Druitt's 30 August Cricket Match

[Herlock Sholmes]

For the benefit of genuine posters interested in the subject, this is part of an email that I got today from Christine Ward-Agius, about the mystery Druitt:


“Mayo and Melvill are Montie's cousins, sons of Uncle James Druitt of Christchurch. Mayo would go on to qualify as a lawyer. There are many Druitts that one comes across when researching this family and some are very distantly related and others so distantly it is difficult to find a common ancestor. Another hiccup for researchers has been finding MJ Druitt on passenger lists before and after Montie's death. This one is Matilda Jane Druitt, Uncle James' second wife. Of course this is irrelevant to the question about Rev MJ Druitt. It would be quite irregular for a gentleman cricketer to be attributed as a Reverend if he was not. If it is appearing more than once it suggests it is being deliberately recorded that way. There might need to be some further research into people with the Druitt surname who were clergy - not necessarily in the Church of England.
There was certainly Rev William Druitt in the Devon area at that time.”

[barnflatwyngarde]

If Monty had gone overseas, that would have been made clear and unambiguous. "Gone abroad" was a common euphemism for doing a vanishing trick, without warning or explanation. The cricket club was not best pleased with Monty for abandoning his commitments. They were not to know the turmoil that was going on in the man's mind.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz, thanks for this.

I have 2 particular queries that perhaps you, or anyone, can clarify for me.

I have read in various postings that "gone abroad" was a euphemism for someone going away, or in your words "doing a vanishing trick".

Do you have a source for this?

I haven't been able to track down a source for this statement.

Also is there any evidence that MJD was guilty of "abandoning his commitments" to his cricket club?

Druitt was dismissed from his school on 30th November 1888, and we know that he was playing cricket up to September of that year.
The cricket season had long ended by the time that the club minutes of December made its comment about MJD "having gone abroad", so I don't know of any evidence that he was guilty of "abandoning his commitments."

Cheers,

Barn

[OneRound]

Hi Caz, thanks for this.

I have 2 particular queries that perhaps you, or anyone, can clarify for me.

I have read in various postings that "gone abroad" was a euphemism for someone going away, or in your words "doing a vanishing trick".

Do you have a source for this?

I haven't been able to track down a source for this statement.

Also is there any evidence that MJD was guilty of "abandoning his commitments" to his cricket club?

Druitt was dismissed from his school on 30th November 1888, and we know that he was playing cricket up to September of that year.
The cricket season had long ended by the time that the club minutes of December made its comment about MJD "having gone abroad", so I don't know of any evidence that he was guilty of "abandoning his commitments."

Cheers,

Barn

Hi Barn - I spend most of my time on this forum motoring up and down the A6 but trust you and others will allow me to pull in and make a quick stop here.

I have little knowledge of your Ripper but do have an avid interest in cricket (current and historic) which led me to this thread. Even more sadly, I have spent many years as a company secretary.

I was therefore originally planning to make the case why a low scoring game might not necessarily equate to an early finish and, even if it did, also point out that much might have gone on before anyone headed home or elsewhere from the ground. However, George and others have already well made those points. And that's all before considering which Druitt was playing which game!

Therefore, I'll just make a brief comment about your second query. Our MJ Druitt was the Secretary of the cricket club concerned. Regardless of the season being long over, a meeting was scheduled for December. What the meeting might have covered, I don't know but just possibly - club finances, club facilities, planning of fixtures for the next season, club officials for the next calendar year, any matters arising from the last meeting and various other bits and pieces. The actual detail of the agenda is though immaterial. The key thing is that a meeting was scheduled and, without having made alternative arrangements in advance (and people not knowing of his death), Druitt as Secretary would have been expected there to minute it. He wasn't and as far as the other attendees were concerned - particularly the poor sap who ended up doing the minutes - he had left them in the lurch. That's why I think the reference to him in those minutes is understandably terse. Possibly, Druitt should also have issued papers in advance of the meeting and failed to do so which would have only heightened ill feeling against him at the club but I don't know if that was the case.

Best regards,
OneRound

[GBinOz]

Hi Caz, thanks for this.

I have 2 particular queries that perhaps you, or anyone, can clarify for me.

I have read in various postings that "gone abroad" was a euphemism for someone going away, or in your words "doing a vanishing trick".

Do you have a source for this?

I haven't been able to track down a source for this statement.

Also is there any evidence that MJD was guilty of "abandoning his commitments" to his cricket club?

Druitt was dismissed from his school on 30th November 1888, and we know that he was playing cricket up to September of that year.
The cricket season had long ended by the time that the club minutes of December made its comment about MJD "having gone abroad", so I don't know of any evidence that he was guilty of "abandoning his commitments."

Cheers,

Barn

Hi Barn,

As I asked previously, what then was the euphemism used when someone had actually "gone abroad"?

