Upon what basis did the Druitt family suspect Montague?

[Jonathan H]

Doctors and Lawyers

A surgeon in 1899 is still a more prestigious position than a barrister-special pleader.

Therefore the Vicar is still contradicting himself by upgrading the Ripper to 'at one time a surgeon', in his interview with the reporter.

Yet why has he stopped being a surgeon? How odd.

On another aspect of when the family knew, or believed they knew:

I wonder if there was a suicide note at all found among Druitt's belongings at the school.

I realized this has been postulated before.

Other sources claim that there was such a note for the headmaster, George Valentine. But he had a brother (another William) who was on the cricket club board which sacked Montie for being abroad. This happened on the 21st of Dec.

Why would you sack a man if he had written a note alluding to suicide? That a tragedy was in the offing?

I wonder if the note to the Head was not the same as the one [he may] have left with the club: suddenly abroad and thus was sacked from both for the same reason. He may even have been sacked from the school on Dec 30th as they could not wait any longer (though the way it is worded the brother arrives and discovers he has been sacked, thus more likely to have been Dec 13th, eg. William's arrival date).

William Druitt had shown up at the school and was a total loss as to why his brother was suddenly abroad.

Nobody seems to have contacted the police, or assumed foul play.

According to the veiled version of this story in Sims the friends already suspected the worst the moment the doctor is missing. In fact, their suspicions predate his going missing because of his previous diagnosis in an asylum as a homicidal maniac (though he only wants to kill harlots).

In the veiled version it is a cluster of doctors: physicians diagnosing a fellow physician.

In reality it is a barrister and a solicitor, and they are brothers (and the friend who tipped William off is sufficiently familiar with Montie's legal chambers to work out that he is AWOL (was that another lawyer?).

By the inquest, it can be [provisionally] argued that William lied about their being no other living relatives (and therefore may have had to lie about being tipped off by a 'friend'), and about when he had last seen his late sibling, and that he was only recently teaching in a school.

Did he make up that allusive, half-hearted suicide note too?

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

In the veiled version the 'friends' are in a state of panic. Understandably since their pal's previous diagnosis should have seen them contacting Scotland Yard, or the asylum, the moment the first victim was found.

[caz]

No Druitt talked to the MP because, for one thing, they would not have got the timeline wrong, and might have felt some residual loyalty not to tell other people about their secret-tragedy.

But even the most closely held secrets leak. As this did in Dorset in 1891, where Vicar Charles lived, not William.

But Jonathan, you argued that the Druitts 'in the know' would have been under severe stress, running round like headless chickens in their efforts to prevent anyone getting wind of the truth, yet at least one family member apparently talked openly about it to whoever passed the info on to Mac, and a Druitt vicar is meant to have given the Daily Mail the truth in fictional form - for as yet unaccountable reasons.

Going abroad in the context of the cricket club minutes means being literally abroad -- it's not a euphemism for anything in that context and attempts to show otherwise have been terminally weak.

Only in your not so humble opinion. It would not even have been a euphemism, since Monty really had gone 'abroad' in the sense of being 'at large', his whereabouts unknown at the time of writing. It would have been incorrect to record that he had literally gone overseas, because none of them knew any such thing. They would have qualified such a statement with 'it is believed that...'.

Who on earth is going to check a local paper about such a tragedy if William said he was the only living relative along with mother?

With respect, I think you are missing the point here. Robert put it better than I could, but I too can't see William perjuring himself at the inquest over this. Can you see any reason why he would claim no other living relatives, and then have to lie again to stop the first lie being exposed?

The Vicar said do not reveal my name as it reveals the name of the deceased. The press had to be careful because of the potential to be sued for libeling the living.

Hang on, that's rather misleading isn't it? That's not literally what was said. You are trying to imply that he told the press his name was Druitt and asked them not to reveal it because the ripper's name was also Druitt. That's surely a leap too far. The reason given for holding back the vicar's identity was so that it could not give away who had made the confession. Big difference. We cannot infer they must have had the same surname.

In any case, neither the vicar nor the Mail could have been accused of libel, if the latter had gone against the former's wishes and printed his name. A confession is just that - a confession. Claiming that a dead man confessed to being the ripper is light years from alleging he was the ripper, or alleging that family members knew and had covered for him. At worst, the vicar believed the confession was a truthful one and passed the information on to the press.

