Druitt's room

[Gman992]

After the police searched Druitt's room after his suicide, did they find anything that might be connected or might be construed to the killings?

[GUT]

There is no evidence that the police searched his room.

Brother William said that he had the room searched.

What was found save a note [if indeed it was found in his room] s unknown, to the best of my knowledge.

[Rosella]

If Druitt was sacked from Valentine's school wouldn't he have been asked to remove his belongings as soon as possible following his dismissal? Or is it Monty's legal chambers we are talking about here?

[GUT]

If Druitt was sacked from Valentine's school wouldn't he have been asked to remove his belongings as soon as possible following his dismissal? Or is it Monty's legal chambers we are talking about here?

Again that is unknown.

It is speculated that one of three things occurred:

1. He was dismissed by Valentine but allowed to remain in his room for a short period, during which time he died.

2. It was his Chambers that were searched

3. The date of his sacking asreported in the only surviving account of the inquest, 30 December, was correct and his dismissal was posthumous, as was his dismissal by the Bournemouth Cricket club

Which is correct is a matter of speculation, but only one fits the facts that we have, without saying that the reported "facts" are wrong.

[Jonathan H]

I argue that the likeliest theory is No. 3 -- his belongings remained at the school, the sporting club would not have dismissed a man believed to be in a state of acute mental distress, and the brother did not arrive at his missing sibling's rooms until weeks later (because he initially believed his brother had suddenly gone abroad).

Also we do not know if there were two notes, one for the brother and one for the headmaster, as the news reports are all over the place about this aspect.

What we do know is that no sources from 1889, or later, link his dismissal with his suicide--not even the only newspaper source that mentions it at all.

There is something else to consider.

Had the claims about Montague being the Ripper been expressed or leaked at the time of his body's recovery, say at the inquest, not only would his clan have been ruined, the Valentine school would not have survived either.

[Mayerling]

I argue that the likeliest theory is No. 3 -- his belongings remained at the school, the sporting club would not have dismissed a man believed to be in a state of acute mental distress, and the brother did not arrive at his missing sibling's rooms until weeks later (because he initially believed his brother had suddenly gone abroad).

Also we do not know if there were two notes, one for the brother and one for the headmaster, as the news reports are all over the place about this aspect.

What we do know is that no sources from 1889, or later, link his dismissal with his suicide--not even the only newspaper source that mentions it at all.

There is something else to consider.

Had the claims about Montague being the Ripper been expressed or leaked at the time of his body's recovery, say at the inquest, not only would his clan have been ruined, the Valentine school would not have survived either.

Hi Jon,

Your last is an interesting one. How do families or close friends or organizations usually cope with the possibly bad sensational news connected to a close figure to all these groups?

Since I worked for the New York State Crime Victims Board, I normally saw the result of serious crime as it affected the family of the victim (sometimes their friends as well). But I rarely had an opportunity (outside of reading the newspapers or seeing other media) considered the result from the other side.

Some notable cases emerged over the years. I recall back in the 1990s there was an article written in the New York Times Sunday Magazine by the daughter of Lee Harvey Oswald about growing up with that family skeleton.
I also am aware of other historical reactions to other big historical actors of villainy. Most notable one is Edwin Booth, who never fully recovered from the experience of his younger brother's murder of Lincoln, but managed to find he was not blamed for it by the American public and had a long and distinguished acting career.

Not everyone let the Booth family off lightly. Acting rival Edwin Forrest, upon hearing the tidings of April 14, 1865, made the remark: "What did you expect? All those Booths are crazy!" Forrest referred to the alcohol stimulated collapse of the elder Junius Brutus Booth when he linked it to John Wilkes Booth's actions. Interestingly enough, Forrest himself had been involved in an 1849 incident, a culmination of a rivalry with the British actor William Macready, that led to rioting near the Manhattan theaters on Astor Place and the deaths of about two dozen people shot down by state militia.
Macready returned to England and never ventured back here. Forrest continued his career until the 1870s, but was aware that there was a large stain on his reputation.

The Ford brothers lost their theater in the wake of the assassination - the War Department seized it and used it for record keeping. I suppose that is an example of an organization being destroyed by a criminal act associated to it or by a person connected to it (an actor who played there occasionally, Wilkes Booth). But it also was a typical high handed reaction of Secretary of War Stanton who suspected many people of involvement in the Lincoln Assassination. He arrested (temporarily) the whole cast of "Our American Cousin".

