Druitt and Monro

[rjpalmer]

Here's one for John and Christine, which I noticed some time back. I think my work here is done, so enjoy.

This was a game of cricket held at Winchester College on 14 June 1883.

M. J. Druitt was a Wykehamist, of course, and sometimes the alumni would return and play a game of cricket against the boys.





Who was out on the pitch that day?

M. J. Druitt's name for the Butterflies is obvious enough, but who was his opponent, H. G. Majendie?

This was none other than the Queen's Explosives expert, Colonel Majendie's, only son, Henry Gryllis Majendie.

Why did Majendie send his son to Winchester College?

The answer isn't too obscure. As discovered by Christine, one of the fixtures at Winchester College was none other than the Rev. J.T.H. du Boulay. He knew Druitt from his school days, and it was his niece, Isabel Majendie Hill, who married Druitt's cousin Charles.

Christine also traced a photograph showing the Rev. du Boulay sitting in a group photograph very near Majendie's son, in front of the Du Boulay House at Winchester, 1882.

This is none too surprising because if you consult the 1881 UK Census for Winchester, you will find Henry G. Majendie, age 15, living in the Du Boulay House with the Reverend and his wife and family. The idea that the Majendies didn't know of the Druitts is a doubtful one. In fact, it is provably wrong.

There are other links between the Druitts and the Majendie/Du Boulay clan, but I'll leave that for others.

This is not to suggest that Colonel Majendie was Sims' informant, though he certainly could have been one of them.

[rjpalmer]

William didn't know, he relied on someone else's opinion.

How can you possibly know that? How do you know that William Druitt's inquires didn't extend beyond Kings Bench Walk and Valentine's school and he had positive information that his brother was alive on December 3rd?

And why assume that he was giving the full story at the inquest? If Macnaghten was correct that Druitt's own family suspected him, his brother could have been holding back vital information.

The Letters of Administration was a legal document and being a solicitor, W. H. Druitt would know the information needed to be precise and not guesswork. It does not state December 1st. It states December 3rd.

Ciao.

[Doctored Whatsit]

How can you possibly know that? How do you know that William Druitt's inquires didn't extend beyond Kings Bench Walk and Valentine's school and he had positive information that his brother was alive on December 3rd?

If William had information from someone, then he was relying on them, as I suggested. I don't know how he got the date December 3rd, and neither do you, so why are we in dispute? It's an unknown fact.

[The Rookie Detective]

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 .

The switch from the 1st to the 3rd of December is interesting because it could be that IF Druitt was at all a possible victim of foul play; then the return ticket may have only been known to Druitt himself.
If it was claimed that Druitt was last seen on the 3rd, but it was actually the 1st when he died, it sounds very much like someone needing an alibi and giving a false statement about seeing Druitt alive and well on the 3rd.

May be nothing of the sort, but still intriguing nonetheless.

[mklhawley]

The Hainsworths have asked me to call it a day.

Chris thanks you Roger for your support, indispensable research and fair-mindedness.

"Terrific find, Roger, showing yet another interconnection between the Druitts and the Majendies, which is the key to the mystery. Not as to who was the killer, but why certain people acted in the way they did re this dangerous information. Regards, Chris".

And from Jon:

In "The Sun" during their Ripper expose of early1894, the paper hypocritically and menacingly warns that anybody even distantly related to "The Ripper" will be reputationally destroyed.

[Wickerman]

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.

Excuse me for being a bit slow, perhaps having a senior moment here , but I thought we were talking about the last day Druitt was seen alive, not the day he died.

Finding the unused portion of a return ticket only means he didn't use it, not that he couldn't use it.
Is suicide an impulse thing, or do some ponder over it for hours?

The only reference we have is that letter to William from a friend, dated 11th Dec. who wrote that Druitt had not been "in his chambers for more than a week".
Which implies more than 7 days, therefore we count back from the 4th, 3rd, 2nd or 1st., but as the return ticket is dated 1st. then, based on this evidence alone, we cannot in all good faith assume he was last seen anytime between the 2nd to the 4th.