If it's Montie then the implication of the priest and/or Vicar's bizarre and risky actions is that it was the wish of the deceased and these clerics, or one, felt morally obligated.

Morally obligated to get the truth out there, but in fictitious form?? How does that work? What possible good could that have done anyone's soul?

Love,

Caz
X

[Jonathan H]

Could the date: Dec 30th be correct after all?

To Caz

That's not bad for you, only one snide remark.

As usual you do not deal with the core of my argument, which I won't repeat. Suffice it is so say that I did not expect you to. Nobody ever does.

Except Simon Wood who postulates that the similarities are caused by the Vicar being simply a made-up figure, a tabloid invention, which he may well be.

Secrets leak. Even the most worst, more closely guarded secrets leak.

Check out the new doco 'West of Memphis' for a modern example of how a family secret about multiple murder is never supposed to get out, yet does through human frailty-error and bad luck.

I agree that the Vicar's name may not be Druitt. I have said so often.

Yet the Vicar was anxious for it not to be published as it could lead to the identification of the murderer.

Sims writes that it is the Vicar who actually heard the confession. Who told him that?

Charles Druitt's parish has a similar name to the name ascribed to the Vicar's article, and he became Vicar in 1891 just as the secret about his cousin leaks in Dorset, not London or Bournemouth.

The leak comes from Dorset when Charles has become a Vicar, and in 1899 a 'North Country' Vicar is now telling the story more explicitly -- yet openly semi-fictionalised.

This is within a couple of weeks of Major Griffiths doing the same thing, though covertly.

That's quite a series of coincidences, though such things, liked leaked secrets, happen too.

That William lied at the inquest is not proven. But make sense that if Charles Druitt is an honest clergyman who would never lie, and whose existence needed to be nullfied.

You could claim later that the paper -- and only one mentions it -- got it wrong.

I doubt the 'press coverage' even occured to William.

Re: Druitt being sacked for going abroad.

The message may come from Montie himself, since he was not abroad but was attempting to hide his own suicide, or at least its timing and location.

We always assume that the date Dec 30th is a mistake by the reporter and perhaps it is.

That it really referred to Nov 30th when he was sacked, or Dec 13th when the brother arrived at the school.

The sentence can be read both ways, for sure.

But what if the date is correct after all?

William Druitt arrived at the school on the day before his brother's body surfaced in the Thames.

The usual objection is that it is way too long for him to get to the school.

Here is where the minutes of the cricket club can help.

Why would you write gone abroad if you already knew, via Valentin's brother, that the young man was missing, presumed a suicide.

You would not sack a deceased person.

Yet supposedly the note at the school had been found by then, 'alluding' to suicide.

That doesn't really fit.

What if in being told on the 11th that his brother was missing from his London chambers William simply inquired -- at arms length -- as to why, and was told your brother left a message that he had gone abroad.

This might have been puzzling but not necessarily alarming. It would mean that initially he was not 'missing', just his exact location unknown

It was only when the clan, or whomever, gathered for Christmas that William became alarmed that nobody, including himself, had heard anything from Montie.

Or as the days passed and no word was heard, William conferred with somebody who told him that Montie was the Ripper.

Which ever, he arrived at the school on the 30th to discover that his brother had been dismissed exactly as with the cricket club; because he was abroad and thus AWOL.

William found two letters. One to himself and one to Valentine.

This is what a number of 1889 sources report: two notes alluding to suicide.

All other reports do not bother with his dismissal because, perhaps, it was a redundant detail-mistake, eg. George Valentine did not know why Montague was abroad but he had to get the next semester up and running, and then, tragically he did know when a worried William showed up, on Dec 30th, and searched his brother's belongings.

The head had not searched those belongings because, they were not his, and he 'though he knew' that Montague was inconveniently overseas, but he had not sent them on because he knew of no forwarding address.

[Jonathan H]

The gap?

To Sum up ...

This new sub-theory argues that the primary source which claims that William Druitt did not arrive at the school until the day before the body surfaced is correct.

William on the 11th was told his brother was missing. He found out he was supposedly abroad.

On the 30th he arrived at the school, found out that Montie had been sacked for being AWOL (as with the cricket club) and a few days later, at the inquest, claimed he had found a suicide note among his belongings.

