Upon what basis did the Druitt family suspect Montague?

[caz]

1. We do not only have Macnaghten's belief in the notion that the family 'believed' in Montie's culpability for the Whitechapel murders.

That is the breakthrough of Spallek's 2008 identification of the 1891 'West of England' MP.

The notion of Montie as the Ripper came from Dorset in 1891 and was picked up on the local Tory grapevine.

2. It is a straw man -- one of many -- that it is ludicrous that the family would have leaked this ruinous notion.

I agree. Who doesn't agree??

It leaked by accident as secrets do; somebody told somebody they promised not to tell, and it leaked...

...That the MP has the timing of Druitt's death and wrong, and what is more obviously feels zero loyalty to the family to keep his mouth shut, indicates that the secret has not come directly from the family but a disloyal go-between.

So basically, your argument is that Farquhi had a 'notion' that Monty was the ripper, and the Druitt family believed it, because some unnamed, unknown go-between (of unquantifiable reliability or integrity, but undoubted disloyalty and lack of discretion), who had allegedly been let into the secret by a trusting and very unwary family member, blabbed it to him and he passed it on, until it eventually reached Mac's ears.

3. You impose this modernist idea of Druitt as a homosexual or a child molester for which the primary sources provide no evidence, and no suggestion whatsoever.

Quite the contrary some claim he enjoyed strangling and mutilating women.

Like Anderson, Mac could only have thought he knew if he had no proof. There is certainly nothing to suggest that what the family 'leaked', if anything at all, was the equivalent of proof, or even its shadow.

There is no more, or less, evidence for Monty falling from grace because his sexual inclinations or failing mental health got him into serious trouble, than there is for him being a serial mutilator who expressed remorse by confessing then committing suicide.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jonathan H]

To Simon

Once again we must agree to disagree, but I have the highest regard for your analysis and theorising.

To Caz

You are just wrong and there is nothing I can do about it.

The primary sources of the three MP articles shows that there was a leak from the Dorset wing of the Druitt family.

Secrets leak. It's what human beings do.

Uou gnash your teeth about it because it upsets the Mac Magoo Orthodox line, but, again, that's not my fault.

We have primary sources about the posthumous investigation by Mac about Druitt which confirms the veracity of that 1891 leak; that the family 'beleived', rightly or wrongly, that he was the fiend.

Mac put this on file: definitely a sexual maniac which is a lot more than proof's shadow -- and he knew it, as we can see by all the other sources by him on this subect, and sources on his behalf.

No scandalous sacking, no gay sexual allgegations, no tormneted suicide because of going like mother (unless he meant being sectioned for multiple murder). He killed himself because he was Jack the Ripper after suffering some kind of meltdown after Kelly, but he was 'Protean' writes Mac -- again perfectly dovetailing with the other scraps about Montie being normal in court and at the cricket club before he self-murdered.

Your saying that the gay suicide theory is just as valid is demonstably false, but I understand that it must be adhered to, tooth and nail, in the face of the new discoveries or the house of cards, at least for you, collapses.

[caz]

Uou gnash your teeth about it because it upsets the Mac Magoo Orthodox line, but, again, that's not my fault.

I can assure you my teeth remain ungnashed, Jonathan, and like Simon I merely continue to disagree with some - not all - of your own analysis and theorising, regarding Monty's final days and weeks on earth. It's not my fault that you have thus far failed to convince me, Simon and - as you readily admit - almost everyone else, most of whom clearly don't even bother to debate with you any more.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

I suspect it would also have been rare for a boy to say anything about it to his parents, because of the shame of it all coming out and how his classmates might react; fear of not being believed; or giving his parents the trouble of sorting things out with the headmaster or changing schools. That's how so much abuse has gone unnoticed and unpunished over the years. Valentine could have got wind of what was happening, had a quiet word with Monty and let him go, and if a parent had later said anything, at least the matter would have been dealt with.

A friend re-reading Dicken's "Nicholas Nickleby" reminds me that 1888 was only 50 years or so away from the horrors of Dotheboy's Hall and the headmastership of Wackford Squeers (who was based on a real person). Although Dicken's novel brought about change in the worst such instances, and valentine's might have been a very good school, I don't think we should project modern sensibilities back to the late Victorian era.

It is quite possible that quite serious (to modern eyes) cases of improper bevaiour by staff with boys might have been winked at or have a blind eye turned to them. (Even in the 60s, the two resident masters in the boarding house attached to my grammar school - I was not a boarder - were in retrospect hugely suspect figures, yet they were left in that position. Corporal punishment was still widely practised.)