But the murder of Abraham Lincoln was a first (the first President to be assassinated), and the murder of the highest official in the country. Can you think of any crime like the Ripper's (but solved) where an organization actually was put out of existence as a result (meaning a business like Valentine's school). Even though the killings in Whitechapel were horrible, the victims were not on the Lincoln level.

The only time I can remember a crime that involved a private school in England (outside of Druitt's connection to Valentine) was in 1881, in the Wimbledon Poinsoning Case, where Dr. George Henry Lamson killed his brother-in-law Percy Johns with poison while visiting him at his school. I don't know if that school's reputation was shattered by what happened? Can someone find out?

Jeff

[Jonathan H]

Shielding the Family?

To Mayerling

Very interesting! Families are usually the last to believe something so horrific, if they ever do at all.

The reaction and fears of the killer's family is a running theme throughout the early sources on 'Jack the Ripper', yet a number of books on this subject barely consider this aspect:

The ‘Acton, Chiswick and Turnham Green Gazette’ Jan 5th 1889--reporting on a suicide in the River Thames we are informed that the deceased’s older brother, William Druitt searched for his missing sibling:

‘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 …’

To protect the Druitt family this was disguised by Sims (Dagonet) as:

‘The Referee’, February 16th 1902:

‘At the time his dead body was found in the Thames, his friends, who were terrified at his disappearance from, their midst, were endeavoring to have him found …’

'The Sun' Feb 13th 1894--referring to the un-named Cutbush family:

“some of them in positions which would make them a target for the natural curiosity - for the unreasoning reprobation which would pursue any person even remotely connected with so hideous a monstrosity, and we must abstain, therefore, from giving his name in the interest of these unfortunate, innocent, and respectable connections.”

'The Daily Express', Aug 1st 1904: --An interview with Sims in which the Druitts are still disguised:

‘... Mr. Sims said that he had not the slightest doubt in his mind as to who the “Ripper” really was. “Nor have the police”, he continued, “In the archives of the Home Office are the name and history of the wretched man. He was a mad physician belonging to a highly respected family. He committed the crimes after having been in a lunatic asylum as a homicidal maniac.”

'The Gloucester Citizen' Jan 9th 1905: --again still disguised:

‘Mr. Sims, from information which came under his notice, has told me on more than one occasion he is convinced that these murders were committed by a medical man who afterwards committed suicide near the Embankment. This man was well-known in London as subject of fits of lunacy, and he belonged to one of the best families in town. It is consideration for his relatives which has prevented “Dagonet” from making a full disclosure of such evidence as he possesses …’

Guy Logan, 'Illustrated Police News', 1905, 'The True History of Jack the Ripper' (in which the un-named Druitts are openly disguised as the Slades):

‘The inner history of the unspeakable crimes associated with … “Jack the Ripper” are known to very few. The relatives of that monumental criminal are still, many of them, in the land of the living, and I am consequently precluded from giving the exact name of the monster …’

Lady Christabel Aberconway from Nov 17th, 1959-- replying to a critic who wanted to know the name of her late father's chief suspect:

“... it shocks me greatly when you suggest that the actual name of the suspected “Jack the Ripper” should be given. After all he might have a nephew or a niece, born about 1890, who would not yet be 70: they in turn might have a child about to get married. It would not be very pleasant to know that your uncle or great uncle was suspected of being ‘Jack the Ripper’ would it?”

How did Lady Aberconway know that the Ripper had no children of his own? Obviously this bit of data came from her father, Sir Melville Macnaghten, who according to many modern accounts knew nothing accurate about his 'Jack'.

Merry Xmas!

[pinkmoon]

I think it very unlikely any rumours were going round the school about Monty because I think it would have been very hard to stop any of the kids blabbing.Let's cast our mind back to our own school days every now and again a "story" would do the rounds about a member of staff and every parent would be told by their kids 9 times out of 10 it was garbage.

[Jonathan H]

Maybe, maybe not?

This was recently found by Paul Begg.