A note which conveniently, if awkwardly, linked his brother's self-murder with that of the madness of their mother -- whom he also claimed their only living relative.

What William Druitt seems to have left out of his inquest testimony is that gap between the 11th and the 30th when he became suitably alarmed by something, or someone, or something he was told, that his brother might not be abroad at all -- or if he was it was for reasons of the worst kind of criminal activities.

Here is the missing middle from the veiled version by Sims:

Feb 1902

' ... At the time his dead body was found in the Thames, his friends, who were terrified at his disappearance from their midst, were endeavouring to have him found and placed under restraint again.'

Sept. 1907

' ... After the maniacal murder in Miller's-court the doctor disappeared from the place in which he had been living, and his disappearance caused inquiries to be made concerning him by his friends who had, there is reason to believe, their own suspicions about him, and these inquiries were made through the proper authorities.'

And Macnaghten's carefully phrased and compressed version in 1914. In which the Ripper's nearest and dearest, presumably his family,

'... I incline to the belief that the individual who held up London in terror resided with his own people ; that he absented himself from home at certain times, and that he committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888, after he had knocked out a Commissioner of Police and very nearly settled the hash of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State.'

I am arguing that this gives us a glimpse into the gap in the inquest testimony; the interregnum between the 11th and the 30th, in which William Druitt, perhaps wrongly, came to believe that his brother, abroad or not, was the fiend.

[RivkahChaya]

...he committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888, after he had knocked out a Commissioner of Police and very nearly settled the hash of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State.

Wait...what?

[Jonathan H]

I presume you mean: is Macnaghten suggesting that the Ripper literally assaulted a police commissioner?

The answer is no.

Having denied himself the Thames River climax by extending the gap between the final and self-murder by twenty-four hours -- if not longer -- and thus ruining the MP/Sims' 'incriminating' timeline, Macnaghten had to end on some kind of dramatic note.

He chose, melodraamtically and inaccurately -- and he knew it -- to blame [the un-named] Druitt for causing the resignation of Commissioner Sir Charles Warren and nearly bringing down Home Sec. Henry Matthews too.

There was a writer on the Ripper in the 30's -- Woodhall I think? -- who also mistook these lines as literally true.

I also believe that when Douglas Browne came to finish the book on the history of Scotland Yard, in the 50's, he also misunderstood (or had not read) Mac's memoirs and thought that what the latter had written, in the very last line, was about how the Ripper was plotting to kill a sec. of state.

Knowing of only one such plot, an Irish one against the Irish Sec. Balfour, he wrote words to the effect: that Macnaghten identifies the fiend with the leader of a plot against Balfour.

Sources like that which stick out like Kong's sore thumb need to be treated with the greatest of caution.

Rather than the standard theory that Macnaghten actually identified a Ripper suspect with the plot against Balfour -- because Browne supposedly found it in classfied files we cannot access -- it is more likely that he made the same error you just did.

There is textual evidence to back this up. The page in Browne's book the quote is taken from shows that he was blithely unaware that Macnaghten and his successor were not in disagreement , as he claims, about the Ripper allegedly being a man who took his own life.

Nobody agrees with this revisionist take on this point. But then I'm always wrong about everything.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Jonathan,

William found two letters. One to himself and one to Valentine.

This is what a number of 1889 sources report: two notes alluding to suicide.

I didn't know that. Which 1889 sources and what did they say?

Roy

[Jonathan H]

How many suicide notes?

To Roy

Perhaps it was just one note, or no note at all -- as we are dependent on William Druitt filtered through a sloppy journalist.

Far from ideal.

Nevertheless, from 'The Echo' Jan 3rd, 1889 (thanks again to Chris Phillips):

'A Barrister's Suicide'

'An inquiry was yesterday held by Dr. Diplock of Chiswick, rspecting the death of Montague John Druitt, 31 years of age, who was found drowned in the Thames. The deceased was identified by his brother, William Harvey Druitt, a solicitor, rsiding at Bournemouth who stated that the deceased was a barrister-at-law, but had lately been an assistant at a school at lackheath. The deceased had left a letter, addressed to Mr. Valentine of the school, in which he alluded to suicide. A paper had also been found upon which the deceased had written, "Since Friday I have felt as if I was going to be like mother," who had been mentally afflicted. Evidence having been given as to discovering deceased in the Thames -- upon his body were found a cheque for 60 [pounds] and 16 [pounds] in gold -- the jury returned a verdict of "Suicide whilst of unsound mind".