So, IMHO, Druitt would have had to have done something markedly dramatic to warrant removal or sacking and I think we should look elsewhere. Whatever his misdemeanor it was something that appears to have made facing his cricket club associates difficult and the assumption that he had gone abroad suggests scandal. That said, as this was BEFORE the Wilde trial and the reaction to it, I don't see homosexuality as particularly likely - it was the response to that event that caused a social revolution almost overnight in the way male friends acted towards one another.

Phil

[caz]

Hi Phil,

You may well be right in what you say. I certainly think the 'serious trouble at the school' was more than just being absent from it without excuse or explanation. I tend to think it was probably connected with Monty's mental instability, as hinted at in his suicide note to William, although I wouldn't personally rule out the possibility that he was caught 'at it' with someone at the school, male or female. Turning a blind eye was one thing, if there were merely rumours, but more difficult if something was actually witnessed that Valentine could not be seen to tolerate.

I have a brother who is in his fifties and gay, and one of the masters at his school was well known for having "relationships" with pupils. The school only got rid of him in much more recent years when he lost his temper one day with a boy and hit him!

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

I have a brother who is in his fifties and gay, and one of the masters at his school was well known for having "relationships" with pupils. The school only got rid of him in much more recent years when he lost his temper one day with a boy and hit him!

You provide an example of what I have in mind -sexual molestation was alright, but "casual" violence (as opposed to authorised physical punishment) was not!

Absences, long moody, brooding walks perhaps - might have been unacceptable. I seem to recall a view being expressed on Casebook that Druitt might have gone off without permission when he was supposed to be the supervising adult (the only one) at night. That might have been utterly unacceptable. Embezzlement also strikes me as a possibility, especially if Druitt was also purloining funds from the Cricket club - that would have been socially unacceptable.

Being absent might not have been so embarrassing socially, especially if the school did not publicise the cause. Having stolen - and perhaps opened himself to investigation at the club - would have been.

I have no evidence to support the theft idea - simply an alternative.

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Caz

Is that what you think you do?

Debate with me?

You've never done that.

How lucky I am that you bother when others will not.

The key to Druitt's dismissal is that he was dismissed.

How odd that it was not a resignation. Why was he not allowed to resign?

A face-saving resignation which most people would still realize is a dismissal?

The Cricket Club supplies the answer. He was suddenly abroad and had to be dismissed in absentia, otherwise he would have been allowed to resign from that organization too.

He was not missing which would have raised alarm that he had met with trouble or an accident. He had gone abroad.

This was on Dec 21st.

Neither the Druitt brother nor the Valentine brother, the Headmaster, could have yet searched his belongings before that date because they would have found his suicide note (if that is what Montie left behind).

The cricket club are not going to sack a man who may have killed himself.

Not until Dec 30th, so the primary source claims, did William Druitt show up at the school, acutely worried, and the next day his brother's body was recovered in the Thames.

That theory fits the little we have better than Orthodoxy, which tiresomely insists that Druitt was sacked due to scandal -- a homosexual scandal -- and tormented over this, or that he was going insane like his mother, or both, he drowned himself.

[Mayerling]

I suspect it would also have been rare for a boy to say anything about it to his parents, because of the shame of it all coming out and how his classmates might react; fear of not being believed; or giving his parents the trouble of sorting things out with the headmaster or changing schools. That's how so much abuse has gone unnoticed and unpunished over the years. Valentine could have got wind of what was happening, had a quiet word with Monty and let him go, and if a parent had later said anything, at least the matter would have been dealt with.

A friend re-reading Dicken's "Nicholas Nickleby" reminds me that 1888 was only 50 years or so away from the horrors of Dotheboy's Hall and the headmastership of Wackford Squeers (who was based on a real person). Although Dicken's novel brought about change in the worst such instances, and valentine's might have been a very good school, I don't think we should project modern sensibilities back to the late Victorian era.

It is quite possible that quite serious (to modern eyes) cases of improper bevaiour by staff with boys might have been winked at or have a blind eye turned to them. (Even in the 60s, the two resident masters in the boarding house attached to my grammar school - I was not a boarder - were in retrospect hugely suspect figures, yet they were left in that position. Corporal punishment was still widely practised.)

So, IMHO, Druitt would have had to have done something markedly dramatic to warrant removal or sacking and I think we should look elsewhere. Whatever his misdemeanor it was something that appears to have made facing his cricket club associates difficult and the assumption that he had gone abroad suggests scandal. That said, as this was BEFORE the Wilde trial and the reaction to it, I don't see homosexuality as particularly likely - it was the response to that event that caused a social revolution almost overnight in the way male friends acted towards one another.

