Druitt and Monro

[mklhawley]

Yes Darryl, you are mistaken.

You are being misled by Macnaghten; he is fudging because he is under acute pressure. Try and measure all the sources by him, about him and his proxies (J. F. Nesbit; Major Griffiths; George Sims - and rogue source, Frank Richardson). Otherwise none of it makes any sense.

Consider that the memoir chapter of 1914, "Laying the Ghost of ack the Ripper", is Macnaghten's de-facto 3rd version of his report. Except this time he was retired; he did not have to worry about losing his job. He could write more freely - up to a point - because he was clear of Warren, Anderson, the Vicar, the Druitts, even his close friend, Majendie, was long deceased.

Sure enough, Macnaghten finally admits what we can see confirmed by other contemporaneous sources: the 1894 versions of the report both deceitfully give the misleading impression that all there was to know about Druitt was learned by police in 1888. We can see from the way the police behaved this was not true: the autumn of terror is a handy myth created by Mac. He is lying when he claims the police knew Kelly had to be the final victim of this particular maniac.

In his 1914 version the retired, seriously ill chief admitted that the incriminating evidence against Druitt did not arrive until years later, that it was Macnaghten who learned it on a personal and private level from the man's "own people" and, embarrassingly, it meant the police had been fruitlessly chasing a phantom.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Yes Darryl, you are mistaken.

You are being misled by Macnaghten; he is fudging because he is under acute pressure. Try and measure all the sources by him, about him and his proxies (J. F. Nesbit; Major Griffiths; George Sims - and rogue source, Frank Richardson). Otherwise none of it makes any sense.

Consider that the memoir chapter of 1914, "Laying the Ghost of ack the Ripper", is Macnaghten's de-facto 3rd version of his report. Except this time he was retired; he did not have to worry about losing his job. He could write more freely - up to a point - because he was clear of Warren, Anderson, the Vicar, the Druitts, even his close friend, Majendie, was long deceased.

Sure enough, Macnaghten finally admits what we can see confirmed by other contemporaneous sources: the 1894 versions of the report both deceitfully give the misleading impression that all there was to know about Druitt was learned by police in 1888. We can see from the way the police behaved this was not true: the autumn of terror is a handy myth created by Mac. He is lying when he claims the police knew Kelly had to be the final victim of this particular maniac.

In his 1914 version the retired, seriously ill chief admitted that the incriminating evidence against Druitt did not arrive until years later, that it was Macnaghten who learned it on a personal and private level from the man's "own people" and, embarrassingly, it meant the police had been fruitlessly chasing a phantom.

Where do i say that MM was misleading anybody please ?

What I do say is that it was MM's [ rightly or wrongly ] personal opinion that Druitt was the killer , and that hard evidence is just not there . The idea that years later he would keep any sort of persuasive evidence to himself ,while still naming Druitt as a suspect, where questions would probably have been asked at official level [ certainly when the MM was known , if only officially ]on what persuaded him to feel that way is just not tangible to me.

it is tantamount to withholding evidence, if it was so convincing . It's like a police officer today withholding a DNA breakthrough on a cold case from years ago . It just would not happen. Yes he may have had some private info [ hearsay or otherwise ], which convinced him Druitt was their man. But final and decisive , not for me.

Regards Darryl

[mklhawley]

Abandon all hope...?

I was not saying you were saying Macnaghten mislead people.

That's the Hainsworth thesis and that part of it I agree with.

There is no evidence that anybody at Scotland Yard knew of the existence of either the filed version, or the draft who's suspect contents he propagated to the public.

You are also confusing how you think an historical figure should have acted, morally and professionally, rather than how they did act. You are also naive about Macnaghten's dilemma: Druitt was deceased. The families involved could be reputationally ruined. Macnaghten did not trust Anderson and Swanson to be close-mouthed and as events in 1895 show - with good reason!

I asked Jon what he thinks about this 'debate'? He and Chris think that it is the usual resistance due to it being too excruciating for too many buffs if Macnaghten was well-informed and certain about Druitt's guilt. There are people here who will do whatever it takes to discredit such a point of view not on its merits, but because they don't want it to be viable. It just hurts too much....

[Wickerman]

"Druitt was last seen alive on 3 December 1888." - Jack the Ripper: A Suspect Guide, Christopher J. Morley, E-book, 2005

Here's a Casebook essay that says - "Initially there was confusion over the date of MJD's suicide. His tombstone has 4 December and many authors sloppily propagate 3 December (although [Begg] at least modifies this in a note) but [Sugden] convincingly shows it was almost certainly Saturday 1 December."

Thankyou, and yes Sugden is right, in my opinion.
At the very least, the person who handed him the return ticket was the last known person to see Druitt, and that had to be the 1st Dec.