In ‘My Life and a Few Yarns’ (George Allen and Unwin, 1922) career naval officer H.L. Fleet (could an admiral be better named?) mentioned the following bombshell in passing:’

‘On January 1st, 1895, my promotion to Captain was gazetted; another spell of half-pay! At Blackheath we found a lot of old friends, and one of my old C-in-C’s Sir Walter Hunt-Grubbe, as Admiral at the college. The Heath itself had a bad reputation after dark. When we lived there formerly it was considered dangerous, for the terrible series of crimes committed by ‘Jack the Ripper’ were then being perpetrated, and many people believed that he lived in Blackheath. His victims were invariably women of the unfortunate class, and it was evident that he was a homicidal maniac with a grudge against such people. He was never caught, although it was sometimes stated that he had been and was confined in Broadmoor.’

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

H.L. Fleet also wrote in the same book—

"We stayed in London for a time and then moved down to Blackheath in order to be near the Royal Naval College at Greenwich, where I joined for a course on October 1, 1888, that lasted until the end of June 1889."

Fleet was in Blackheath throughout the Druitt debacle.

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

To Simon

Yes it's a tantalizing reference Paul found.

Because the meager data does not match Druitt except for the Blackheath locale.

As in, Druitt was not banged up in Broadmoor, Cutbush was.

Plus it is unlikely that he hared of Druitt being the Ripper whilst he was in Blackheath.

Perhaps Fleet is merging several memories at once: Blackheath, the drowned Doctor and the 'Sun' scoop of 1894.

[Roy Corduroy]

In relation to this thread, I have an arcane question, and if this info is already out there, please get your wet noodles at the ready to flog.

What were the school terms at Mr. Valentine's school, or a school like it? How many terms a year were there. What were the months of the terms. Were the students away on Christmas vacation yet at Dec 1. And so forth.

And while we're at it, did Montague Druitt's legal career require him to 'ride' the Western Circuit? Or did he file briefs from his office in London. Or any type of description you might give of how that worked.

And one more thing,

Merry Christmas

Roy

[Jonathan H]

To Simon

So far as I know the name "Blackheath" as the suburb the fiend resided in did not enter the public sphere until 1915: in an article Sims wrote for "Pearson's Weekly".

Perhaps Fleet read that and his fading memory put two and two together?

Or, perhaps he absorbed the leak of 1891 about the "son of a surgeon" and redacted it back into his stay in Blackheath at the time of the murders?

Or, it really did leak in early 1889, and George Valentine scrambled to cover it up in cahoots with William Druitt; that the real note was a confession left behind that was whisked away and replaced by the allusive letter that feared he was going to go into a madhouse like their mother and preferred death (e.g. who wouldn't?) This confession was later shown to Macnaghten who destroyed it.

To Roy

I don't know. There are a number of sources that show Druitt in court, acting as a deft and successful lawyer (in once case even getting laughs).

Other writers have speculated that November 30th is about the time the school term finished and therefore the cheques found on the water-logged corpse were his pay-off from the school after being dismissed to his face.

More likely, I argue, since Bournemouth and not Blackheath was contacted immediately after the body's recovery the cheques were from his brother's firm for excellent services rendered (and that the date, December 30th, is correct, and thus Druitt was dismissed for being missing hence it not being a focus of the stories of his tragic and inexplicable death).

In 1959 we discovered the real reason for Mr. Druitt's suicide, but this resolution is universally rejected here.

[Roy Corduroy]

Thanks for taking a stab at it, JJ.

"The Law List of 1886 places him in the Western Circuit and the Winchester Sessions. The next year he is recorded as a special pleader for the Western Circuit and Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Assizes (Sugden)." (Casebook)

There are a number of sources that show Druitt in court, acting as a deft and successful lawyer

He was in court. Where? On the Western circuit?



Of Montague, William Druitt said at inquest - He had stayed with witness at Bournemouth for a night towards the end of October. Which could have been if Montague was in court in that area and stayed with William. If he did go to court near Bornemouth. I have no idea.

We don't know when school was in session I suppose. But if school was not in session on Dec 30, why would he be dismissed then?

I'm just having a difficult time with his schedule, and two jobs, plus sports. Not about the suspect angle so much as I have no idea what his schedule was like except busy.

Roy

[Jonathan H]

Druitt may have been needed, on site or by mail, to agree to a new and part-time schedule in order to construct the next timetable, reassure the parents of the boys, and perhaps other matters, and, instead, he had pulled up stumps (though leaving his possessions) and left word he had gone abroad. No word from him after days and weeks (because he was in fact deceased all along, having hidden his own corpse in the river miles away at Chiswick--a ploy that would fail) causing him to be dismissed from his sporting club and his school-mastering job.

