Oh, Dear Boss: Druitt's on a Sticky Wicket

[Doctored Whatsit]

I believe there were a number of links between the cricket club and the school, not least that George Valentine was apparently a member. His brother William Stather Valentine was on the committee, and another member Fred Lacey was said to be an assistant master there (can anyone confirm this?). So I suspect that the club would have been aware of the state of play with Monty, whether his suicide note had been found by that time, his sacking had already occurred, or that he was simply AWOL.

According to Paul Begg, Monty was proposed for membership of the Blackheath Cricket Club by George Valentine, and seconded by Assistant Master Frederick Henry Lacey in 1881. We can, I think, probably accept that Valentine would have felt that the club should have been advised of Monty's "serious trouble", although it seems that the exact details were not disclosed publicly, and "gone abroad" was quoted.

[Joshua Rogan]

I think that the lack of rebuttal was down to the MM never being made public. The possibilities are intriguing though.

A series of murders of increasing in ferocity - the Kelly murder on the 9th - 21 days later Druitt is sacked from a school that he’s worked at since 1880 for something so serious that it’s never mentioned - on 21st December Druitt is removed as Honorary Secretary and Treasurer of the Blackheath Club (his membership also ended) because he’d allegedly ‘gone abroad.’

Three questions:

1. William was told about Monty being missing on the 11th December and Monty’s body isn’t pulled out of the Thames until December 31st. So why is Druitt removed as Secretary and Treasurer so quickly and 10 days before his fate is known? When he was sacked it would surely have been kept quiet to save the school from any scandal? So why were the club so desperate to get Druitt gone from a club that he’d been dedicated to for years and how had they got to know that something was so wrong?

I believe there were a number of links between the cricket club and the school, not least that George Valentine was apparently a member. His brother William Stather Valentine was on the committee, and another member Fred Lacey was said to be an assistant master there (can anyone confirm this?). So I suspect that the club would have been aware of the state of play with Monty, whether his suicide note had been found by that time, his sacking had already occurred, or that he was simply AWOL.

2. Being Secretary and Treasurer involved duties. Being a member doesn’t. So normally if someone couldn’t fulfil their duties for whatever reason (work, travel etc) they would just surrender those roles but why membership? This is a minor pin but it shows that they absolutely knew that Monty wasn’t coming back.

Was he definitely removed as a member from Blackheath? Or did it perhaps simply expire at the end of the year? I do recall his MCC membership was marked as "deceased" shortly after his death was discovered.
On the subject of his club roles, I'm a bit confused as to why he was removed as secretary at the meeting as, from what I've read, the secretary at the time was FS Ireland, and had been since 1886. Druitt had been secretary previously, though. Curious.

3. Is it believable that Druitt’s friends/colleagues at Kings Bench Walk wouldn’t have been aware that Monty had worked at the school for the last 8 years? Surely not. So wouldn’t they have contacted the school after Monty had gone missing (and before they’d contacted William on the 11th?) Apparently they didn’t though because William said that he’d only discovered Monty’s sacking after he’d got to London (and after Monty’s friends had been missing him for around 12 days) How could they not have thought of contacting the school? And even if the school wouldn’t have gone into details at the very least they’d have at least been informed that Monty no longer worked there. Yet they apparently didn’t tell William.

Whatever happened I’d say that there was more than meets the eye going on.

Do we actually know how how formally Druitt's brother had been informed of his absence from chambers? Is it known that he received word by letter, as Wickerman mentioned earlier? I'd always had the impression from the sparse inquest reports that it was simply from a casual mention, and so wouldn't have been a cause of instant worry for William.
That's probably just me though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n788501]

whats always intrigued me about druitt is the family suspicion and family/friend connection with MM. It seems not many serial killers are suspected/busted by there families. I wonder if they found something out after he had killed himself that lead them to suspect him? was it related to getting sacked at work?
Did his brother find something incriminating in his belongings when going through his stuff?

and why no defense or rebuttal of Mac by family when he named him?[/QUOnTE]

The MM was an internal police memo the Druitt family would not have been aware of its contents or whether or not they were ever aware of what MM had been given such information,

This is what makes the MM unsafe MM had every opportunity to speak to the family about what they are alleged to have belived about their son but we see no follow up from MM in the Aberconway Version.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Just because something isn’t seen it writing isn’t proof that it didn’t happen. The follow up point is a non-point. A follow up might have been pointless or he might have done a follow up but not recorded it. Change the record Trevor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

whats always intrigued me about druitt is the family suspicion and family/friend connection with MM. It seems not many serial killers are suspected/busted by there families. I wonder if they found something out after he had killed himself that lead them to suspect him? was it related to getting sacked at work?
Did his brother find something incriminating in his belongings when going through his stuff?

why no defense or rebuttal of Mac when he named him?

I think that the lack of rebuttal was down to the MM never being made public. The possibilities are intriguing though.

A series of murders of increasing in ferocity - the Kelly murder on the 9th - 21 days later Druitt is sacked from a school that he’s worked at since 1880 for something so serious that it’s never mentioned - on 21st December Druitt is removed as Honorary Secretary and Treasurer of the Blackheath Club (his membership also ended) because he’d allegedly ‘gone abroad.’

Three questions:

1. William was told about Monty being missing on the 11th December and Monty’s body isn’t pulled out of the Thames until December 31st. So why is Druitt removed as Secretary and Treasurer so quickly and 10 days before his fate is known? When he was sacked it would surely have been kept quiet to save the school from any scandal? So why were the club so desperate to get Druitt gone from a club that he’d been dedicated to for years and how had they got to know that something was so wrong?