[Wickerman]

A-Z, "Last seen alive c. 3 December1888". The "c" means "about", of course, which is why I wrote that it was "someone's estimation". I took it to be a rough estimate based on Druitt not being seen at chambers for "more than a week", from William's evidence that he was advised of his brother's absence on 11th December.

Yes thankyou, The A-Z is where I saw it, perhaps I should have asked Jon M., he was the one who provided the date (post #82) as if it were a fact.

In truth, there are four potential days if we just calculate back from the 11th, the note said he had not been seen for "more than a week" (as you say), which means potentially the 4th, 3rd, 2nd & 1st of Dec. - we can't include any November dates because of the date on the return ticket.
So, as the return ticket is dated the 1st, and someone handed it to him, then this should be the most likely date he was last seen.
Hence, my question - why the 3rd?

So, I can take it the 3rd is not taken from any written source, or letter, it was just a guess - thankyou.

[Fiver]

Fiver accuses Jonathan and Christine of claiming that Macnaghten refers to Majendie as his source for the "private information" in his memoirs. He doesn't and they didn't. Apology? See symptom #1.

I never said that you claimed that Macnaghten refers to Majendie as his source. To the best of my knowledge, Macnaghten does not name his source. Said you appeared to be claiming that Majendie was Macnaughton's source about Druitt.

Hainsworth appears to be claiming that Majendie was Macnaughton's source about Druitt. The tenuous connection between Majendie and Druitt makes that unlikely.

And you did claim that Majendie was Macnaughton's source about Druitt.

At this moment of fear and anguish, Charles, William and Isabella Druitt felt they had no choice but to inform Colonel Majendie. They braced themselves for the arrival of detectives from C.I.D. and for the inevitable evisceration of their clans by the vulture tabloids.

Instead through their door came just one cop, the posh charmer and Old Estonian, Melville Macnaghten. He assured them that this truth would stay buried for their sake and that of his close pal. The Rev Charles explained that before he killed himself, Montie had confessed all and asked that the truth came out no later than a decade (the details of that confession had data known only to the murderer and the authorities - case closed).

[jmenges]

I have a note that the Grant of Administration for Druitt records that he was last seen alive on 3rd December 1888.

And from the Estate Duty Register...
Montague John Druitt of 9 King's Bench Walk Temple EC Barrister at Law a Bachelor
who died the 31st day of Dec 1888.

Well worth somebody checking these primary sources as my research into Druitt was in the early 1980s. It's probably all digitised and on line now so it will be interesting to see how many errors I made from looking at the original records.

KS

[jmenges]

I have a note that the Grant of Administration for Druitt records that he was last seen alive on 3rd December 1888.

And from the Estate Duty Register...
Montague John Druitt of 9 King's Bench Walk Temple EC Barrister at Law a Bachelor
who died the 31st day of Dec 1888.

Well worth somebody checking these primary sources as my research into Druitt was in the early 1980s. It's probably all digitised and on line now so it will be interesting to see how many errors I made from looking at the original records.

KS

Following on.

Letters of Administration of the personal Estate of
Montague John Druitt

late of No. 9 Kings Bench Walk Temple in the City of London Barrister at Law deceased who was last seen alive on the 3rd day of December 1888 and died on the 31st day of December 1888, was
found drowned in the River Thames at Chiswick in the County of Middlesex, a bachelor without Father and intestate were granted by Her Majesty's High Court of Justice at the Principal Registry of the Probate Division thereof to William Harvey Druitt of Bournemouth in the County of Southampton Gentleman the natural and lawful Brother of the said intestate he having been first sworn well and faithfully to administer the same

Anne Druitt Widow the natural and lawful Mother and only next of kin of the said Intestate having survived him but died without taking upon herself Letters of Administration of his personal Estate.

Dated the 24th day of July 1891

Gross value of Personal Estate £2600 .2.0

(I never examined the burial registers for Druitt at Wimborne but I'm sure someone must have done this in the past 40 years!)

Best Wishes

Keith

[Wickerman]

Excellent Jon, thankyou.
So the Administer of his estate was told, by someone?, that he was last seen alive on 3rd Dec.
Was that someone guessing?

How Druitt managed to get back to KBW without using his return ticket is the question that suggests the date could be guesswork.

[Doctored Whatsit]

How accurate is 3rd December likely to be? He certainly didn't die on 31st December!

Jon is right, I think, it must be a "best guess" by someone from chambers, unaware of the return ticket for 1st December.

[Herlock Sholmes]

“If the court is satisfied the person died within a specific period but is uncertain of the exact date, the death is deemed to have occurred on the last day of that period.“

[Fiver]

Vivian Majendie's clan was linked to the Druitt clan by a marriage. A relative of the colonel's who carried his surname as her maiden name had married a son of the late, famous Dr. Robert Druitt. According to the Hainsworths this Druitt, the Rev Charles Druitt, Montague's cousin, likely took his confession. If the whole story came out the Liberal tabloids would have played havoc with the Tory Majendie's reputation. It really isn't rocket science.