The date of his actual death is a different question.

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.

It is quite possible the family knew of someone at the asylum who had seen Druitt alive on the 3rd or 4th, but managed to keep them away from the press. This may have been learned by the Administrator of the Estate, but any documents produced by him are not for public knowledge.

[GBinOz]

Excuse me for being a bit slow, perhaps having a senior moment here , but I thought we were talking about the last day Druitt was seen alive, not the day he died.

Finding the unused portion of a return ticket only means he didn't use it, not that he couldn't use it.
Is suicide an impulse thing, or do some ponder over it for hours?

The only reference we have is that letter to William from a friend, dated 11th Dec. who wrote that Druitt had not been "in his chambers for more than a week".
Which implies more than 7 days, therefore we count back from the 4th, 3rd, 2nd or 1st., but as the return ticket is dated 1st. then, based on this evidence alone, we cannot in all good faith assume he was last seen anytime between the 2nd to the 4th.

The date of his actual death is a different question.

It is quite possible the family knew of someone at the asylum who had seen Druitt alive on the 3rd or 4th, but managed to keep them away from the press. This may have been learned by the Administrator of the Estate, but any documents produced by him are not for public knowledge.

Hi Jon,

Suppose for the sake of argument suppose that Herlock's suggestion that the "suicide" note may have been written some time before and put in a drawer is correct. Perhaps the Friday in question was when the mother was committed to Brooke Asylum, or when Monty stayed with his brother for a night towards the end of October. These are likely as the undelivered note was addressed to William who would be privy to the knowledge of the day in question and that it was referring to his mother's committal, rather than a purely speculated dismissal. Suppose that Monty decided to go to the Manor House Asylum in Chiswick, as RD suggested, to explore the possibility of having his mother transferred into the care of the Tukes. This is William's testimony to 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.

Monty leaves Blackheath on December 1 and calls into his law chambers where he is noticed by someone. He then buys a return ticket to Chiswick, only half of which was used. In the absence of evidence to the contrary it would be reasonable to conclude that he didn't return from Chiswick. I agree with your final paragraph in the suggestion that it was someone at Chiswick was probably the last person to see him alive.

Then there is the further ambiguity of what took place on 30 December. Was that the day of his dismissal, or the day William found out about the dismissal (the latter, I think). Having been informed that his brother was missing on 11 December, would William wait until 30 December to make inquiries at Blackheath. Possibly, if he, like the cricket club that removed Monty from office, thought Monty had gone abroad. Would Monty's failure to report for work (at start of term?) have constituted "serious trouble"? Was Monty's law practice impinging on his duties at the school and his failure to appear for classes the last straw? Sugden speculated that 30 Dec was a misprint for 30 Nov., but his speculation is now quoted as fact. The fact is that we don't know when Monty was dismissed, or for what reason.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

An interesting point for me:

“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).“

William goes to London. He arrives and finds out that Monty had been sacked from the school. Why did he have someone else search Monty’s things ‘where he resided’?

[Doctored Whatsit]

An interesting point for me:

“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).“

William goes to London. He arrives and finds out that Monty had been sacked from the school. Why did he have someone else search Monty’s things ‘where he resided’?

This also interests me. I think that as Druitt got into "serious trouble" and was dismissed, he would probably have been required to leave his accomodation at the school at once. So possibly we don't know where he resided at that time. The 30th December date is also confusing, as it surely would have been some time after William commenced his investigation if he was advised on 11th December, as he would surely have wanted to resolve the problem before Christmas. "That was on 30th December" could mean that William went to the school on 30th December. If so, William was extremely slow to react. Or it could mean that the school dismissed Monty on 30th December. But if the latter, it seems unlikely to be correct as it was long after Monty's death. A mistake for 30th November has been suggested, and this being a Friday, does make some potential sense.