Times (London)
10 March 1881

Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division
(Before the Right Hon. the President and a Special Jury.)
Creek v Butler
Dr. Deane, Q.C., Sir J. Holker, Q.C., and Mr. Searle appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Inderwick, Q.C., and Mr. Bayford for the defendant.

The hearing of this cause (sic), in which the validity of the last will, dated February 4, 1880, of Mr. John Hilbridge, late of Bournemouth, in the county of Hants, was the subject of controversy between the parties, and the facts of which were reported in the Times of Monday, was continued and concluded today. No light was thrown on the manner in which the spurious and triplicate copies of the original will of the testator, bearing date May, 1873, and the codicil thereto, executed in 1876, came into existence. Mr. Druitt, who acted as solicitor for the testator after Mr. Webb left Bournemouth, stated that when he received instructions to prepare the codicil of September, 1879, he called the testator's attention to the spurious documents pointing out that the signatures of the attesting witnesses, Mr. Webb and Mr. Joy, his clerk, were clearly forgeries, but the testator regarded what purported to be his own signature as genuine, and this also seemed to be the opinion of Mr. Druitt and Mr. Chabot, the expert, who had examined the papers. With regard to the last will, the subject of the action, Miss Butler was confident that that neither Mr. Creek, who prepared the instrument, nor Miss Banger, who attested it with him, was at the testator's house on the evening of the 4tf of February, 1880, when, as they alleged, it was executed; but there was evidence on the other side which went to show that her memory had failed her in the matter, and that she was out when they called. Before the evidence has closed, the jury intimated that they had come to a conclusion in the matter, and counsel accordingly forbore addressing them.

The President, in briefly summing up the case, pointed out that the existence of the spurious documents might be explained on the hypothesis that they were prepared for the purpose of execution by the testator. He himself seemed to admit that his signature to them was genuine, and neither Mr. Druitt nor Mr. Chabot would undertake to say that it was a forgery. That was a thought which had occurred to him, but he did not profess to give it as the true explanation of the mystery.

The jury, without leaving the box, found for the plaintiff on all the issues, and the Court pronounced for the will.'

The 'Times' (London).
13 February 1888

NANKIVELL V THE BOURNEMOUTH COMMISSIONERS
This was the case sent from Quarter Sessions on an appeal from the magistrates at petty session convciting the appellant of making an addition to a house projecting beyond the line of buildings adjoining. It appeared that Dr. Nankivell had a detached villa at the corner of a suburban road at Bournemouth, standing in his own grounds, and he built a stable several feet from the house and 18ft from the road. He was summoned under section 136 of the Public Health Act, 1875, for making "an addition" to his house "beyond the line of adjoining buildings," and the magistrates convicted, and on appeal to Sessions they held that the stable being structurally separated from the house it could not be "an addition to it" within the enactment; but they stated a case for the opinion of the court. A Divisional Court (Mr. Baron Pollock and Mr. Justice Hawkins) sent the case back to be restated on the facts, and it now came back, the Sessions having found that was not an "addition" in fact, and was not "part of a street" within the enactment.

Mr. Bosanquet Q.C. (with Mr. Druitt) appeared for the Commissioners, and admitted that he could not argue the case as now stated.

Mr. Foote and Mr. Greenwood, for the appellant, were not called upon.

The Court affirmed the decision of Quarter Sessions.'

The 'Times' (London)
Thursday, 20 September 1888

Christopher Power, 32, clerk, was indicted for maliciously wounding Peter Black with intent to murder him.

Mr. C.F, Gill conducted the prosecution; Mr. Druitt appeared for the defence.

The prosecutor and the prisoner had been in the same employment. The prisoner seemed to have been under the impression that the prosecutor had followed him about, and some time previously to the occurrence he had written two letters to Mr. Black. There was no ground for the impression the prisoner had formed, and the prosecutor believed that he was not in his right mind. On the evening of August 10 the prisoner called at the prosecutor's house and wounded Mr. Black with a knife, which he had held in his hand behind him. Assistance was obtained and the prisoner was arrested, and he denied that he had used the knife.

For the defence the prisoner's landlady was called, and gave evidence to the effect that the prisoner had been strange in his manner.

