When did William arrive at the school?

[Jonathan H]

My research assistant has pointed out that the two sources below are, arguably, in harmony if Dec 30th is the date when William arrived at the Valentine School, e.g. the day before the body of his brother surfaced in the Thames.

The 'Acton, Chiswick & Turnham Green Gazette' Jan 5th 1889:

‘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.'

Sims/Dagonet in ‘The Referee’ of 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 …’

This is arguably textual evidence that the theory, accepted by many here as fact, that the journalist has the month wrong is itself wrong. Nor is the reporter referring to deceased man's dismissal, but to William Druitt's arrival to search for his missing sibling--and the very next day the body appeared in the river.

A juxtaposition confirmed by Sims, albeit in a disguised recount.

[GUT]

The only problem Jonathan is why wait almost 3 weeks to do anything.

Or is the proposition that on 11th he is told no one has seen Montie for a week and thinks "So he's a big boy" but two weeks later still no word so starts to worry?

[Mayerling]

My research assistant has pointed out that the two sources below are, arguably, in harmony if Dec 30th is the date when William arrived at the Valentine School, e.g. the day before the body of his brother surfaced in the Thames.

The 'Acton, Chiswick & Turnham Green Gazette' Jan 5th 1889:

‘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.'

Sims/Dagonet in ‘The Referee’ of 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 …’

This is arguably textual evidence that the theory, accepted by many here as fact, that the journalist has the month wrong is itself wrong. Nor is the reporter referring to deceased man's dismissal, but to William Druitt's arrival to search for his missing sibling--and the very next day the body appeared in the river.

A juxtaposition confirmed by Sims, albeit in a disguised recount.

Hi Jonathan,

What you say seems sound to me. I am curious about the comment, "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."
Apparently then, William Druitt first learns of Montie's absence with regards to the barrister chambers, not Valentine's school. Presumably William assumes (if I am correct) that Montie is only missing from his legal practice at the moment, not his other job. As the term is approaching it's end (either around Christmas, or some point in early January 1889), William has no reason to assume (again) that Montie is busy with the equivalent of end of term finals for the students.

We know that Montie's legal practice was actually better than it had been thought of back in the 1970s and 1980s. But he may have had dry spells in it (most professionals do) plus that second job. And since it is not until the end of December that William goes to Valentine's school, we have to guess that after say ten days from the first word that Montie is missing, William and the family begin worrying enough to make enquiries.

I have an odd suggestion here - one that would be difficult to prove or disprove at this length of time from December 1888. It is that what may have made the Druitts begin to worry was fairly simple: Nothing from Valentine (who probably assumed Montie had contacted his family). Rather the family may have noticed they had not gotten any holiday messages from Montie (letters or cards or even gifts) and began to worry after awhile. Just a passing thought though.

These other matters before I pass the ball back to you - who was the one who mentioned to William that Montie was absent from the legal chambers?; could it have been a close colleague who kept in touch with the family, or a relative near the chambers who was looking after Montie a little, or someone whom the family asked to keep in touch with them if Montie should ever drop from sight.

Jeff

[GUT]

- who was the one who mentioned to William that Montie was absent from the legal chambers?;

That's a question that I'd love to have a definitive answer to.

[Jonathan H]

To cut to the chase I think the truth, that we were never meant to know, went something like this, based on the fragmentary glimpses we are left with:

Sometime between November 9th and December 1st, Montague Druitt confessed to a priest about being the Ripper. This Anglican minister may, or may not, have been a member of his clan, e.g. his brother-in-law or his first cousin.

The priest felt duty-bound by the sacrament not to go to the police, at least not immediately, but urged Druitt, in the sternest terms, to place himself in voluntary care.

At some point William became aware that his brother had told people he was going abroad on urgent business. At first he was puzzled but not alarmed.

But then there was no further word, and the days kept passing.

This caused Druitt's inevitable dismissal from the school and the club, perhaps on the same day: Dec 21st.

After Christmas there was still no word, and the priest, fearing that Montague had harmed himself, or could still be a danger to the community, quietly informed the brother of the confession.

On December 30th a frantic William arrived at the school. The next day Montie's body was recovered from the Thames.

On Jan 2nd William perjured himself at the Chiswick inquest: obviously he with-held that he knew his brother was the fiend, with-held that his brother had quite lucidly deceived people into thinking he had gone abroad, with-held from the court that Montie had other siblings and cousins and in-laws, substituted an un-named friend as alerting him to his brother being missing, alluded to serious trouble--e.g. mental instability?--as having caused Montague's dismissal, and produced a letter that he had likely written himself to explain his brother's self-murder (he feared being incarcerated with an incurable mental illness like their mother).

Did Montage leave behind a genuine confession? Perhaps. Was Valentine in on all this? Perhaps. Certainly his school would have closed the same day had the truth come out.

I am arguing on this thread that this is further textual evidence that Sims, and therefore Macnaghten, did know the basic particulars about Montague Druitt.

You can place the real with the fictional disguise, side by side:

A young barrister who was contemplating ending up in asylum like his mad mother (a mad doctor, who had confessed his dark desires to other doctors before the murders, having already been a voluntary patient in an asylum--twice).

His body surfaced on the last day of December 1888 (by 1905, backdated to early December)

This was almost at the very moment his brother (frantic friends) had begun his investigation on Dec. 30th.

William went to the school where Montague had resided (the doctor lived with his family).

The corpse surfaced in Chiswick, miles from the East End (the doctor took his own life at the centrally located Embankment).

This happened three weeks after the Kelly murder (the doctor had just enough wherewithal to stagger to the river's edge and hurl himself in immediately after exiting Miller's Court on Nov. 9th).

In early 1891 the secret leaked ...