Druitt's 30 August Cricket Match

[Trevor Marriott]

No there aren’t. I can’t think of one.

take the blinkers off, and stop beleving Druitt is a viable suspect

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n783860]

But there’s not a single fact that points to him being gay Trevor. It’s not a nail in the coffin. It’s not even a drawing pick, a tack or a staple. Wasn’t Feigenbaum unmarried? (you can correct me if I’m wrong of course) Can we infer that he was gay from that? I certainly wouldn’t. Kosminski wasn’t married so can we infer that he was gay? [QUOTE]

Martin Howells and Keith Skinner, in their book, The Ripper Legacy, suggest that Druitt came to Chiswick to visit ‘Wilson’s chummery’, a sort of informal club for homosexuals at The Osiers, Chiswick Mall, and the home of one Henry Wilson from 1887 until 1895.

Druitt was fished out of the river at Chiswick now isnt that a coincidence?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n783881][QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n783860]

But there’s not a single fact that points to him being gay Trevor. It’s not a nail in the coffin. It’s not even a drawing pick, a tack or a staple. Wasn’t Feigenbaum unmarried? (you can correct me if I’m wrong of course) Can we infer that he was gay from that? I certainly wouldn’t. Kosminski wasn’t married so can we infer that he was gay?

Martin Howells and Keith Skinner, in their book, The Ripper Legacy, suggest that Druitt came to Chiswick to visit ‘Wilson’s chummery’, a sort of informal club for homosexuals at The Osiers, Chiswick Mall, and the home of one Henry Wilson from 1887 until 1895.

Druitt was fished out of the river at Chiswick now isnt that a coincidence?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes it is a coincidence.

[JeffHamm]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n783881][QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n783860]

But there’s not a single fact that points to him being gay Trevor. It’s not a nail in the coffin. It’s not even a drawing pick, a tack or a staple. Wasn’t Feigenbaum unmarried? (you can correct me if I’m wrong of course) Can we infer that he was gay from that? I certainly wouldn’t. Kosminski wasn’t married so can we infer that he was gay?

Martin Howells and Keith Skinner, in their book, The Ripper Legacy, suggest that Druitt came to Chiswick to visit ‘Wilson’s chummery’, a sort of informal club for homosexuals at The Osiers, Chiswick Mall, and the home of one Henry Wilson from 1887 until 1895.

Druitt was fished out of the river at Chiswick now isnt that a coincidence?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think it would be more important to determine where Druitt entered the river. A dead body has little control over where it eventually drifts to and ends up being found.

- Jeff

[jmenges]

On the flipside, since MM refers to Druitt as sexually insane and suffering from sexual mania, some have interpreted that mean that he was a hetrosexual sex-addict and then imagine Druitt could have been fired from Valentine's for bringing a girl back to the school.

JM

[GBinOz]

I was thinking, with regards to the idea that Druitt may have travelled to London between the matches. I don't think we need to presume that his motive for doing so was to commit a murder. Such a journey might very well have been made because he had some reason to be in London and had to make that journey. But once in London, it was then that he acts upon his "urge" - who knows, maybe something about his reason for going to London went poorly and set him off, etc.

What I'm getting at is, I'm not sure we have to presume his journey would only have been made in order to use his cricket matches as an alibi, that might have been serendipitous. Basically, if he was JtR it is probably safe to say he's been thinking about murder for some time, and as he hadn't yet acted upon those ideas (if Nichols is his first of course) then really, he might have been as surprised as any when he finally took that fatal step.

Of course, the above is only considering things on the basis of him actually being JtR. If he's not, then he still may have travelled to London but then his reason for doing so would have to be unrelated to the case. But that unrelated reason could still be why he travelled even if he subsequently kills and is JtR.

Tracking down his whereabouts between those matches will tell us if we need to think about this at all because if he's not in London that settles it. If he is, then I suspect the evidence that shows us that will also give us an idea as to why he was there (i.e. had to sign some documents, etc).

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

While I fully appreciate the elegance of your logic, I have to raise a few points that don't necessarily agree with your proposal.