Dr. Gilbert, the surgeon at Holloway gaol, stated that the prisoner suffered from delusions as to being followed about by people who heard and repeated everything he said, and witness was of opinion that the prisoner was insane and did not know the nature and quality of the act.

Mr. Justice Charles summed up.

The jury found that the prisoner committed the act, but was insane at the time.

Mr. Justice Charles directed the prisoner to be detained as a lunatic during Her Majesty's pleasure.'

Times (London)
Thursday, 29 November 1888
DRUITT, APPELLANT-GOSLING, RESPONDENT.

This case, reserved from Christchurch, Hampshire, raised a question as to joint occupation of a dwellinghouse. The case stated that two claimants of the name of Hake claimed in respect of "a house and land joint." It turned out that they occupied a dwellinghouse, St. Michael's vicarage, and there was no land except the garden. The vicarage was let to both of them (the vicar residing elsewhere), and the value was far over £20, the rateable value being £72; but only one of them was rated. It was contended that the case came within the definition of a £10 qualification, a house being a tenement. It was objected that use of the claimants was already on the overseers' occupiers' list for the same house, and that the alleged joint occupation was in respect of the same house, and that two persons could not have a joint occupation qualification under 30 and 31 Vic., e. 102, a. 3. The Barrister was of that opinion and disallowed the claims. The claimants appealed.

Mr. M.J. Druitt appeared for the appellants and argued on their behalf that both were entitled to be registered, not, indeed, for a "dwellinghouse," but for a house or "tenement," if the value is sufficient. The main objection, he said, was as to the joint occupation of the dwellinghouse, though there were two subsidiary objections-one as to misdescription of the qualification and the other as to one of the claimants being already on the overseers' list of occupiers for the same house. He urged that the claimants came within the definition of the borough household qualifications in the Reform Act, the value being amply sufficient for both claims. {MR JUSTICE MANISTY.-One only of the claimants was rated.} That is not material; the rating of one is sufficient, the rates being paid by either of them; and that is not an objection taken. {LORD COLERIDGE.-What is the objection?} It is difficult to say.

Mr. ROBSON, who appeared for the respondent, said it was certainly difficult to make out from the case as stated. {LORD COLERIDGE.-What objection can you suggest?} It is impossible to rely upon the objection taken as to joint occupation. That qualification exists. {LORD COLERIDGE.-I should say so.} There is no doubt an enactment that no one shall claim is respect of the joint occupation of a dwellinghouse. {LORD COLERIDGE.-The claimants do not claim for a "dwellinghouse."} That is so, no doubt; but section 27 of the Reform Act is repealed.

Mr. DRUITT pointed out that in the 48 Vic., e. 3, a. 5, it was in substance re-enacted. {LORD COLERIDGE.-Subject to the like conditions, i.e. MR. JUSTICE MANISTY.-That would require rating, would it not?} Then in section 7 it is enacted that the borough occupation franchise shall be doomed to be that defined in section 27 of the Reform Act. And that section, coupled with section 29, confers the occupation franchise for the joint occupation. {LORD COLERIDGE.-So it should seem, certainly, what can be said against it?}

Mr. ROBSON said he confessed he hardly knew that anything could be said against it. {LORD COLERIDGE assented and asked what other objections there were?}

Mr. ROBSON urged that one of the claimants being already on the overseers' list of occupiers, both could set claim for the same qualification. {LORD COLERIDGE.-He did not put himself on the list, the overseers put him there; and that does not preclude them from making a joint claim.} There would be duplicate entries for the same qualification. {LORD COLERIDGE.-The Barrister should have struck out the entry in the overseers' list.} There is a misdescription of the qualification. {LORD COLERIDGE.-There is nothing in any of these objections. Appeal dismissed with costs.}

The Case sent to be amended, will, his Lordship said, be taken on Saturday.'

Times (London)
Friday, 30 November 1888

DRUITT, APPELLANT--GOSLING, REPSONDENT.--In this case, which was heard on Tuesday before Lord Coleridge, Mr. Justice Hawkins, and Mr. Justice Manisty, the appellant was successful, and the Revising Barrister's decision reversed.'

Almost certainly Druitt took his own life the next day, after his greatest and most significant legal success; convincing the Lord Chief Justice (a Liberal), on appeal, that a Tory voter had been disenfranchised.