Druitt's 30 August Cricket Match

[Trevor Marriott]

Yet again Trevor no one is relying on anything. To rely on something would be like me saying that Macnaughten’s Private Info must have been valid. Which is something that we can’t know. Simply saying that his information might have been valid is just reasonable possibility. If there are 2 possibilities then one is correct and one is incorrect so there’s surely no point in dismissing the information as a whole simply because doubts might exist or that there are questions to be answered. I can’t speak for everyone but I don’t rely on anything. I just think that we should explore both possibles. Considering the possibility of something being true isn’t the same as relying on it being true.

Its not the wrong way because it makes no difference as we’ve gone through before. Yes, if your conducting an ongoing police investigation then the benefits of narrowing down a field of suspects more rigidly is a good way of trying not to waste man hours and to avoid further future victims. Neither are a problem for us though. No one is going to die or get sent to prison as a result of anything that we say or any errors that we might make or false leads that we might follow. We have no time or financial constraints to consider. It doesn’t matter. So if someone is suspected by someone we label them a suspect and decide as individuals how weak or strong they are. And if we decided on using Suspect and Person Of Interest who decides who goes into which category? You and I both agree on Lechmere but many disagree with us so why should our opinion count more than theirs so that we label him a person of interest as opposed to a suspect? Does Ripperology suffer one iota if a couple of posters on here decided to discus the merits of Lewis Carroll as a suspect in a thread? No, because we’re all free to not bother taking part. It’s unworkable and totally pointless.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinionm but its the reality of the facts and the evidence that counts, and it does bug me to see many of what I can only describe at persons of interest being labelled prime suspects.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Do you know where the suicide note was found?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

William testified at the inquest that he found the note "at his brother's lodgings".

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

and the wrong way, you are creating prime suspects, when the evidence you and others seek to rely on is only sufficient enough to label then as persons of interest
and some not even that.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hmm, yes....but your forgetting that apparently the truth can be adjusted.

This from the inquest:
"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. 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 for me was 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.

Now for some adjustments which are so successful that even the A-Z presents them as fact.

As Sugden points out, the date given of December 30th is both ambiguous and impossible. The wording alone makes it possible that it was in reference to either William's inquiries or Druitt's dismissal. If it was in reference to the former, it is doubtful that William would wait nineteen days after receiving word that his brother was missing to inquire into his whereabouts at Blackheath School. If it referred to the latter, however, it is impossibly incorrect, as Druitt was discovered the day after the 30th of December, and was estimated to have been in the water for upwards of three weeks or more. Sugden concludes, with reasonable certainty, that December 30th is a misprint for November 30th, a date which makes much more sense.

Assuming it was November 30th on which occurred Druitt's dismissal, the few facts of the case fall nicely into place, assuming it was his dismissal which finally prompted his suicide. The 30th was a Friday, which hearkens back to his suicide note: 'Since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother, and the best thing for me was to die.' Also, remember that among his possessions were two cheques for £50 and £16, respectively. They may have been settlement cheques of Druitt's salary written upon his dismissal. Finally, there was also found an unused return ticket from Hammersmith to Charing Cross dated December 1.

How very convenient. The date of 30 Dec doesn't suit so we'll change it to 30 Nov. Oh, look, that corroborates our conjecture that he was dismissed on Friday 30 Nov. Hurrah, by adjusting the evidence we have revealed the truth.

I don't see a problem with the possibility that a busy solicitor may wait 19 days to travel to Blackheath to check on his brother. He may have thought, as did Druitt's cricket club, that he was overseas. His dismissal being on 30 Dec, perhaps for the perceived abandonment without notice of his job, seems more unlikely as it would have to coincide with William being there on that day, but is still possible.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the unused return ticket would place Monty in or around Hammersmith on 1 Dec. He may have dropped in at his law office on the way, explaining the report of last being seen there over a week before 11 Dec. Hammersmith is very close to Chiswick where his body was found. Chiswick was also the location of the Manor House asylum run by Thomas Harrington Tuke. The Tuke family and the Druitt family were friends, and it was in Manor House that Monty's mother was confined some years later. There is a very interesting single page post here: https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...nounced-druitt

The preponderance of evidence places Monty around Chiswick on 1 Dec, and it would appear that he perished on that date or shortly after. But why would he travel specifically to Hammersmith (and buy a return ticket) if he intended to commit suicide, and do the contents of his pockets suggest that was his intention? If that was not his intention, what circumstance drew him to Hammersmith. Bear in mind, he may have been dismissed just for being AWOL and but for his death, may not have been dismissed at all.

Cheers, George

[Simon Wood]

"Cricket: A Weekly Record of the Game," Thursday, 13th September 1888. "Saturday Last" was 8th September 1888.



Regards

Simon

[Darryl Kenyon]

I don't see a problem with the possibility that a busy solicitor may wait 19 days to travel to Blackheath to check on his brother. He may have thought, as did Druitt's cricket club, that he was overseas.
Cheers, George

Hi George I believe that gone overseas was a Victorian euphemism for someone going missing without any contact as to why
Regards Darryl

[drstrange169]

Who was the M Druitt who spoke at the Wimborne Cricket club dinner and smoking concert in 1912?

[GBinOz]

Who was the M Druitt who spoke at the Wimborne Cricket club dinner and smoking concert in 1912?

Perhaps Melville?

[GUT]

Perhaps Melville?

Melvill (no e) was a cousin of Montie, so far I haven’t found a middle name, but as his father was James, could well be another MJ Druitt which may cast a different light on all the cricket scores.

[GUT]

Melvill (no e) was a cousin of Montie, so far I haven’t found a middle name, but as his father was James, could well be another MJ Druitt which may cast a different light on all the cricket scores.

Melvill also had a brother Mayo, no middle name known and no known link to cricket so far.

[GBinOz]

Hi George I believe that gone overseas was a Victorian euphemism for someone going missing without any contact as to why
Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

Thanks for that information. So what expression was used when someone actually did go overseas?

Cheers, George

[GUT]

Melvill (no e) was a cousin of Montie, so far I haven’t found a middle name, but as his father was James, could well be another MJ Druitt which may cast a different light on all the cricket scores.

Just to add Melvill was a Solicitor of High Street, (as was his father James) so fits perfectly.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hi Darryl,

Thanks for that information. So what expression was used when someone actually did go overseas?

Cheers, George

Hi George, I take your point

Regards Darryl

[barnflatwyngarde]

Hi George I believe that gone overseas was a Victorian euphemism for someone going missing without any contact as to why
Regards Darryl

I've always thought that the one striking thing about MJD's cricket club minuting that he had "gone abroad", was that there was no record of the club or teammates recording their thanks for his service.

[GUT]

I've always thought that the one striking thing about MJD's cricket club minuting that he had "gone abroad", was that there was no record of the club or teammates recording their thanks for his service.

But that could be because they knew he’d been a bad boy, or because he had left them in the lurch. Either would fit.

[barnflatwyngarde]

But that could be because they knew he’d been a bad boy, or because he had left them in the lurch. Either would fit.

Fair enough, but it is standard procedure to thank colleagues/teammates who leave any club or organisation.

Even if they were rubbish players and incompetent managers!

The absence of any form of "thank you for your services", even if insincere, really jars with me.

I just feel that there is something else at play here.