Phil

Hi Phil, Caz, and Jonathan,

I lieu of what Phil wrote, I looked up in my special old case file a biographic squib from Boase's "Modern English Biography" Vol. V: D-K, columns 699-700, regarding a headmaster named Thomas Hopley. He was headmaster of a private school at Eastbourne, and in June 1860 was on trial at the Lewes Assizes for flogging to death a student named Reginald Channell Cancellor in April 1860. Hopley got a 4 year sentence. He had the face afterwards to publish a pamphlet, "Facts bearing on the death of Reginald Channel Cancellor; with a supplement and a sequel 1860, urging formation of a grand model educational establishment, with himself as the model Christian master." Hopley's wife tried to seperate from him, but failed (one wonders why?). Anyway, this was a case which might have been treated as a catagory four homicide (depraved indifference to human life) but was treated as a smaller degree manslaughter. I suppose one should be grateful Hopley was convicted at all. My guess is that his professional standing saved him from a harder criminal rating.

Jeff

[caz]

Hi Phil, Caz, and Jonathan,

I lieu of what Phil wrote, I looked up in my special old case file a biographic squib from Boase's "Modern English Biography" Vol. V: D-K, columns 699-700, regarding a headmaster named Thomas Hopley. He was headmaster of a private school at Eastbourne, and in June 1860 was on trial at the Lewes Assizes for flogging to death a student named Reginald Channell Cancellor in April 1860. Hopley got a 4 year sentence. He had the face afterwards to publish a pamphlet, "Facts bearing on the death of Reginald Channel Cancellor; with a supplement and a sequel 1860, urging formation of a grand model educational establishment, with himself as the model Christian master." Hopley's wife tried to seperate from him, but failed (one wonders why?). Anyway, this was a case which might have been treated as a catagory four homicide (depraved indifference to human life) but was treated as a smaller degree manslaughter. I suppose one should be grateful Hopley was convicted at all. My guess is that his professional standing saved him from a harder criminal rating.

Jeff

That's quite shocking, isn't it, Jeff?

Amazing what one's professional standing could do for a chap, just a couple of decades before my grandparents were born.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I have a brother who is in his fifties and gay, and one of the masters at his school was well known for having "relationships" with pupils. The school only got rid of him in much more recent years when he lost his temper one day with a boy and hit him!

You provide an example of what I have in mind -sexual molestation was alright, but "casual" violence (as opposed to authorised physical punishment) was not!

Absences, long moody, brooding walks perhaps - might have been unacceptable. I seem to recall a view being expressed on Casebook that Druitt might have gone off without permission when he was supposed to be the supervising adult (the only one) at night. That might have been utterly unacceptable. Embezzlement also strikes me as a possibility, especially if Druitt was also purloining funds from the Cricket club - that would have been socially unacceptable.

Being absent might not have been so embarrassing socially, especially if the school did not publicise the cause. Having stolen - and perhaps opened himself to investigation at the club - would have been.

I have no evidence to support the theft idea - simply an alternative.

Phil

Hi Phil,

This makes me wonder, yet again, about the nature of the cheques found on Druitt's body.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

To Caz

Is that what you think you do?

Debate with me?

You've never done that.

Hi Jonathan,

Well I'll grant you it's a bit tricky trying to debate with you, when all you do is repeat your personal interpretations after dismissing all the alternatives as unworkable at best, or quite ludicrous at worst.

The key to Druitt's dismissal is that he was dismissed.

How odd that it was not a resignation. Why was he not allowed to resign?

A face-saving resignation which most people would still realize is a dismissal?

The clue appears to be the word 'serious' in the phrase 'serious trouble at the school'. You have chosen to conclude that the reason Druitt wasn't allowed to resign was because he was absent, presumed abroad. But that's far from being the only possibility, and the other little word 'at' would seem to support the alternative argument that the serious trouble happened on the school premises, not away from them, or one might have expected the statement to be that he had been in 'serious trouble with the school' (eg for leaving them in the lurch).

The Cricket Club supplies the answer. He was suddenly abroad and had to be dismissed in absentia, otherwise he would have been allowed to resign from that organization too.

But that goes against the evidence that he had no intention of going abroad, and no reason to tell anyone any different. Besides, he was missing by the time the cricket club dismissed him, and I strongly suspect the Valentine brothers got their heads together and decided the trouble 'at' the school had been serious enough to warrant this second dismissal, whether he really had gone abroad to escape the consequences or was simply lying low somewhere, fearing the fallout.

Why in that case would they have searched Druitt's belongings if he had disgraced himself and left suddenly under a cloud? It was William who was worried when told his brother had been missing from chambers for a week with no explanation. He only found out about the serious trouble when he went to the school, and the next obvious step was to check the belongings he had left behind for clues as to his current whereabouts, whereupon the notes alluding to suicide surfaced. Why on earth would Druitt have told anyone he was going abroad, knowing that these notes would tell a different story? Or are you relying on the forgery theory?

