Druitt and Monro

[rjpalmer]

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.

Good points, of course.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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’d just like to point out that I wasn’t trying to make a claim that this was any kind of original idea from me.

[rjpalmer]

I’d just like to point out that I wasn’t trying to make a claim that this was any kind of original idea from me.

I realize that, Mike. My only intent was to alert George to Kattrup's earlier post, where he made a valid point. And your combined point is technically correct, of course--the notes were undated---but how often are suicide notes dated? The jury seemed to believe that they were suicide notes and thus ruled Druitt was of 'unsound mind' when he drowned himself.

Kattrup's original point, if I fully understand it, was limited to the observation that since they are undated there's no point in trying to wring out any meaning out of 'since Friday,' but it's pretty hard to ignore than November 30th was a Friday and it was the next day that Druitt reportedly bought his railway ticket to Hammersmith.

It's certainly tempting arithmetic, however uncertain it might be.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Off the net -
The University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate – now known as Cambridge Assessment – was officially established on 11 February 1858. Its first exam took place on 14 December 1858. There were two examinations: the Junior (for students under 16 years of age) and the Senior (for students under the age of 18), and they took place in local ‘centres’ - schools or any suitable venues like church or village halls.

Now I am wondering if Nov 30 wasn't the end of term, but the pupils were sent home anyways on that date for a few days [ maybe just the weekend ] so the teachers could prepare the exams [ mock or half term to gauge how each individual was progressing ] and said pupils could study for said exams at home. Then they would return, and the exams would be held just before the Xmas break proper .

Just a thought Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

Quick question , do we know for certain how many notes/letters Druitt left alluding to his suicide, and were they all addressed to someone as such and who to ?

Regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

I realize that, Mike. My only intent was to alert George to Kattrup's earlier post, where he made a valid point. And your combined point is technically correct, of course--the notes were undated---but how often are suicide notes dated? The jury seemed to believe that they were suicide notes and thus ruled Druitt was of 'unsound mind' when he drowned himself.

Kattrup's original point, if I fully understand it, was limited to the observation that since they are undated there's no point in trying to wring out any meaning out of 'since Friday,' but it's pretty hard to ignore than November 30th was a Friday and it was the next day that Druitt reportedly bought his railway ticket to Hammersmith.

It's certainly tempting arithmetic, however uncertain it might be.

I’d say that it’s very hard to ignore Roger, especially when we add that on the 11th he hadn’t been seen at his chambers for over a week.

[Fiver]

Quick question , do we know for certain how many notes/letters Druitt left alluding to his suicide, and were they all addressed to someone as such and who to ?

Regards Darryl

"The deceased had left a letter, addressed to Mr. Valentine, of the school, in which he alluded to suicide. A paper had also been found upon which the deceased had written, "Since Friday, I have felt as if I was going to be like mother," who had for some months been mentally afflicted. " - Dorset Chronicle, 10 January 1889

"Witness [William Druitt] 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 was for me to die." - Acton, Chiswick & Turnham Green Gazette, 5 January 1889

So two letters, one to Valentine and the other to his brother, William. The second was read out by the coroner, but he have only a reporter's summary, not precise wording.

Is there any chance the inquest transcript still exists? I suspect not, otherwise it probably would have been unearthed by now.

[Darryl Kenyon]

"The deceased had left a letter, addressed to Mr. Valentine, of the school, in which he alluded to suicide. A paper had also been found upon which the deceased had written, "Since Friday, I have felt as if I was going to be like mother," who had for some months been mentally afflicted. " - Dorset Chronicle, 10 January 1889

"Witness [William Druitt] 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 was for me to die." - Acton, Chiswick & Turnham Green Gazette, 5 January 1889

So two letters, one to Valentine and the other to his brother, William. The second was read out by the coroner, but he have only a reporter's summary, not precise wording.

Is there any chance the inquest transcript still exists? I suspect not, otherwise it probably would have been unearthed by now.

Thank you Fiver. Do we have a rough idea what the letter to Valentine said ?

Darryl

[Fiver]

Thank you Fiver. Do we have a rough idea what the letter to Valentine said ?

Darryl

To the best of my knowledge, just the newspaper report that the letter to Valentine "alluded to suicide". No further details, nor if either letter was dated seems to have been given.

[GBinOz]

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.

The question is, what was on the 30th of December? I agree with your suggestion regarding the past tense and am proposing that what happened on 30th of December was that William arrived at the school and found out that Monty had been dismissed prior to that date.

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."

The cricket club had replaced Monty in his position as treasurer, not because he had disappeared, but because he had advised them that he was going abroad. They had no cause for alarm at his absence, and had Monty told William the same thing he would not have been alarmed when he was contacted by Monty's fellow occupants at King's Bench Walk. Had he been alarmed he would not have deferred his visit to the school until 30 Dec, and if his visit was not on 30 Dec, and Monty's past tense dismissal was not on 30 Dec, what was on the 30th of December?

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."

Is it known when these inquiries were made by Druitt's people?

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.

But Druitt hadn't vacated the school, as he should have had the trouble been on or before 30 Nov, when he left on Dec 1. All his possessions were still at the school, including the notes.

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.

Hi RJ,

I am not suggesting that there was no serious trouble. I am speculating on what might have been classified by Valentine as serious trouble at the time, and when the event described as serious trouble might have taken place. My conjecture is that the dismissal took place when Monty failed to attend the start of the new term, and I am speculating that this was after boxing day but before 30 Dec. I am also speculating that Monty was mentally in a dark place after his mother's committal, and under increasing pressure from his growing legal practice, and that Valentine may have been increasingly unhappy with Monty's performance at the school causing him to assess Monty's failure to turn up for start of term as a serious infringement of duty. At that stage he didn't know Monty was dead.

The accepted hypothesis is that Monty was dismissed on 30 Nov on the basis that 30 Dec was a mistake, and that he had been dismissed for some misconduct of a sexual nature. Had the "Since Friday" note been referring to yesterday, I dare say some mention would have been made to his disgrace at having been found out for said misconduct, but this was not the case. The sole reference was to his suspicion that the madness in his family may have been hereditary in nature. Had he been leaving in disgrace I would have expected that he would have arranged for his things to be removed from his premises, but he didn't. It almost looks as if it was the end of term and he was setting off on a holiday, as he told his cricket club, fully prepared to fund said holiday with the money he carried on his person....far more that an amount required to accommodate a suicide.

I appreciate that I am presenting a speculated hypothesis that is out of step with, and possessing no more validity than, the speculated hypotheses of others. Isn't that why we are here discussing these conundrums?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi RJ,

I don't know, and neither does anyone else. We are all speculating on a puzzle with most of the pieces missing (as always), so all comments are just opinions. It seems to me that if the fears expressed in Monty's note regarding a path of insanity leading to commitment to an asylum would result in an outcome that would not be the best for any parties. Had he been caught in a scandal I would have expected a reference in his notes to being unable to face the disgrace, and perhaps consequences, of said scandal rather than fearing that he was going insane. The jury returned a verdict of suicide whilst temporarily insane, not suicide due to the disgrace of a scandal.

JMO.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

(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.

IMHO.

As I see it, points 1 and 3 can stand alone without the necessity of point 2. IMHO.

[GBinOz]

I’d just like to point out that I wasn’t trying to make a claim that this was any kind of original idea from me.

Hi Herlock,

I understand that you were not trying to claim credit for stating that the notes were undated, but that while they had addressees they may have lain sometime in a drawer for reconsideration. This possibility would provide a reasonable alternative to referring to yesterday as "Since Friday".

Cheers, George