Druitt and Monro

[Darryl Kenyon]

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.

Yes , I take your point RJ [ that had occurred to me ] 12 days of Christmas was more significant to Victorians than today, so Nov 30 does seem early. I was thinking more of the day [ Friday ] end of school week . Looking up school holidays in Victorian England it seems unlikely there was a holiday at the end of November. Half term in October and Christmas [ too early for Nov 30 ] being the closest .

Thinking of serious trouble rather than offence , could the wording be such as to protect the schools reputation ?

Regards Darryl

[rjpalmer]

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?

I think the trouble is that there was no uniform rule for winter school break in the 1800s. Different schools had different breaks. In researching the matter, I found a reference to St. Paul's School, London, starting their winter break only several days before Christmas, whereas some esteemed public schools, with a wealthier clientele, did indeed give their students five or six weeks which allowed them to travel to warmer climes, such as southern France, etc.

It's currently impossible to know when George Valentine's school broke up for winter holiday.

[Lewis C]

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

The time gap gets to be a real issue for Coles. There is disagreement about whether the 8-month gap between the Kelly and McKenzie murders is long enough to doubt that McKenzie was a Ripper murder, but the 19-month gap between McKenzie and Coles seems too long even for many who think that an 8-month gap is plausible.

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi RJ,

With all due respect, I beg to differ. On 30 Dec it was not known that Monty was dead. His not having been seen at chambers for over a week did not signify that he had disappeared, merely that he had not attended chambers. He told his cricket club that he was going overseas...did he tell William the same thing? There does not seem to cause for alarm at this stage. It could well be that the new term started after Boxing day and Valentine was peeved that not only had Monty failed to report for duty, he had not even contacted Valentine. The reason was that Monty was dead, but Valentine (and everyone else) was not at that stage privy to that information. Valentine's exasperation could have been aggravated by the fact that William had not turned up until 30 Dec, and he (presumably) did not know that Monty was dead.

Paul Begg and Phil Sugden were obviously only speculating that 'December 30' was a mistake for 'November 30'. A theory to fit a required conclusion that Monty was dismissed on 30 Nov....a "Friday" in his note rather than "yesterday".

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

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

Hi Darryl,

Nov 30 has been suggested as the end of term but has yet to be confirmed. The speculation that he was dismissed on that day is pure conjecture lacking even the slightest suggestion of proof other than a supposed suicide note that referred to a "Friday" on which Monty reached a conclusion that he may be headed for a similar mental decline to his mother's recent consignment to an asylum. There is nothing even remotely referring to a dismissal. That part is entirely speculation to support a theory.

Nov 29 in not being suggested as the start of a new term, only the end of the old term. I am suggesting that the new term commenced between boxing day and 30 Dec.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

The new term begins in January, George.

Hi Jon,

Is there any actual evidence relating to the dates of the end of the old term and the start of the new term? Is there any actual evidence that Monty was dismissed on 30 Nov, other than a speculated revision of 30 Dec to 30 Nov? It seems to me that the entire dismissal due to misconduct theory is pure speculation.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Can someone please point out to me how it can be accepted that Monty was dismissed on 30 Nov? The best that can be proffered is the supposed "suicide note" that addressed family mental problems without a word regarding a dismissal.

I think that we can attribute to Herlock the credit for a breakthrough suggestion that the note was written sometime before Dec 1 and put in a drawer, and that it was referring either to the occasion of his mother's interment in an asylum, or his conversation with William in late October on that subject. I would contend that is had nothing to do with any surmised dismissal, and that said dismissal related to a failure to report for duty rather than for misconduct, for which there is zero evidence.

Cheers, George

[Doctored Whatsit]

Almost everything we know, or think we know about Monty's death is speculation! He probably died on 1st December, because of the unused return ticket to the place he died, but some argue that even that is unproven. Some suspect that he was or may have been murdered, but most accept suicide. The "30th December" date in the Acton, Chiswick and Turnham Green Gazette is confusing, because it can be interpreted in at least three different ways. It could have been the date Monty was dismissed, the date William made enquiries at the school, or a mistake for 30th November.

"Serious trouble" could mean many things. It seems to me that it was something that was deliberately not disclosed, but I don't think that failure to arrive at the school by a particular date would still be defined as "serious trouble", considering that at the inquest it was known that his failure to attend would have been due to the fact that he was dead!

The suicide note, or alleged suicide note, does not refer to his dismissal or anything resembling "serious trouble", merely a fear that he was beginning to act or feel like his mother who was depressed and delusional, so it can be argued that the dismissal had nothing to do with his suicide, or that his dismissal was directly related to delusional behaviour. We don't know when the note was written, as Herlock suggested, it could have been written some time earlier and not acted upon, or it could have been written the day before his death, which was a Friday. Alternatively, the note could have been a forgery by someone who knew he had been dismissed on Friday 30th November, but hadn't realised that Monty died the next day and therefore would logically have written "yesterday" and not "Friday".

We can go on and on, it's no surprise that we cannot agree!

[Trevor Marriott]

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

These murders are consistent with my belief that JTR carried out these murders and that his motive was simply nothing more than murder

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

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?

But that is not the argument RJ, the issue is when Druitt was dismissed - 30th Dec. or 30th Nov., and I take it as demonstrated Druitt had been dead long before 30th Dec.
Whether he was dismissed at, or before the end of term is the assumption, and the actual date adopted by this private school for the end of term is sadly unknown.