In the version above Druitt has been a barrister but has seemingly only recently become a school teacher. A suicide note was left with his employer and another just found, though no mention is made of iot being for the brother.

Two suicide notes, and a mad mother in the background, can get the inquiry wrapped up quick smart.

It's almost overkill?

A fedw days later:

Southern GuardianEngland
Saturday, 5th January 1889

'SAD DEATH OF A LOCAL BARRISTER.
The Echo of Thursday night says : — "An inquiry was on Wednesday held by Dr. Diplock, at Chiswick, respecting the death of Montague John Druitt, 31 years of age, who was found drowned in the Thames. The deceased was identified by his brother, Mr. William Harvey Druitt, a solicitor residing at Bournemouth, who stated that the deceased was a barrister-at-law, but had lately been an assistant at a school at Blackheath. The deceased had left a letter, addressed to Mr. Valentine, of the school, in which he alluded to suicide. Evidence having been given as to discovering deceased in the Thames — upon his body were found a cheque for £60 and £16 in gold — the Jury returned a verdict of "Suicide whilst of unsound mind."

The deceased gentleman was well known and much respected in this neighbourhood. He was a barrister of bright talent, he had a promising future before him, and his untimely end is deeply deplored.

The funeral took place in Wimborne cemetery on Thursday afternoon, and the body was followed to the grave by the deceased's relatives and a few friends, including Mr. W.H. Druitt, Mr. Arthur Druitt, Rev. C. H. Druitt, Mr. J. Druitt, sen., Mr. J. Druitt, jun., Mr. J.T. Homer, and Mr. Wyke-Smith. The funeral service was read by the vicar of die Minster, Wimborne, the Rev. F.J. Huyshe, assisted by the Rev. Plater.

Here is the only version which seems to have been witnessed, in this case by the reporter local to the area -- and who manages to forget to mention Montague's name:

Acton, Chiswick & Turnham Green GazetteUnited Kingdom
Saturday, 5 January 1889

'FOUND DROWNED. — Shortly after mid-day on Monday, a waterman named Winslade, of Chiswick, found the body of a man, well-dressed, floating in the Thames off Thorneycroft's. He at once informed a constable, and without delay the body was conveyed on the ambulance to the mortuary. — On Wednesday afternoon, Dr. Diplock, coroner, held the inquest at the Lamb Tap, when the following evidence was adduced:- William H. Druitt said he lived at Bournemouth, and that he was a solicitor. The deceased was his brother, who was 31 last birthday. He was a barrister-at-law, and an assistant master in a school at Blackheath.

That's correct.


'He had stayed with witness at Bournemouth for a night towards the end of October. Witness heard from a friend on the 11th of December that deceased had not been heard of at his chambers for more than a week. Witness then went to London to make inquiries, and at Blackheath he found that deceased had got into serious trouble at the school, and had been dismissed. That was on the 30th of December. Witness had deceased's things searched where he resided, and found a paper addressed to him (produced). — The Coroner read the letter, which was to this effect:-"Since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother, and the best thing was for me to die."

— Witness, continuing, said deceased had never made any attempt on his life before. His mother became insane in July last. He had no other relative. — Henry Winslade was the next witness. He said he lived at No. 4, Shore-street, Paxton-road, and that he was a waterman. About one o'clock on Monday he was on the river in a boat, when he saw the body floating. The tide was at half flood, running up. He brought the body ashore, and gave information to the police.-P.C. George Moulson, 216T, said he had searched the body, which was fully dressed excepting the hat and collar. He found four large stones in each pocket in the top coat; £2 10s. in gold, 7s. in silver, 2d. in bronze, two cheques on the London and Provincial Bank (one for £50 and the other for £16), a first-class season pass from Blackheath to London (Southwestern Railway), a second half return Hammersmith to Charing Cross (dated 1st December), a silver watch, gold chain with a spade guinea attached, a pair of kid gloves, and a white handkerchief. There were no papers or letters of any kind. There were no marks of injury on the body, but it was rather decomposed. — A verdict of suicide whilst in an unsound state of mind was returned.'