As to why William might have had someone else search through Monty's belongings, I can't imagine, as it seems to be totally inappropriate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This also interests me. I think that as Druitt got into "serious trouble" and was dismissed, he would probably have been required to leave his accomodation at the school at once. So possibly we don't know where he resided at that time. The 30th December date is also confusing, as it surely would have been some time after William commenced his investigation if he was advised on 11th December, as he would surely have wanted to resolve the problem before Christmas. "That was on 30th December" could mean that William went to the school on 30th December. If so, William was extremely slow to react. Or it could mean that the school dismissed Monty on 30th December. But if the latter, it seems unlikely to be correct as it was long after Monty's death. A mistake for 30th November has been suggested, and this being a Friday, does make some potential sense.

As to why William might have had someone else search through Monty's belongings, I can't imagine, as it seems to be totally inappropriate.

I don’t think that we know anything about William’s case load at the time but maybe this impacted on his reaction time and delayed his trip to London? We can’t read anything into this point but it’s a bit of a coincidence that his brother had been ‘missing’ for around a month, William arrives in London on the 30th and the very next day his brother’s body is pulled out of the Thames.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I don’t think that we know anything about William’s case load at the time but maybe this impacted on his reaction time and delayed his trip to London? We can’t read anything into this point but it’s a bit of a coincidence that his brother had been ‘missing’ for around a month, William arrives in London on the 30th and the very next day his brother’s body is pulled out of the Thames.

Yes, we are, as usual, firmly in the position of "not knowing", and therefore making assumptions and perhaps guessing. I am reluctant to believe that William would take no action for almost three weeks having been told that his brother had gone missing. However, we don't know of the urgency stressed or not stressed in the request to intervene, but the fact that someone felt it was necessary to tell William suggests it was deemed to be important. Also, as you say, we don't know how busy William was at the time. It seems to me to be very likely that he would have been quicker than that, but we cannot know.

[Fiver]

Christine also traced a photograph showing the Rev. du Boulay sitting in a group photograph very near Majendie's son, in front of the Du Boulay House at Winchester, 1882.

This is none too surprising because if you consult the 1881 UK Census for Winchester, you will find Henry G. Majendie, age 15, living in the Du Boulay House with the Reverend and his wife and family. The idea that the Majendies didn't know of the Druitts is a doubtful one. In fact, it is provably wrong.

The Du Boulay House was part of Winchester College.

"Designed by eminent Victorian architect, William White, and Grade II listed, Du Boulay’s is situated a few minutes walk from the College. Founded by its first Housemaster, Revd J.T.H Du Boulay (1862-1893), it is informally known as Cook’s, after the second Housemaster A.K. Cook (1893-1909), who published a book on the school’s history."

The 1881 Census shows Henry Gryllis Majendie was one of 36 students boarding at the Du Boulay House. Of course he was in the 1882 class photo, just like the other students.

His teacher's niece, Isabel Majendie Hill was living in Cornwall. If she visited Winchester College at that time, why would she even notice one of the dozens of boys roughly a decade younger than her?

[Fiver]

In "The Sun" during their Ripper expose of early1894, the paper hypocritically and menacingly warns that anybody even distantly related to "The Ripper" will be reputationally destroyed.

" Just three years have now passed away since these murders ceased to take place; and such an interruption in the series of crimes points clearly to the disappearance in some form or other of the man who was guilty of them. " - Sun, 13 February 1894

So the Sun wasn't worried about protecting the reputation of the Druitt family.

[jmenges]

The Du Boulay House was part of Winchester College.

"Designed by eminent Victorian architect, William White, and Grade II listed, Du Boulay’s is situated a few minutes walk from the College. Founded by its first Housemaster, Revd J.T.H Du Boulay (1862-1893), it is informally known as Cook’s, after the second Housemaster A.K. Cook (1893-1909), who published a book on the school’s history."

