Druitt's 30 August Cricket Match

[JeffHamm]

That is pure speculation. As some cricket reports have M.Druitt (obviously Melville) and others M.J.Druitt it is unlikely that the two would be confused. It is clear that as a local newspaper is asking for money to report the full details of a match that the match reports were made by the cricket club and sent to the papers it's very unlikely that M.J. would be entered for M. but quite possible that M would be entered for M.J. (Why 'invent' a second initial?)

No, it's not speculation, it's describing the fact that we have seen that Melvill has been called M. J. Druitt in the press when covering cricket (we know it's Melvill because Montegue was dead). That indicates we now need to determine whether a press report refers to Montague or Melvill when it says M. J. Druitt. That makes for a more complex situation because it requires more evidence to draw a conclusion. That's not speculation, that is just a description of the situation.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

That is pure speculation. As some cricket reports have M.Druitt (obviously Melville) and others M.J.Druitt it is unlikely that the two would be confused. It is clear that as a local newspaper is asking for money to report the full details of a match that the match reports were made by the cricket club and sent to the papers it's very unlikely that M.J. would be entered for M. but quite possible that M would be entered for M.J. (Why 'invent' a second initial?)

The report in question (RJ’s) was of a football match and I doubt it was the sort of ‘match report’ that clubs could pay to have printed. The report was almost certainly written by reporter from the Blandford Weekly, someone who may well have reported on cricket matches in which MJD had played in the past.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for that. As it was written by David Andersen whose book framing Druitt is full of speculation and misleading information I'm inclined to disbelieve it. That Druitt and Tuke both played cricket appears to be factual. That they were friends, whose friendship lasted beyond student days when they lived miles apart and were in different professions, is unlikely. I suggest this is a compendium of half-truths cobbled together in an attempt to prop up Andersen's theories that Druitt stayed in the Chiswick Asylum before his suicide and that a letter (contents unknown) from Tuke pointed the finger at Druitt. It's all pure invention. (As is Andersen's book)

Is it the case that any suspect book that we disagree with is worthy of the accusation of ‘framing’ or is it simply in regard to any mention of Druitt? Is it always the case than when friends or acquaintances live in different towns they renounce their friendship or make no further attempt at even occasional contact? Of course we can’t make assumptions about Druitt and Tuke but it appears to be fair game to make those kind of assumptions the other way; why is that? There’s nothing ‘unlikely’ about a friendship. Unknown, yes; unproven, definitely; unlikely, nowhere near.

Do we also ignore, dismiss or keep an open mind on the fact that Tuke actually took the time to write to the Met about how they might catch the ripper? This isn’t an invention. It’s there in the records in black and white. Yes we don’t know the actual content of the letter but it’s within a file of letters all from people giving their advice on how to catch the ripper. I’m guessing that the answer to this will be a very convenient ‘“yes we should ignore or dismiss.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is pure speculation. As some cricket reports have M.Druitt (obviously Melville) and others M.J.Druitt it is unlikely that the two would be confused. It is clear that as a local newspaper is asking for money to report the full details of a match that the match reports were made by the cricket club and sent to the papers it's very unlikely that M.J. would be entered for M. but quite possible that M would be entered for M.J. (Why 'invent' a second initial?)

Is it as unlikely as an MJ Druitt being mentioned in print after Monty was dead? If that can happen….

[GBinOz]

That is pure speculation. As some cricket reports have M.Druitt (obviously Melville) and others M.J.Druitt it is unlikely that the two would be confused. It is clear that as a local newspaper is asking for money to report the full details of a match that the match reports were made by the cricket club and sent to the papers it's very unlikely that M.J. would be entered for M. but quite possible that M would be entered for M.J. (Why 'invent' a second initial?)

Interesting. So are you suggesting that the newspaper reports of an MJ Druitt after the accepted date of his death indicate that it was someone else that was retrieved from the Thames? Are you saying that McNaghten was right and the body was not that of Montague John Druitt, but that of a 41 year old doctor who lived at home and committed suicide within days of the MJK murder?

Cheers, George

[Aethelwulf]

Until someone turns up a report for those Dorset August/September 1888 cricket matches that lists christian names, it seems the Druitt cricket-based-possible-exoneration is dead in the water.

[Mark J D]

... are you suggesting that the newspaper reports of an MJ Druitt after the accepted date of his death indicate that it was someone else that was retrieved from the Thames? ...

At which point we approach the amazing hypothesis that the woman who wasn't Kelly was murdered by the man who wasn't Druitt...?

I think I may need a lie down...

M.

[rjpalmer]

Just taking that bit as a random quote -where is there any proof of the statement? I know it has been claimed but I have, so far, failed to see any evidence to support it.

If you take an interest in the subject, you might consider reading Jonathan Hainsworth's book.

Christine Ward-Aigus, his co-author, is a dedicated researcher. Among other things, she traced several unread Druitt letters in Sussex.