Here is Druitt's home region's version a few days later, essentially a regurgitation of 'The Echo':

Dorset Chronicle (U.K.)
Thursday, 10 January 1889


'DISTRESSING OCCURRENCE'

'We regret to hear of the sad death of Mr. M. J. Druitt, a barrister of this circuit, and son of Mr. Druitt, of Wimborne. An enquiry into the circumstances attending his death was held by Dr. Diplock at Chiswick, on Wednesday, deceased having been found drowned in the Thames near that place. The deceased was identified by his brother, Mr. William Harvey Druitt, a solicitor, residing at Bournemouth, who stated that the deceased was a barrister-at-law, but had lately been an assistant at a school at Blackheath. The deceased had left a letter, addressed to Mr. Valentine, of the school, in which he alluded to suicide. A paper had also been found upon which the deceased had written, "Since Friday, I have felt as if I was going to be like mother," who had for some months been mentally afflicted. Evidence having been given as to discovering deceased in the Thames - upon his body were found a cheque for £50 and £16 in gold - the jury returned a verdict of "Suicide whilst of unsound mind." The funeral took place at Wimborne on Thursday. Deceased was a prominent member of the Kingston Park Cricket Club, and as such was well known in the county.'

Two days later the detail about the brother getting a note too has fallen away.

Hampshire Advertiser (UK)
Saturday, 12 January 1889

CHRISTCHURCH, Jan. 12.
SAD DEATH OF A BARRISTER.

'An inquiry was held last week by Mr. Diplock, at Chiswick, respecting the death of Montague John Druitt, 31 years of age, who was found drowned in the Thames. The deceased was identified by his brother, Mr. Wm. Harvey Druitt, a solicitor residing at Bournemouth who stated that the deceased was a barrister-at-law, but had lately been an assistant at a school at Blackheath. The deceased had left a letter, addressed to Mr. Valentine, of the school, in which he alluded to suicide. Evidence having been given as to discovering deceased in the Thames - upon him was found a cheque for £50 and £16 in gold - the jury returned a verdict of suicide whilst of "unsound mind." The deceased gentleman was well-known and much respected in this neighbourhood. The funeral took place in Wimborne Cemetery on Thursday afternoon, and the body was followed to the grave by deceased’s relatives and a few friends, including Mr. W. H. Druitt, Mr. Arthur Druitt, Rev. C. H. Druitt, Mr. J Druitt, sen., Mr. J. Druitt, jun., Mr. J. T. Homer, and Mr. Wyke-Smith. The funeral service was read by the Vicar of the Minster, Wimborne, the Rev. F. J. Huyshe, assisted by the Rev. W. E. Plater.

I think that ther serious trouble' was a note left behind saying I'm off abroad, sorry, and this got him sacked from the school and the cricket cub, who would not do that to a man who was off to kill himself -- suggesting that the note, or notes, had not been found until afterwards.

After he was sacked from the club on the 21st, the brother arrived at the school on the 30th -- just as the article says.

At the inquest William claimed to then find a note to himself alluding to his brother taking his own life. The next day the body surfaced.

Other newspapers deleted this point about the dismissal because it was redundant, eg. based on a misunderstanding; they were dealing with a poor person who was mentally unbalanced and thus not really abroad.

[Jonathan H]

For completion, here are the other 1889 accounts:

The following source has been used as evidence of how Macnaghten could know about Druitt having a season train ticket (though it does not describe from where to where?) and why he wrongly thought Montague was about 40 years of age (Mac writes about 41 in 'Aberconway'), and that he lived not at the school but with family (eg. '... resided with his own people ...').


Thames Valley Times
United Kingdom

Wednesday Evening 2nd January 1889

'BODY FOUND IN THE THAMES OFF THORNEYCROFT'S On Monday the body of a gentleman was found by Henry Winslade, waterman, in the Thames, off Thorneycroft's Wharf, and has since been identified by a season ticket and certain papers. Deceased was not a resident of the district, and the body had been in the water nearly a month. Deceased was about forty years of age, and the brother of a gentleman living at Bournemouth. The Coroner was acquainted with the fact that the remains had been removed to the mortuary, and an inquest will be held today.'