If Druitt had business in London that afternoon, surely he would not have entered into playing a small local match of cricket. He didn't know in advance how long the match would last. On that point, a low scoring match does not necessarily equate to a short match. Back when Benaud and Illingworth captained the nation's teams, an early loss of wickets usually meant a stonewalling by batsmen to save the match via a draw. In the last Test at The Oval in 1971, with Australia leading 1-0, Lawry batted for 7-and-a-half hours for the draw, but could not save the Test.

I think that as a suspect Druitt has to be confined to the C5 as Tabram and McKenzie would eliminate him. It seems to me that that the double trip and return would be too complicated for his first murder as it would have had to have been decided on the spur of the moment IF the cricket match had ended early. History dictates that Nicholls was murdered on that date but at the time there was no such compulsion for Druitt, unless it was opportunistic to provide an alibi.

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

On the flipside, since MM refers to Druitt as sexually insane and suffering from sexual mania, some have interpreted that mean that he was a hetrosexual sex-addict and then imagine Druitt could have been fired from Valentine's for bringing a girl back to the school.

JM

On the other hand, since MM got everything else about Druitt wrong, what odds can be secured that this accusation was correct. Was all of the erroneous information from his "private source"?

Cheers, George

[GUT]

Where is the evidence to show he was not sacked until after his death or is this something you have made up in a feeble attempt to prop up Druitt as a viable suspect?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Maybe from the testimony of his brother at the inquest, the only actual evidence of his sacking or the date there of.

[GBinOz]

Maybe from the testimony of his brother at the inquest, the only actual evidence of his sacking or the date there of.

Hi GUT,

Here is the testimony of William 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.

As you see there is some ambiguity with the date 30 December. Does it refer to the date William was at Blackheath, or the date of Monty's dismissal? The situation gets worse when it is speculated that 30 December was a misprint and should have read 30 November, which was a Friday, and therefore the Friday referred to in the letter allegedly found by William at Blackheath. Why was 30 December a misprint for 30 November? First proffered reason is that William would not have waited 19 days to check on his brother after being told he had not been seen for over a week. Why not? William had a legal practice to run, and Blackheath was a four and a half hour train journey from Bournemouth. If it refers to the date of his dismissal then it increases the likelihood that Monty was dismissed for being AWOL.

AFAIK there is nothing that could be labelled as evidence for the date of Monty's dismissal. As far as the "misprint" goes, the 30th Nov was a Friday, but so was the 9th Nov. Monty left Blackheath late on Saturday 31 Nov, and the note was allegedly found at Blackheath, so it must have been written on Sat 31 Nov or earlier. If it was the Saturday and referring to Friday 30 Nov, surely the note would have read "Since yesterday"? The other peculiar thing about William's testimony is that he stated that Monty had no other relative other than himself and his mother, knowing full well that Monty and he also had five sisters, all alive.

Cheers, George

[GUT]

Hi GUT,

Here is the testimony of William 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.

As you see there is some ambiguity with the date 30 December. Does it refer to the date William was at Blackheath, or the date of Monty's dismissal? The situation gets worse when it is speculated that 30 December was a misprint and should have read 30 November, which was a Friday, and therefore the Friday referred to in the letter allegedly found by William at Blackheath. Why was 30 December a misprint for 30 November? First proffered reason is that William would not have waited 19 days to check on his brother after being told he had not been seen for over a week. Why not? William had a legal practice to run, and Blackheath was a four and a half hour train journey from Bournemouth. If it refers to the date of his dismissal then it increases the likelihood that Monty was dismissed for being AWOL.

AFAIK there is nothing that could be labelled as evidence for the date of Monty's dismissal. As far as the "misprint" goes, the 30th Nov was a Friday, but so was the 9th Nov. Monty left Blackheath late on Saturday 31 Nov, and the note was allegedly found at Blackheath, so it must have been written on Sat 31 Nov or earlier. If it was the Saturday and referring to Friday 30 Nov, surely the note would have read "Since yesterday"? The other peculiar thing about William's testimony is that he stated that Monty had no other relative other than himself and his mother, knowing full well that Monty and he also had five sisters, all alive.

Cheers, George

There is no 31st Nov, it only has 30 days. I know England does some things different, but not that one.

and there are some funny things in Williams testimony, as it is reported.

[GBinOz]

There is no 31st Nov, it only has 30 days. I know England does some things different, but not that one.

and there are some funny things in Williams testimony, as it is reported.