As far as I know the adoption of 30 November as Monty's dismissal date from the school is an assumption based purely on his alleged suicide note: "Since Friday". That note was allegedly found at his residence at Blackheath so it was likely written the morning of his departure from Blackheath, 1 December, or before. Were it written on the morning of Sat 1 Dec I would think the language used would have been "Since yesterday". Bear in mind that one of the Fridays in November 1888 was the 9th, the date of the MJK murder.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

''Not really. I’d just say that the opinion of a respected biographer is worthy of attention and he’s not the only Sickert authority to have rubbished the silly claims of the Knight theory.''

Were disscusing Sickert as a ''stand alone'' suspect, nothing to do with knights theory. See how you confuse and change things to defect to different topic that has nothing to do what so ever with comparsion between Driutt and Sickert !! But ill admit you do it well, a sad compliment tho



''There was no savage attack and no attack at all. I accused you of not telling admitting when you are wrong for which I provided evidence''.

An opinion is only wrong if it is proved so , which you did no such thing, you only suggested alternatives not proof and certainly not evidence. And please dont bother to post whats already been discussed ive explained my position of what my post mean, you choose to interpret it differently , fine.


Thanks Caz, I was going to respond to his other posts but I’ll leave it on your advice. It’s a sad state of affairs though when some subjects can’t be broached without this kind of stuff polluting threads and it’s equally sad when a poster doesn’t have the integrity to admit to an error when it’s pointed out in black and white. It’s frustrating to say the least but, as you say, it’s pointless arguing with nonsense and inventions.

This is a flat out attact herlock, when you question my integrity and suggest i pollute a thread to another poster, what do you call that ?!!!!!



This is a fact, proven on JTRForums by researchers like Gary. It was you who said that because he was in BOURNMOUTH on the 4th and because we didn’t know where he was on the 7th then he must still have been in BOURNMOUTH on the 7th. That was your kindergarten logic written in black and white. Why you’re now trying to deny in your usual way

And this is the classic misinterpret herlock weve become accustom too , notice how youve change it to make it sould like i said '' because we dont know were he was on the 4th that somehow that that means im asking people to believe he was in bournmouth on the 7th!!! You did.
What is means herlock is exactly what is was when i posted it the first time, that after the 4th no one knows where he was. Not that he remained in bournmouth till the 7th which is what youve tired to use to make people believe that ive got him in bournmouth on the 7th as a fact!!!!!!! . your speciality i might add.

YOU it again , now whos being untruthful?
You. I’m done talking to you Fishy. Find someone that enjoys lying to talk to.

Im so glad you posted it again, as any 5 year old can see i in no way said or implied Druitt ''was'' in Bournemouth on the 7th !!.

Wait, is that another personal attack herlock , cause it sure reads like that , looks like your infering im a Liar ?
im sure theres something in the rules about that sort of thing ...... wait there is . hmmmm

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Thats right, he was , because theres no evidence to say he was elswehere.

Just like the whole male population of Bournemounth was in Bournmouth that weekend too, unless you can place them somewhere else. So place Druitt in London on the 7th Aug 1888 in time for Tabrams murder with proof, or as ive always said about Druitt he has more flimsy ridiculous circumstancial evidence than any ripper suspect .

No 2. Ranking

Said in response to "Exactly, but you claimed that he was still in Bournemouth"

Which reads,

"Exactly, but you claimed that he was still in Bournemouth"

"That's right, he was, because there's no evidence to say he was elsewhere"

So now that that particular drama is cleared up, we're not sure the MJ Druitt cricketing in Dorset was Monty, so if we can't positively place him in Bournemouth, by your exact logic, he was in London for Tabram's murder. Back where we started.

Can the personal spat be put aside so the actual research can be discussed?

[GUT]

And so far we have Montie
Melvill (no middle name known) but know to be involved in sporting clubs
Mayo (as above)
Rev MJ

and at the very least one MJ showing up in sporting records after Montie is dead

[FISHY1118]

Said in response to "Exactly, but you claimed that he was still in Bournemouth"

Which reads,

"Exactly, but you claimed that he was still in Bournemouth"

"That's right, he was, because there's no evidence to say he was elsewhere"

So now that that particular drama is cleared up, we're not sure the MJ Druitt cricketing in Dorset was Monty, so if we can't positively place him in Bournemouth, by your exact logic, he was in London for Tabram's murder. Back where we started.

Can the personal spat be put aside so the actual research can be discussed?

Ok , if me saying that '' he was in Bournemouth'' in response to him not playing a cricket game in Blackheath
on the 6th Aug, its because no one can place him [as far as im aware] anywhere other than Bournemouth after the 3rd and 4th why does that not give me the right to an opinion to say he was still there ?

Of course he might not have been, but that doesnt stop me from my opinion that he was , what makes it any less of a statement/opinion than ''he was in london on the 6th'' if he cant be placed there ? he may not have been.