Charles Druitt's wife was Isabel Majende Hill. Her parents were George Hill and Maria de Boulay. Her surname is Hill in the 1861, 1871, and 1881 Census. Her marriage records show her maiden name was Hill.

Isabel Majende Hill was not a blood relative of Vivian Majende. Majende was Hill's grandmother's second husband's nephew. If the Druitt story came out in the tabloids, why would they even mention the Ripper's cousin's wife's step-grandfather's nephew?

[rjpalmer]

How accurate is 3rd December likely to be? He certainly didn't die on 31st December!

Jon is right, I think, it must be a "best guess" by someone from chambers, unaware of the return ticket for 1st December.

As Herlock's quote indicates, the December 31st date is not an error; it's only a legal technicality indicating the date that Druitt was provably and thus legally dead: the date his decomposed body was recovered from The Thames. Those concerned obviously knew he must have been dead for a considerably longer time but were not legally allowed to speculate and set a different date.

Such technicities are a legal necessity--for instance, in the case where a deceased person's heir might have also died during the 'specific period' which might have bearing on how the estate was settled, etc.

What I find strange is why you and Wickerman and others are giving more credence to Phil Sugden's guesswork than William Druitt's alleged guesswork.

Isn't that rather oddly reasoned?

No offense to the late Phil Sugden, of course, but W.H. Druitt was there in 1888 and had made an investigation into his brother's death and was obviously privy to far more information than we have. He was also a solicitor and an educated man. Why would anyone assume that he didn't have a valid reason for dating his brother's death to December 4th? Why assume it is an error? Surely, he must have thought it through carefully--perhaps obsessively.


RP

[Doctored Whatsit]

As Herlock's quote indicates, the December 31st date is not an error; it's only a legal technicality indicating the date that Druitt was provably and thus legally dead: the date his decomposed body was recovered from The Thames. Those concerned obviously knew he must have been dead for a considerably longer time but were not legally allowed to speculate and set a different date.

Such technicities are a legal necessity--for instance, in the case where a deceased person's heir might have also died during the 'specific period' which might have bearing on how the estate was settled, etc.

What I find strange is why you and Wickerman and others are giving more credence to Phil Sugden's guesswork than William Druitt's alleged guesswork.

Isn't that rather oddly reasoned?

No offense to the late Phil Sugden, of course, but W.H. Druitt was there in 1888 and had made an investigation into his brother's death and was obviously privy to far more information than we have. He was also a solicitor and an educated man. Why would anyone assume that he didn't have a valid reason for dating his brother's death to December 4th? Why assume it is an error? Surely, he must have thought it through carefully--perhaps obsessively.


RP

What you say doesn't alter the fact that we don't know how the date, December 3rd was arrived at. If we don't know, we can only make assumptions based on probability. William didn't know, he relied on someone else's opinion. The chamber's staff didn't seem to know the last date Druitt was there, they told William it was "about a week" earlier. Therefore 3rd December looks like a best guess. It could be wrong. The mystery of the return ticket makes sense if he died 1st December, but otherwise is extremely odd, with absolutely no logical explanation. He was known to be at Hammersmith where he died on the first of December, and the available evidence tells us that he did not use the ticket to return home.

That isn't accepting Sugden's opinion, that is considering the known evidence and reaching a very likely conclusion. I don't insist on it, it just seems to make sense .

[rjpalmer]

I really hate this sort of thing, but I feel compelled.

From the pen of "Fiver" on the 'Cutbush' thread:

Farquarson, Majende, or Macnaghton.

Their correct names were:

Farquharson, not 'Farquarson.'

Majendie, not 'Majende.'

Macnaghten, not 'Macnaghton' (or as you elsewhere write, "MacNaghton")

Normally I wouldn't hold you to task for these sloppy spelling errors, but in the same post you malign the research of Christine Ward-Agius with this:

In 1888, Col. Majendie's deceased uncle's step-grandaughter, Isabel Majendie Hill, had married the Reverend Charles Druitt, son of the deceased Dr Robert Druitt. The late Montague had been one of Charles' cousins. Isabel Majendie Hill was not a blood relative of Vivian Majende or Montague Druitt and had neither of those surames, so calling it a joining of the two clans seems melodramatic.

It also gets both names and relationships wrong. That's sloppy research by the Hainsworths.

Just remember when you point an accusing finger at someone, you're pointing three right back at yourself.

Christine Ward-Agius did not get the names or relationships wrong. You obviously didn't read the book.

Christine gives the woman's name as Isabel Majendie Hill throughout and clearly writes that it is her mother (Maria Hill) who is the cousin (ie., step-cousin) of Vivien Majendie.

In fact, your "corrections" are merely riffing off the work she's already done years ago.

Further, you've entirely missed the most important link between Colonel Majendie and the du Boulay family. If you ever read the book, you'll know what it is.