The 1881 Census shows Henry Gryllis Majendie was one of 36 students boarding at the Du Boulay House. Of course he was in the 1882 class photo, just like the other students.

His teacher's niece, Isabel Majendie Hill was living in Cornwall. If she visited Winchester College at that time, why would she even notice one of the dozens of boys roughly a decade younger than her?

I'm guessing that "Isabel Majendie Hill" (referred to above) is the same lady who married Charles Druitt, (son of Robert Druitt) on September 15th 1888 in Wiltshire? I pulled the certificate in March 1984 as part of my quest to trace down all branches of the Druitt family. I think what caught my eye here is the date of the marriage but I don't have a note of whether I did a search to see if the wedding was covered in the local newspapers. Sometimes the guests are listed and it would have been interesting to see if MJD's name was listed.

KS

[caz]

Knowing the reason for Druitt's dismissal, and therefore what "serious trouble" actually means, would help us to decide whether his dismissal was especially shameful, sufficient to cause consideration of suicide. We are guessing, of course, but I think that those who have suggested a homosexual encounter with a pupil must be wrong. Homosexual acts were illegal and punishable by imprisonment, and such an act with a pupil would have been appalling beyond belief and impossible to keep quiet. Valentine would have had to report the matter to the police, to demonstrate that he was protecting his pupils and not his staff, and even if he didn't, the boy's parents would certainly have done so. The police were unaware of what happened, and news of it didn't reach the newspapers, so it was unlikely to have been something criminal or impossible to "hush up".

It was probably something significantly less serious, but serious enough to require dismissal. As has been suggested, some promiscuity with female staff, unwanted homosexual advances on male staff, assault of another member of staff or a pupil, foul language in front of students, or as you suggest, being caught pleasuring himself. The possibilities are endless as this was a "posh" school, and lapses such as those mentioned would have been totally unacceptable.

The words, "I felt I was going to be like mother", are also capable of being interpreted in different ways. Ann Druitt had depression and paranoid delusions, so if Druitt did write this, was he excessively depressed or delusional on Friday? Or could he have just meant that he feared he would end up in an asylum like his mother?

As always happens, we don't know, and can only guess.

Hi DW,

Both my brothers went to a prep school in London back in the 1960s, and all the boys knew that sexual abuse by a master was something to be feared and/or endured, and too often it was suffered in silence by a victim who might only have spoken about the "shame" of it many years later, if ever. I'm afraid the reality was that very few cases would have been reported to an adult, such as the headmaster, school nurse or a parent, out of sheer embarrassment as much as the fear of not being believed. I suspect it would have been worse in Victorian times, when young children were supposed to be seen and not heard, and older ones were taught to speak only when spoken to. Talk of unwanted sexual advances would have been - er - unwanted.

It seems rather unlikely to me that Valentine would have involved the police if word had reached him about any such abuse happening under his roof, when he could have quietly sacked any member of staff for unspecified 'serious trouble' and saved himself and his school's reputation a whole lot of unwanted grief. Walls of silence have gone up over the years in schools, scout groups and church choirs, which by rights should have had young victims shouting instead from the rooftops.

That said, we simply don't know what circumstances led to Druitt's last day at the school and final underground journey, and what the state of his mind was during that period. Back then, suicide was a scandalous act socially, and a criminal offence, so the best thing for all interested parties was to go with the 'unsound mind' angle, whether or not it was truly justified in his case. If William did claim, in so many words, that there were no other relatives, when it was simple enough to establish otherwise - at the funeral for starters - my guess is that he was merely sparing the next nearest and dearest from the ordeal of any unwanted public attention at such a sad time.

In my experience, someone who is depressed to the point of being suicidal may go from having organised thoughts about it one day, to totally chaotic the next. There are no rules. Could Druitt have suffered from bipolar disorder?

For what it's worth, one might think that suicide among successful cricketers would be a rare thing, but sadly it's far from uncommon.

Love,

Caz
X