And thats the point, i have just as much right to say he was in Bournemouth as someone who says he was in London, because nobody can prove otherwise on both sides , and i accept that , my gripe is others can not .

Are we 100 sure the other mj druitt isnt our mj druitt the jtr suspect ?

Im happy to continue on with the discussion with anyone, more than happy as a matter of fact , i just dont want to be insulted , basically called a liar , and have my integrity questioned all over a public forum!!! , Is that not a fair request ?

[caz]

Hi Barn,

As I asked previously, what then was the euphemism used when someone had actually "gone abroad"?

Not sure what you mean by 'euphemism' in that regard, George?

If they believed that Monty had literally taken himself out of the country, I imagine that's what would have been recorded.

I thought it was well known that 'gone abroad' could just mean 'gone away, gone missing, absent without explanation' etc.

IIRC there was a newspaper report concerning the murders, which referred to the killer being 'abroad in Whitechapel'. It just meant he was loose on the streets, and not able to be pinned down any more specifically.

'Abroad' can be defined even today as 'far and wide' or 'at large', and I'm reasonably confident it was meant in that sense when he wasn't present in December to attend to his cricket club duties, and he hadn't told anyone where he was going.

I'm not remotely surprised he can't be found on any passenger list around that time.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m happy to discuss the case. But if someone says something that isn’t true and it can be proven so, and I don’t mean about an interpretation or an opinion, I’m talking about a provable fact, then I will point it out, whether it annoys or embarrasses or whatever, just as I would expect anyone else to point out if I had made a factual error (which I have done many times in the past and have always admitted it)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not sure what you mean by 'euphemism' in that regard, George?

If they believed that Monty had literally taken himself out of the country, I imagine that's what would have been recorded.

I thought it was well known that 'gone abroad' could just mean 'gone away, gone missing, absent without explanation' etc.

IIRC there was a newspaper report concerning the murders, which referred to the killer being 'abroad in Whitechapel'. It just meant he was loose on the streets, and not able to be pinned down any more specifically.

'Abroad' can be defined even today as 'far and wide' or 'at large', and I'm reasonably confident it was meant in that sense when he wasn't present in December to attend to his cricket club duties, and he hadn't told anyone where he was going.

I'm not remotely surprised he can't be found on any passenger list around that time.

Love,

Caz
X

It might have been a ‘saying’ that meant ‘gone away or gone missing’ as you’ve suggested Caz. We also have this definition:

[ after verb ] literary or old use

outside, or not at home:
Not a soul was abroad that morning.

[caz]

Ok , if me saying that '' he was in Bournemouth'' in response to him not playing a cricket game in Blackheath
on the 6th Aug, its because no one can place him [as far as im aware] anywhere other than Bournemouth after the 3rd and 4th why does that not give me the right to an opinion to say he was still there ?

Of course he might not have been, but that doesnt stop me from my opinion that he was , what makes it any less of a statement/opinion than ''he was in london on the 6th'' if he cant be placed there ? he may not have been.

And thats the point, i have just as much right to say he was in Bournemouth as someone who says he was in London, because nobody can prove otherwise on both sides , and i accept that , my gripe is others can not .

Are we 100 sure the other mj druitt isnt our mj druitt the jtr suspect ?

Im happy to continue on with the discussion with anyone, more than happy as a matter of fact , i just dont want to be insulted , basically called a liar , and have my integrity questioned all over a public forum!!! , Is that not a fair request ?

It is fair, FISHY, but it would help if all posters made it much clearer when they are merely speculating, or offering a personal opinion. Whenever it looks like they are stating a fact, which cannot logically be a fact [such as "He was in Bournemouth" on a date when no such thing has been established], they store up problems for themselves. Easily avoided if you don't want to feel victimised.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It might have been a ‘saying’ that meant ‘gone away or gone missing’ as you’ve suggested Caz. We also have this definition:

[ after verb ] literary or old use

outside, or not at home:
Not a soul was abroad that morning.

Precisely, Herlock.

Away from home - or place of work - current whereabouts unknown.

Works for me in the context given. They would soon learn that Monty had been at the mercy of the Thames current. [Apologies for the current pun.]

Love,

Caz
X

[GBinOz]

Not sure what you mean by 'euphemism' in that regard, George?

If they believed that Monty had literally taken himself out of the country, I imagine that's what would have been recorded. That is what was recorded.

Love,

Caz
X

euphemism
noun: a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.

What does gone abroad mean?
adverb. If you go abroad, you go to a foreign country, usually one that is separated from the country where you live by an ocean or a sea.

"Abroad" doesn't mean the same as "gone abroad".

[Joshua Rogan]

Just wondering if anyone has compiled a complete cricketing itinerary for Druitt, and, if so, where it might be found.