Thanks GUT. Your right of course. I'm getting old and slipping. My edit time has expired, so for Sat 31 Nov read Sat 1 Dec. Funny, and a little suspicious.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

While I fully appreciate the elegance of your logic, I have to raise a few points that don't necessarily agree with your proposal.

If Druitt had business in London that afternoon, surely he would not have entered into playing a small local match of cricket. He didn't know in advance how long the match would last. On that point, a low scoring match does not necessarily equate to a short match. Back when Benaud and Illingworth captained the nation's teams, an early loss of wickets usually meant a stonewalling by batsmen to save the match via a draw. In the last Test at The Oval in 1971, with Australia leading 1-0, Lawry batted for 7-and-a-half hours for the draw, but could not save the Test.

I think that as a suspect Druitt has to be confined to the C5 as Tabram and McKenzie would eliminate him. It seems to me that that the double trip and return would be too complicated for his first murder as it would have had to have been decided on the spur of the moment IF the cricket match had ended early. History dictates that Nicholls was murdered on that date but at the time there was no such compulsion for Druitt, unless it was opportunistic to provide an alibi.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

He may not have had to be there until the next day though, and might have originally intended to travel on a night train, or an early morning one, type thing. If the match ended earlier, then the opportunity arose for him to take the trip sooner. Again, this is all just speculation as we don't know what his plans were, or if he even made these trips at all! But if he did, then there's still nothing at the moment to clearly indicate he must have done so with the intention to create an alibi because he intended to murder that night. The murder, if he is JtR, may have been simply because he ended up back in London and something at that point tipped him over. The possibilities are endless, so none of them are really likely. That's the thing without evidence, it's everything and nothing all at the same time. So, if we're going to speculate about his motivations for travelling, given we have no evidence to constrain us, we shouldn't limit our ventures into the unknown on the basis that his intentions for that trip were to provide an alibi. He might have had an "everyday reason" for making the trip, and had planned on the matches because he could fit them in. If the first ended earlier than expected then all the better for him. Again, we don't even know if he made those trips, only that there appears to be the time available that he could have so we cannot, at this point, definitively rule him out. The case for him isn't strong, but it isn't strong for anybody in my view, so we keep working at seeing if he can be eliminated. At the moment he's not, but the best time frame to target to see if it is possible to do so is getting clearer.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=JeffHamm;n783887][QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n783881]

But there’s not a single fact that points to him being gay Trevor. It’s not a nail in the coffin. It’s not even a drawing pick, a tack or a staple. Wasn’t Feigenbaum unmarried? (you can correct me if I’m wrong of course) Can we infer that he was gay from that? I certainly wouldn’t. Kosminski wasn’t married so can we infer that he was gay?

I think it would be more important to determine where Druitt entered the river. A dead body has little control over where it eventually drifts to and ends up being found.

- Jeff

Its a coincidence that Chiswick figures in his activities and that is where the body was found, dead bodies in water dont always drift miles away.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

No I don’t Trevor and neither do you or anyone else so why assume that he was gay?

Perhaps his behaviour had become worrying?
Perhaps he’d had one too many absences/days off?
Perhaps he’d lost his temper and struck one of the boys?
Perhaps he’d fallen out with a colleague which ended in him striking him?
Perhaps someone had found out that Druitt had been spending time in the east end?
Perhaps someone suspected him of being Jack?
Perhaps he’d been involved in some financial irregularities?
Perhaps some resentful pupil started a malicious rumour about him?
Perhaps a colleague started a malicious rumour about him?
Perhaps he did something unknown to us that Valentine thought would bring the school into disrepute?
Perhaps he got up to something with some woman who worked at the school?
Perhaps he tried to force his attention onto a woman who worked at the school?
Perhaps he did get up to something with one or more of the boys?

We just have no way of knowing.

Druitt was apparently dismissed for "serious trouble" how many of the above fall into that bracket which might apply to a gay man?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n783899][QUOTE=JeffHamm;n783887]

Its a coincidence that Chiswick figures in his activities and that is where the body was found, dead bodies in water dont always drift miles away.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, they don't always, but they don't always stay where the person entered either, hence determining where he entered the water is what is important as if you're assumption that he entered where he was found is incorrect, then the fact he was found at Chiswick means nothing. It is just a hypothesis, not evidence, so we can't make an inference based upon it.

- Jeff