get to his chambers at Kings Bench Walk, might indicate he had no rooms in his chambers to sleep. He lived at the school, which should suggest this teaching position was his full-time job - puzzling.
(Rumors have suggested that some barristers did in fact sleep on occasion in their chambers.)

Doesn't the "2nd half return from Hammersmith to Charring Cross" suggest that the journey from Charring Cross back to Hammersmith was never undertaken?
I'm querying the description because the ticket was dated Dec 1st, but Hammersmith is nearer to Chiswick so if we assume Druitt killed himself on the Saturday (1st) near Chiswick, then we should expect to see the unused portion of a return ticket from Charring Cross to Hammersmith still on his person, instead it is the other way round. (But, why buy a return ticket if you are about to kill yourself?)
This ticket therefore must have nothing to do with his suicide - therefore, no reason to believe he killed himself on Saturday.

Oh so complex....

Regards, Jon S.

[Monty]

Hello Neil. Thanks.

"The 'Kosminski thing' being?"

Shocked. That's what I am, shocked. (heh-heh)

Seriously, before the chicken can be cooked for dinner, it must be properly choked. (heh-heh) And Aaron knew how by all accounts.

Cheers.
LC

Ah, you are referring to the old cannard.

Monty


PS Nice article in this months Rip by the way. First time I've read the translation in full. Good stuff.

[Sally]

Monty may have been gay. I don't dispute that. But i don't infer his gayness from his photo, or from his love of sport. Now, if he came out to bat wearing a bonnet and dress....

... we might infer that he was a transvestite. It still wouldn't tell us whether he was a homosexual. Of course, if he was gay, he'd be very unllikely to be the Ripper, historically.

If that were the case, perhaps we could rule him out....

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Neil. Thank you very much indeed!

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

It is telling that the attempts to refute druitt's effeteness and the abrupt nature of his dismissal pointedly ignore inconvenient pieces of evidence and put up straw men and knock down arguments that have not been made.
Effete does not just mean effeminate. It has a more subtle meaning.
Or it brushes away inconvenient evidence such as the 'sexually insane' claim.
Flashman was also a womaniser bridewell and his later pictorial repressentation is not as an effete wimp - unlike druitt's deliberate representation of himself.

[Stephen Thomas]

Flashman was also a womaniser bridewell and his later pictorial repressentation is not as an effete wimp - unlike druitt's deliberate representation of himself.

Lovely stuff. Ain't Casebook marvellous.

[Lechmere]

I aim to please

[Robert]

I see, so Druitt deliberately represented himself to be an effete wimp.

I give up.

[Wickerman]

If that were the case, perhaps we could rule him out....

The homosexual 'crutch' is what many prefer to lean on....

[Lechmere]

He deliberately postured in a manner that I have no difficulty in characterising as an effete wimp. I do not doubt that druitt imagined he was creating a different image - a thoughtful, sensitive, soft hearted man.
If you fail to understand that druitt deliberately chose to pose in that manner to represent his personality, and if you fail to recognise effeteness in those images, then you may as well give up.
(I have made no mention of his physical characteristics such as how close his eyes were or whether he had lumps on his cranium).

[Phil H]

In drawing his conclusions from Druitt's photographs, Lechmere is being anachronistic.

In 1888, photographs were a serious form of portraiture and people did indeed "pose" for them - as they would have for an artist at an easel.

What should not be forgotten was that the same period was the age of the "poseur" when men did want to (and seek to) appear languid - in the style of Wilde. But even before dear Oscar, the idea that men of the upper classes (or who wished to the thought of in the same backet) should be seen not to be active, to be unworldly, elegant etc etc was prevalent. It said nothing about them as men - it was simply a reflection of the taste of the period.

It was as Wilde put it "an age of surfaces" where it was perception, not reality, that mattered.

one also has to remember that it was a period when demeanour, stance, gesture and dress meant far more than it does today. Look at thye theatre - irving's Lyceum (where Mansfield was putting on Jeykll exactly at that time) melodrama was the style - and that depended on a sort of unreality, a heightened emotionalism that we would see as shallow and unreal, but which the Victorian's loved. Just as there was a language of flowers, so there was a language of gesture (think of ballet today) in which a raised arm - above shoulder height - meant one thing, a lowered hand another. Druitt and his photographer were men of that era.

I would be interested to know what conclusions Lechmere would draw from the picture of Annie Chapman and her husband around the time of their marriage? How do you read them?

Sorry Lechmere, but if allegations of the sort about Druitt are to be made, they need to be made with a deeper understanding of the period and a more insightful perception of the aim of photography then.

Phil H

[Lechmere]

Sorry phil
I am only only contributor to his discussion who does understand that people in that period chose to portray themselves in photographs in the manner in which they wanted their personality to be captured.
You seem to think there was only one type if posture that was photgraphically en vogue. There were many options available as I mentioned in an earlier post.
Druitt self consciously chose the effete posture. His photographs are very self conscious.
I recommend you study a variety of late victorian photographic portraits. Druitt's is indeed somewhat reminiscent of some famous Oscar Wilde portraits - which were not typical of the age. Just as Oscar Wilde was not typical of his age. If it were then no doubt druitt wouldn't have felt comPelled to commit suicide.

[jason_c]

In drawing his conclusions from Druitt's photographs, Lechmere is being anachronistic.

In 1888, photographs were a serious form of portraiture and people did indeed "pose" for them - as they would have for an artist at an easel.

What should not be forgotten was that the same period was the age of the "poseur" when men did want to (and seek to) appear languid - in the style of Wilde. But even before dear Oscar, the idea that men of the upper classes (or who wished to the thought of in the same backet) should be seen not to be active, to be unworldly, elegant etc etc was prevalent. It said nothing about them as men - it was simply a reflection of the taste of the period.

It was as Wilde put it "an age of surfaces" where it was perception, not reality, that mattered.

one also has to remember that it was a period when demeanour, stance, gesture and dress meant far more than it does today. Look at thye theatre - irving's Lyceum (where Mansfield was putting on Jeykll exactly at that time) melodrama was the style - and that depended on a sort of unreality, a heightened emotionalism that we would see as shallow and unreal, but which the Victorian's loved. Just as there was a language of flowers, so there was a language of gesture (think of ballet today) in which a raised arm - above shoulder height - meant one thing, a lowered hand another. Druitt and his photographer were men of that era.

I would be interested to know what conclusions Lechmere would draw from the picture of Annie Chapman and her husband around the time of their marriage? How do you read them?

Sorry Lechmere, but if allegations of the sort about Druitt are to be made, they need to be made with a deeper understanding of the period and a more insightful perception of the aim of photography then.

Phil H

Completely off topic Phil, but your mention of Irving and the Lyceum Theatre reminded me of this P.G. Wodehouse quote.

Lady Glossop: "One of my most treasured memories is of Irving playing Hamlet at the Lyceum"
Bertie: "Really? Who won?"