That note for William was pretty clear - Druitt felt he was going like mother, ie mad, and it was best that he should die. Maybe he thought he was Jack the Ripper and had frightened the boys at the school by claiming to be the murderer. But then I doubt it wouldn't have come tumbling out of them when he was later found drowned.

For the sake of argument, let's say he was the ripper. Why do you think he would have told anyone he was going abroad in that case?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The key to Druitt's dismissal is that he was dismissed.

How odd that it was not a resignation. Why was he not allowed to resign?

A face-saving resignation which most people would still realize is a dismissal?

Actually, this is all good stuff because it makes me think things through even more carefully.

You may be right, the key may well be that he was dismissed.

To absent oneself from school, mid-term, and be thought to have gone off abroad, is effectively to resign without giving notice. If this is what happened, Valentine could simply have stated that he had taken Druitt's absence without leave as his effective resignation from the position. End of. Same with the cricket club.

But it was more than that. The man was dismissed for unspecified 'serious trouble at the school'.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mayerling]

That's quite shocking, isn't it, Jeff?

Amazing what one's professional standing could do for a chap, just a couple of decades before my grandparents were born.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Actually the class system repeatedly worked in Victorian England (as watered down versions still work in Britain and the U.S. today). In 1871 a woman was murdered by her husband. Her husband, Rev. John Selby Watson, was a schoolmaster and classical linguistic scholar. Watson's translation of Polybius was still in publication some forty years ago. He had lost his position as a schoolmaster due his age, and the board of directors did not bother with a pension, so he was broke - his learned writings were not likely to give him any really large income. Rev. Watson apparently beat his wife to death after she berated him for being a failure (she was drunk at the time). He was convicted of murder, but he was given life imprisonment, and died at Pankhurst Hospital in 1884. Now compare this with the fate of William Bury, also a wife murderer, but hanged at Dundee in 1889. Bury was not a learned scholar and schoolmaster.

Also compare a non-schoolmaster killer - Richard Dadd, who killed his father in 1843, fled England, but was captured and returned. Dadd certainly was insane, but not only did he end up in the insane asylum for prisoners (Bedlam), but as he was a gifted artist he was allowed to continue painting. Dadd's prison art has given his reputation a lift - he is considered a major English Victorian painter now. He too died in 1884, but his art reputation lives on. How many lower class types who may have been insane when they committed killings were saved like Dadd was, not only to prevent execution but to positively flourish in prison?

Jeff

[Jonathan H]

I debate all comers, unlike others who just restate cliches who hope to wear me and others down by simply repeating the Orhtodox Wisdomn, in which they have so much invested.

Good luck with that.

In my opinion Montie Drutit was dismissed because he was AWOL and the family were not searching for him because he had left word he was suddenly going abroad.

Then the family changed its mind after Christmas.

That might have been simply because they had not heard from him and this was so out of character that William decided to investigate.

More likely the priest to whom Montie had confessed had come forward -- who may have been a family member himself -- and that is when the frantic scramble began.

A man who may have taken his own life would not be described as simply abroad on Dec 21st by his Cricket Club, not wpould he be dismissed.

At that point the Velntimes had no idea foul play might be involved.

Other primary sources -- the comparable 1889 accounts of his death, the MP bits and Macnaghten -- show that Druitt's dismissal is a minor detail as it is not mentioned, understandably, compared to the accusation that he was Jack the Ripper and suffering some kind of psychological implosion.

The alleged note he left behind is not clear-cut at all.

Hence the word 'alluded' not stated.

'Going like mother ...' is ambiguous enough to mean going like mother into an insane asylum.

[DVV]

Hi Caz

The clue appears to be the word 'serious' in the phrase 'serious trouble at the school'. You have chosen to conclude that the reason Druitt wasn't allowed to resign was because he was absent, presumed abroad. But that's far from being the only possibility, and the other little word 'at' would seem to support the alternative argument that the serious trouble happened on the school premises, not away from them, or one might have expected the statement to be that he had been in 'serious trouble with the school' (eg for leaving them in the lurch).



But that goes against the evidence that he had no intention of going abroad, and no reason to tell anyone any different. Besides, he was missing by the time the cricket club dismissed him, and I strongly suspect the Valentine brothers got their heads together and decided the trouble 'at' the school had been serious enough to warrant this second dismissal, whether he really had gone abroad to escape the consequences or was simply lying low somewhere, fearing the fallout.

Why in that case would they have searched Druitt's belongings if he had disgraced himself and left suddenly under a cloud? It was William who was worried when told his brother had been missing from chambers for a week with no explanation. He only found out about the serious trouble when he went to the school, and the next obvious step was to check the belongings he had left behind for clues as to his current whereabouts, whereupon the notes alluding to suicide surfaced. Why on earth would Druitt have told anyone he was going abroad, knowing that these notes would tell a different story? X

all valid points imo.