This was is also from the 5th of Jan, and contains a somewhat different version of the summarizing the suicide note:

Richmond and Twickenham Times

United Kingdom
5th January 1889

SUICIDE WHILST INSANE

Dr. Diplock on Wednesday held an inquest at the "Lamb Tap" on the body of Montague John Druitt, aged 31, whose body was recovered from the Thames off Thorneycrofts' Wharf, on Monday, by a waterman named Henry Winslade. The pockets of the deceased, who was a stranger to the district were found filled with stones, and after a letter had been read in which he wrote to the effect that "what he intended to do would be the best for all parties," the jury returned a verdict of "Suicide by drowning whilst temporarily insane."

Only the source, the 'Acton, Chiswick, and Turnham Green Gazette' on Jan 5th mentions the brother's claim that he was trying to find his missing sibling, which becomes the frantic pals of Sims' fictionalsied version in the 1900's.

Arguably this is the textual evidence that Macnaghten did know -- as he claimed that he knew in 1913 and 1914 -- the important and accurate particulars of his chief suspect.

Either Macnaghten, at a minimum, read this 1889 article as we can, or the hands-on adminsitrator -- who could work alone on big cases -- met with family members, or a family member.

Either way, this would have told him that Montague was a 31-year old barrister who killed himself three weeks after the Kelly murder.

[caz]

Yet the Vicar was anxious for it not to be published as it could lead to the identification of the murderer.

Hi Jonathan,

This is what I don't get. Why would a bona fide vicar have felt obliged to go to the papers with this at all? If Monty had confessed to him and asked him to reveal the truth ten years down the line (which in itself would seem rather extraordinary for anyone suicidal), and he felt an obligation to do so, would he not have consulted a solicitor first, or perhaps a trusted family member?

I still can't see any point in giving the papers a story that in fact didn't reveal the truth to the reading public, but a fictionalised account that could not be used to prove or disprove anything. Was it really Monty's wish, during his confession, that the vicar would provide the staff at the Daily Mail with information that could lead them to identify the murderer, while asking them not to publish it? It all sounds terribly unlikely and to no purpose apart from titillating the readers with something essentially bogus.

Re: Druitt being sacked for going abroad.

The message may come from Montie himself, since he was not abroad but was attempting to hide his own suicide, or at least its timing and location.

This is all back to front. You invent this message suggesting Monty was literally abroad, but reject two notes from him alluding to suicide, and brush aside the fact that he went into the river with identity on him in the form of a season ticket and two cheques. How is that trying to hide his own suicide?

Here is where the minutes of the cricket club can help.

Only if you have no feel for Victorian English and insist on your own interpretation of 'gone abroad'.

Why would you write gone abroad if you already knew, via Valentin's brother, that the young man was missing, presumed a suicide.

Well quite. If you only knew he was missing, you could only write 'gone abroad' in the sense of 'gone missing'. You wouldn't write it in the sense of 'left the country' unless you knew that to be the case.

William found two letters. One to himself and one to Valentine.

Presumably the one addressed to Valentine was given to Valentine to open and read and it did indeed allude to suicide - in which case, how was this part of Monty's plan to hide his true intentions? For all he knew his belongings could have been checked and both notes read within hours of him absenting himself.

Or are you suggesting William forged both notes and tricked Valentine into believing he had found them among his brother's possessions?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Southern GuardianEngland
Saturday, 5th January 1889

'SAD DEATH OF A LOCAL BARRISTER.
The Echo of Thursday night says : — "An inquiry was on Wednesday held by Dr. Diplock, at Chiswick, respecting the death of Montague John Druitt, 31 years of age, who was found drowned in the Thames. The deceased was identified by his brother, Mr. William Harvey Druitt, a solicitor residing at Bournemouth, who stated that the deceased was a barrister-at-law, but had lately been an assistant at a school at Blackheath. The deceased had left a letter, addressed to Mr. Valentine, of the school, in which he alluded to suicide. Evidence having been given as to discovering deceased in the Thames — upon his body were found a cheque for £60 and £16 in gold — the Jury returned a verdict of "Suicide whilst of unsound mind."

The deceased gentleman was well known and much respected in this neighbourhood. He was a barrister of bright talent, he had a promising future before him, and his untimely end is deeply deplored.

The funeral took place in Wimborne cemetery on Thursday afternoon, and the body was followed to the grave by the deceased's relatives and a few friends, including Mr. W.H. Druitt, Mr. Arthur Druitt, Rev. C. H. Druitt, Mr. J. Druitt, sen., Mr. J. Druitt, jun., Mr. J.T. Homer, and Mr. Wyke-Smith. The funeral service was read by the vicar of die Minster, Wimborne, the Rev. F.J. Huyshe, assisted by the Rev. Plater...

