Originally posted by Wickerman
View Post
And Druitt being replaced by George Valentine on December 30 would have had no relevance to the inquest. Clearly, William Druitt, a solicitor who sometimes held inquests of his own, would know that. The decomposition of Druitt's body showed that Druitt had been dead for weeks before December 30th. That he was afterwards replaced by a different school master wouldn't have mattered.
In stating that Druitt had been dismissed, WHD was attempting to demonstrate his brother's mental state before he drowned himself in Chiswick/Hammersmith.
In other words, the purpose of the inquest was threefold:
(A) to identify the body (which William did).
(B) To determine the cause of death (MJD had drowned)
(C) To examine evidence of MJD's mental state to determine if it was an accidental drowning or whether it was a deliberate act while MJD was of "unsound mind."
William Druitt's statements all go to (C): evidence of his brother's mental state.
1. He felt he was going insane like his mother. 2. He had been dismissed for 'serious trouble' which contributed to his desire to die. 3. He left notes alluding to suicide.
As I see it, William Druitt's reference to the dismissal was solely due to its relevance to the purpose of the inquest. George Valentine deciding to replace him as the next term approached wouldn't have been relevant.
IMHO.


Comment