Druitt and Monro

[Lewis C]

I think everyone is forgetting the murders of Mckenzie and Coles which were attributed to the Ripper if they were then Druitt is cleared of any suspicion because he was long dead by the time those murders took place.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don't think that anyone who has given much thought to the suspectology aspect of the case would forget that, at least not with regard to McKenzie. Most people don't think that Coles was a Ripper murder, in which case she wouldn't be relevant. But whether or not McKenzie was a Ripper murder is an important question for evaluating suspects. Druitt isn't the only suspect who would be cleared if McKenzie was a Ripper murder. So would Bury, Cohen, Hyams, Tumblety, and I think Grainger. And the rationale for Barnett as a suspect wouldn't work.

[Wickerman]

. . . Most people don't think that Coles was a Ripper murder, in which case she wouldn't be relevant. But whether or not McKenzie was a Ripper murder is an important question for evaluating suspects.

And yet, the Coles murder was most like Stride, only the cut throat, McKenzie wasn't much more.

[GBinOz]

Where's the allegation of intimacy against any boys?

If you are applying a guiding rule, you have to apply it equally.

No-one even suggested the trouble was of a sexual nature, maybe it was theft, or striking a child, or another teacher, or being rude to Mr Valentine, there are plenty of alternatives.

Or failing to turn up for start of term?

[Fiver]

Or failing to turn up for start of term?

That sounds like a very real possibility. Isn't that why Druitt was dismissed from his cricket club - failure to turn up? When was start of term for Valentine's school?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Wasn't it the end of term when Druitt was dismissed ?

Regards Darryl

[rjpalmer]

That sounds like a very real possibility. Isn't that why Druitt was dismissed from his cricket club - failure to turn up? When was start of term for Valentine's school?

No, it's not a very real possibility. No offense to George, but it makes no sense whatsoever.

Why would George Valentine having the unhappy task of letting his assistant school master go and replacing him weeks after his disappearance in preparation for the next term be referred to by William Druitt as MJD having gotten into "serious trouble" at the school? How would Druitt being replaced after his death be 'serious'??

The obvious implication is that Druitt's dismissal had occurred during his lifetime and had contributed to his decision to kill himself. That's the only reason William would have brought it up.

Paul Begg and Phil Sugden were obviously correct in stating that 'December 30' was a mistake for 'November 30'---Druitt had been dismissed the day before he bought his railway ticket to Hammersmith.

[Fiver]

Wasn't it the end of term when Druitt was dismissed ?

Regards Darryl

That is how many have interpreted it. The Acton, Chiswick, and Turnham Green Gazette of January 5, 1889 appears to be recording William Druitt's answers, but not what the questions were.

"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."

The statement "That was on the 30th of December." is usually interpreted as an answer to "When was your brother dismissed". But couldn't have been an answer to "when did you go to London to make inquiries?"

[Darryl Kenyon]

Am I missing something ? Nov 30 was a Friday. That seems to be a logical day for end of term [ and when he was dismissed ]. Nov 29 being a Thursday doesn't seem right for the start of term.

Regards Darryl

[rjpalmer]

Am I missing something ? Nov 30 was a Friday. That seems to be a logical day for end of term [ and when he was dismissed ]. Nov 29 being a Thursday doesn't seem right for the start of term.

Regards Darryl

As Keith Skinner noted earlier in this thread, Paul Begg was the first to suggest that 30 November was the end of the term, but in saying this Paul B. used the word "seems" and gave no source for this suggestion.

As Keith notes (and I agree) November 30 seems at least two weeks too early for winter break. The Victorians giving their children fully five weeks for a Christmas holiday? It strikes me as very unlikely and I personally couldn't find any evidence that Valentine did such a thing.

Edit: here's the quote, Paul Begg Uncensored Facts, pg. 176



Is Paul correct in putting 'a serious offence' in quotation marks?

William Druitt said 'serious trouble,' whereas 'offense' suggests a criminal act. Trouble need not be a criminal act.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t have my books to hand at the moment so I can’t consult Farson to find out where this quote came from. Can anyone recall?


Albert Bachert, Whitechapel Vigilance Committee: “I was given this information in confidence about March 1889. It was then suggested to me (by the police) that the Vigilance Committee and it’s patrols might be disbanded as the police were quite certain that the ripper was dead……He was fished out of the Thames two months ago and it would only cause pain to relatives if we said more than that.”

[rjpalmer]

I don’t have my books to hand at the moment so I can’t consult Farson to find out where this quote came from. Can anyone recall?


Albert Bachert, Whitechapel Vigilance Committee: “I was given this information in confidence about March 1889. It was then suggested to me (by the police) that the Vigilance Committee and it’s patrols might be disbanded as the police were quite certain that the ripper was dead……He was fished out of the Thames two months ago and it would only cause pain to relatives if we said more than that.”

It came from Donald McCormick's imagination.

There's no known source for Bachert having said this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It came from Donald McCormick's imagination.

There's no known source for Bachert having said this.

Thanks Roger,

I saw it the notes that I’d made when I re-read Farson a while ago but I’d put a big question mark next to it. Something in the back of my foggy brain was whispering the name McCormick but I couldn’t fix a definite connection.

[Wickerman]

Or failing to turn up for start of term?

The new term begins in January, George.

[Wickerman]

Wasn't it the end of term when Druitt was dismissed ?

Regards Darryl

I wonder if this is too coincidental, perhaps the "serious trouble" is William's conclusion, not the words of Valentine.

Had Druitt done something wrong during his tenure as teacher, and Mr Valentine had decided to let him go on that last day of term.
The incident did not happen at the end of term, it was just Valentine told Druitt he would not be required at the start of next term.

In this case the "serious trouble" would be Williams interpretation, and the incident could have happened any time during that last term. Which would suggest it wasn't that serious, not an offense that required immediate dismissal, but what ever it was, it could wait until the end of term?

[rjpalmer]

I wonder if this is too coincidental, perhaps the "serious trouble" is William's conclusion, not the words of Valentine.

Had Druitt done something wrong during his tenure as teacher, and Mr Valentine had decided to let him go on that last day of term.
The incident did not happen at the end of term, it was just Valentine told Druitt he would not be required at the start of next term.

In this case the "serious trouble" would be Williams interpretation, and the incident could have happened any time during that last term. Which would suggest it wasn't that serious, not an offense that required immediate dismissal, but what ever it was, it could wait until the end of term?

Why assume that November 30th is the last day of the term? Doesn't Keith Skinner have a valid point in questioning whether this is two or three weeks too early?