...Hampshire Advertiser (UK)
Saturday, 12 January 1889

CHRISTCHURCH, Jan. 12.
SAD DEATH OF A BARRISTER.

'An inquiry was held last week by Mr. Diplock, at Chiswick, respecting the death of Montague John Druitt, 31 years of age, who was found drowned in the Thames. The deceased was identified by his brother, Mr. Wm. Harvey Druitt, a solicitor residing at Bournemouth who stated that the deceased was a barrister-at-law, but had lately been an assistant at a school at Blackheath. The deceased had left a letter, addressed to Mr. Valentine, of the school, in which he alluded to suicide. Evidence having been given as to discovering deceased in the Thames - upon him was found a cheque for £50 and £16 in gold - the jury returned a verdict of suicide whilst of "unsound mind." The deceased gentleman was well-known and much respected in this neighbourhood. The funeral took place in Wimborne Cemetery on Thursday afternoon, and the body was followed to the grave by deceased’s relatives and a few friends, including Mr. W. H. Druitt, Mr. Arthur Druitt, Rev. C. H. Druitt, Mr. J Druitt, sen., Mr. J. Druitt, jun., Mr. J. T. Homer, and Mr. Wyke-Smith. The funeral service was read by the Vicar of the Minster, Wimborne, the Rev. F. J. Huyshe, assisted by the Rev. W. E. Plater.

Still seems a strange thing for William to have claimed no other living relatives (apart from mum), with all those Druitts attending the funeral. There has to be a perfectly innocent and reasonable explanation.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

I'm wondering how William knew that the reporter covering the inquest wasn't from the Times. Did he perhaps speak to him to ascertain which newspaper he represented, before going into the witness box and telling his story? Barrister suicides were covered in the Times - there was one reported in 1883, and that happened in Chelmsford, which isn't even London.

[Paddy]

Lord Canfords ball.

Southern Guardian
England
Saturday, 22 December 1888

ROYAL VISIT TO WIMBORNE
PRINCE ALBERT VICTOR AT CANFORD
GRAND COUNTY BALL AT CANFORD MANOR
Prince Albert Victor was at Canford between Dec 17th and Dec 21st when he left for Sandringham.

On Thursday night (20th Dec 1888) Canford House was en fete on the occasion of a grand country ball given by Lord and Lady Wimborne in honour of the Prince's visit.
Invites included, Druitt, Mrs. and Miss and Mr. Montagu, Wimborne.

I know this has been posted before but does anyone know if that is this Montague John Druitt, also did he attend?
Being near the time of his suicide it could be relevant.

Pat Marshall

[Robert]

Hi Paddy

Yes, it is our Monty and no, he didn't attend, as he didn't want to be a wet blanket and put a damper on the party.

[RivkahChaya]

This is what I don't get. Why would a bona fide vicar have felt obliged to go to the papers with this at all? If Monty had confessed to him and asked him to reveal the truth ten years down the line (which in itself would seem rather extraordinary for anyone suicidal),

Maybe not if he wanted to spare family, which "getting to be like mother" might have been about sparing family having to look after him, but your point is taken.

I still can't see any point in giving the papers a story that in fact didn't reveal the truth to the reading public, but a fictionalised account that could not be used to prove or disprove anything. Was it really Monty's wish, during his confession, that the vicar would provide the staff at the Daily Mail with information that could lead them to identify the murderer, while asking them not to publish it? It all sounds terribly unlikely and to no purpose apart from titillating the readers with something essentially bogus.

Bingo.

This is all back to front. You invent this message suggesting Monty was literally abroad, but reject two notes from him alluding to suicide, and brush aside the fact that he went into the river with identity on him in the form of a season ticket and two cheques. How is that trying to hide his own suicide?

I've always been sort of puzzled by him going into the water with the checks in his pockets, because he could have messed up someone's bookkeeping forever. But, in regards to his identity, he may not have thought his body would ever wash up.

Drowning has got to be a pretty awful way to die, compared to some other ways you could take your own life; I can't help wonder if he chose it in order not to leave a body for people to deal with, as would be the case if he poisoned himself, or shot himself, or hanged himself.