The Rev. Charles Druitt and his wife chaperoned a Tuke daughter abroad in 1889.

[John Trent]

No, it's not speculation, it's describing the fact that we have seen that Melvill has been called M. J. Druitt in the press when covering cricket (we know it's Melvill because Montegue was dead). That indicates we now need to determine whether a press report refers to Montague or Melvill when it says M. J. Druitt. That makes for a more complex situation because it requires more evidence to draw a conclusion. That's not speculation, that is just a description of the situation.

- Jeff

My apologies - I mis-read the date.

[John Trent]

Do we also ignore, dismiss or keep an open mind on the fact that Tuke actually took the time to write to the Met about how they might catch the ripper? This isn’t an invention. It’s there in the records in black and white. Yes we don’t know the actual content of the letter but it’s within a file of letters all from people giving their advice on how to catch the ripper. I’m guessing that the answer to this will be a very convenient ‘“yes we should ignore or dismiss.”

The police at the time thought it should be dismissed, which is why they destroyed it. It would seem that there was nothing in it of any value towards their investigation. Presumably if Tuke had written sn accusation of Druitt or given information to the effect that would lead to investigation of Druitt they wouldn't have dismissed it.

[John Trent]

If you take an interest in the subject, you might consider reading Jonathan Hainsworth's book.

Christine Ward-Aigus, his co-author, is a dedicated researcher. Among other things, she traced several unread Druitt letters in Sussex.

The Rev. Charles Druitt and his wife chaperoned a Tuke daughter abroad in 1889.

I've read Hainsworth's book. (Sadly) In regard to the letters it appears that Hainsworth (or Ward-Aigus) seemed to think that the family employed "cryptic phrasing" to refer to MJD but produce no evidence to substantiate such a view. I regret to say that Charles and his wife did not chaperone a Tuke daughter abroad. In fact Miss Caroline Tuke journeyed, apparently by herself, to join them in Switzerland. In the same part of the book Hainsworth claims that she was the sister of the owners of the Manor House Asylum from where Montague absented himself before committing suicide - but provide not one iota of evidence to back up such a ludicrous claim. The rest of the book is filled with similar ridiculous claims, such as MJD was taken abroad to an asylum in France but escaped from it. Naturally there's not a shred of evidence to support such drivel. Indeed, there is a plethora of 'we believe...' that is subsequently stated as fact. It might make a good film but it's almost completely without any merit.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The police at the time thought it should be dismissed, which is why they destroyed it. It would seem that there was nothing in it of any value towards their investigation. Presumably if Tuke had written sn accusation of Druitt or given information to the effect that would lead to investigation of Druitt they wouldn't have dismissed it.

We can make that assumption of course. It might also have been just a case of Tuke giving his general opinion on how such a disturbed person might behave. But the police might also have been wrong to dismiss it especially if they had some kind of preconception of what kind of person that the killer was?

[JeffHamm]

My apologies - I mis-read the date.

No worries, I do the same as well.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Until someone turns up a report for those Dorset August/September 1888 cricket matches that lists christian names, it seems the Druitt cricket-based-possible-exoneration is dead in the water.

Inconclusive is probably a better description than dead in the water as the idea under investigation is still worthy of investigation. Maybe it's just me, but dead in the water seems to suggest one idea has been refuted entirely, and that's not the case as both interpretations are still possibly true even if they both can't be true at the same time. One interpretation is consistent with Montague being out of London, another interpretation is consistent with Montague being in London. Just because one of those conclusions may be more appealing doesn't mean the evidence we have allows us to put it forth as a conclusion or fact and we're left with all states of the world possible: Effectively one can say with confidence that Montague was either in or not in London! And that really doesn't help either side very much. What does help, though, is we know what sort of evidence we need to find in order to move past this point, which is basically evidence that disambiguates which of the Druitt's is being referred to in the press in the articles of importance.

- Jeff

[Aethelwulf]

Inconclusive is probably a better description than dead in the water as the idea under investigation is still worthy of investigation. Maybe it's just me, but dead in the water seems to suggest one idea has been refuted entirely, and that's not the case as both interpretations are still possibly true even if they both can't be true at the same time. One interpretation is consistent with Montague being out of London, another interpretation is consistent with Montague being in London. Just because one of those conclusions may be more appealing doesn't mean the evidence we have allows us to put it forth as a conclusion or fact and we're left with all states of the world possible: Effectively one can say with confidence that Montague was either in or not in London! And that really doesn't help either side very much. What does help, though, is we know what sort of evidence we need to find in order to move past this point, which is basically evidence that disambiguates which of the Druitt's is being referred to in the press in the articles of importance.

- Jeff

'Dead in the water' was actually meant as a rather poor taste pun - Druitt, dead in the water. I simply meant that while the very real possibility exists that the Dorset cricket matches were played by Mel not Monty, and no one can prove otherwise, the cricket evidence has a huge question mark next to it. I wonder if any of these clubs have archives that might contain the answer?