[Wickerman]

Yes , I take your point RJ [ that had occurred to me ] 12 days of Christmas was more significant to Victorians than today, so Nov 30 does seem early. I was thinking more of the day [ Friday ] end of school week . Looking up school holidays in Victorian England it seems unlikely there was a holiday at the end of November. Half term in October and Christmas [ too early for Nov 30 ] being the closest .

Thinking of serious trouble rather than offence , could the wording be such as to protect the schools reputation ?

Regards Darryl

Private schools would not be required to follow public school timetables and holiday calendars.
Also, many of these kids or teachers may have come from far away involving several days travel to get home.
We should avoid tying our hands with details we have no knowledge of.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Is there any actual evidence relating to the dates of the end of the old term and the start of the new term? Is there any actual evidence that Monty was dismissed on 30 Nov, other than a speculated revision of 30 Dec to 30 Nov? It seems to me that the entire dismissal due to misconduct theory is pure speculation.

Cheers, George

There is a lot of assumption involved thats for sure.

[Wickerman]

. . . I would contend that is had nothing to do with any surmised dismissal, and that said dismissal related to a failure to report for duty rather than for misconduct, for which there is zero evidence.

I'm inclined to think any dismissal from the school would be done in person.
It would be etiquette for Mr Valentine to give Druitt the opportunity in person to explain himself.
Which suggests to me if he was dismissed, it would be done in writing, and in person, meaning Druitt was still alive on the date of his dismissal.

[rjpalmer]

Hi RJ,

With all due respect, I beg to differ. On 30 Dec it was not known that Monty was dead. His not having been seen at chambers for over a week did not signify that he had disappeared, merely that he had not attended chambers. He told his cricket club that he was going overseas...did he tell William the same thing? There does not seem to cause for alarm at this stage.

Hi George,

With similar respect right back at you, I'm afraid that I still find your suggestion faulty on multiple levels. I can't see how it possibly makes any sense. Here's why.

To begin with, William Druitt could not have meant that his brother wasn't dismissed until December 30th, because he refers to the dismissal in the past tense.

Think it through. How do you explain his use of past tense?

"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."

MJD "had been dismissed" already (past tense) when William Druitt showed up in Blackheath to make inquiries.

Unless you're suggesting William Druitt's inquiries didn't take place until December 31 or January 1889 his reference to the dismissal having already taken place makes no sense. And if his inquiries DID take place after his brother's body was recovered from The Thames on December 31st, why wouldn't he have said so at the inquest---'I was called to London when my brother's body was found in Chiswick and then went to the school to make inquires'--- instead of dating his concern to 11th December, when he was contacted by MJD's peers at Kings Bench Walk??

I also disagree with your statement that "There does not seem to cause for alarm at this stage."

I see it very differently. Of course, there was alarm and/or concern. The blokes at Kings Bench Walk were concerned enough to contact William in Bournemouth and alert him to his brother's absence. He then went to London to make inquiries. That doesn't sound like he waited another three weeks! And that William was concerned is supported by George R. Sims' revelation that Druitt's people had made inquiries "through the proper channels"---ie., they either contacted the police or they contacted a police magistrate, and thus "the police were looking for Druitt alive when he turned up dead."


To me, William Druitt's statement is about as plain and simple as it could possibly be. MJ Druitt and "got into serious trouble at the school and had been dismissed" (ie., because of it).

Whatever this serious trouble was, it led to his dismissal with the further implication that Druitt then vacated the school, leaving behind notes alluding to suicide.

If Valentine simply realized on December 30th that his longtime assistant was gone and not coming back, and thus decided to replace him, why on earth would William Druitt refer to the replacement as being due to "serious trouble"? That's a strange way of referring to the tragic events of his brother's suicide isn't it, and Valentine's unhappy task of replacing his longtime assistant?

As far as I can grasp, you seem to be suggesting there was no serious trouble, which runs counter to the entire spirit of William Druitt's deposition.

Sorry.

[rjpalmer]

Can someone please point out to me how it can be accepted that Monty was dismissed on 30 Nov? The best that can be proffered is the supposed "suicide note" that addressed family mental problems without a word regarding a dismissal.

How do you know, George?

One of the notes was addressed to Valentine and it said something along the lines that the "best for all parites" would be for him (MJD) "to die."

"he wrote to the effect that "what he intended to do would be the best for all parties," the jury returned a verdict of "Suicide by drowning whilst temporarily insane."

It sounds to me like it is very possible that the note DID refer to the event that led to his dismissal. It's not just an allusion to depression and a wish to end himself, he seems to be referring to a scandal of some sort---"all parties...." would benefit from his death. It would be best for him, best for William, best for Valentine, and best for whomever else he might have in mind.

Actually, it was Kattrup who was the first on this thread to point out that the notes were undated, not Herlock, but how often are suicide notes dated?

I've read quite a few of them and it's very rarely. The person committing suicide is not writing a business letter--he assumes the finder of the note will be able to add two and two together and the date would be irrelevant.

The two notes or letters or papers, in my view, were very clearly suicide notes--it wasn't something written in the distant pass--the Richmond and Twickenham Times reported that the letter referred to his "intent' to kill himself. And sure as heck, he soon after drowned himself.

And the jury--who heard one of the notes being read out--obviously believed it was a suicide note because they ruled accordingly.