2. Being Secretary and Treasurer involved duties. Being a member doesn’t. So normally if someone couldn’t fulfil their duties for whatever reason (work, travel etc) they would just surrender those roles but why membership? This is a minor pin but it shows that they absolutely knew that Monty wasn’t coming back.

3. Is it believable that Druitt’s friends/colleagues at Kings Bench Walk wouldn’t have been aware that Monty had worked at the school for the last 8 years? Surely not. So wouldn’t they have contacted the school after Monty had gone missing (and before they’d contacted William on the 11th?) Apparently they didn’t though because William said that he’d only discovered Monty’s sacking after he’d got to London (and after Monty’s friends had been missing him for around 12 days) How could they not have thought of contacting the school? And even if the school wouldn’t have gone into details at the very least they’d have at least been informed that Monty no longer worked there. Yet they apparently didn’t tell William.

Whatever happened I’d say that there was more than meets the eye going on.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;n788497]whats always intrigued me about druitt is the family suspicion and family/friend connection with MM. It seems not many serial killers are suspected/busted by there families. I wonder if they found something out after he had killed himself that lead them to suspect him? was it related to getting sacked at work?
Did his brother find something incriminating in his belongings when going through his stuff?

and why no defense or rebuttal of Mac by family when he named him?[/QUOnTE]

The MM was an internal police memo the Druitt family would not have been aware of its contents or whether or not they were ever aware of what MM had been given such information,

This is what makes the MM unsafe MM had every opportunity to speak to the family about what they are alleged to have belived about their son but we see no follow up from MM in the Aberconway Version.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Are they? To be fair tho herlock we know the original MM are his words because there in his own handwriting and his signature and the date are on the bottom of the page

But as for the aberconway version . Where's the documented proof that there his words ?ive never seen that version , and wasn't that a translation of the original? .if what your saying is correct wouldn't there need to be a separate document ? Because how could you translate something that doesn't exist.?

Do you get what I'm trying to say?

It was a version that was in her fathers possession. I can’t recall where the document is these days but we surely can’t imagine that this was an kind of orderly? The two versions only differ slightly. Actually there was apparently a third version but no one knows anything about that one except for who apparently owned it.

[Abby Normal]

whats always intrigued me about druitt is the family suspicion and family/friend connection with MM. It seems not many serial killers are suspected/busted by there families. I wonder if they found something out after he had killed himself that lead them to suspect him? was it related to getting sacked at work?
Did his brother find something incriminating in his belongings when going through his stuff?

and why no defense or rebuttal of Mac by family when he named him?

[FISHY1118]

We don’t know. They were still his words though. We don’t know why he left that part out of te official version though. I can’t even speculate.

Are they? To be fair tho herlock we know the original MM are his words because there in his own handwriting and his signature and the date are on the bottom of the page

But as for the aberconway version . Where's the documented proof that there his words ?ive never seen that version , and wasn't that a translation of the original? .if what your saying is correct wouldn't there need to be a separate document ? Because how could you translate something that doesn't exist.?

Do you get what I'm trying to say?

[Herlock Sholmes]

My point being and i think its a fair one , that if one chooses to use the Aberconway version, where does that leave us who wish to quote the Original Macnaghten version where those words dont exist ?

How did those words appear in the Aberconway version and not the original ?, and which one would be more likely to be correct ?

We don’t know. They were still his words though. We don’t know why he left that part out of te official version though. I can’t even speculate.

[FISHY1118]

I don’t understand your point Fishy? The quote was from Macnaghten himself (the Aberconway version of the memorandum)

My point being and i think its a fair one , that if one chooses to use the Aberconway version, where does that leave us who wish to quote the Original Macnaghten version where those words dont exist ?

How did those words appear in the Aberconway version and not the original ?, and which one would be more likely to be correct ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Theres just one problem with that above paragraph tho isnt there ?

Where exactly does MM say that ? i dont see it in his original memoranda, which the original is here to see.

I don’t understand your point Fishy? The quote was from Macnaghten himself (the Aberconway version of the memorandum)

[FISHY1118]

“Personally, & after much careful & deliberate consideration, I am inclined to exonerate the last 2. but I have always held strong opinions regarding no 1., and the more I think the matter over, the stronger do these opinions become. The truth, however, will never be known, and did indeed, at one time lie at the bottom of the Thames, if my conjections [5] be correct.”

He doesn’t use the word ‘suspect’ of course but it’s quite clear that he has strong opinions on Druitt. He clearly favours Druitt whilst accepting that there wasn’t enough to build a case. And even when he retired 25 years later he was still going for Druitt.

Theres just one problem with that above paragraph tho isnt there ?

Where exactly does MM say that ? i dont see it in his original memoranda, which the original is here to see.

[GBinOz]

i hope researchers will learn from what has been posted and will be able to re think their own preferred coveted suspects viability, because I am sure this major issue of suspect catergorization is needed in ripperology you cant have a 100+ list of potential suspects.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I agree with you on this point Trevor. From a legal point of view almost all the "suspects" on the 100+ list would be considered frivolous and vexatious, but if we were to conform to this restriction there would be no discussion of this forum. There are "suspects" or POI if you prefer, that are worthy of discussion, including Druitt, but they number in the low double digits. But let us not kid ourselves, there is no actual "proof" against anyone. With regard to most preferred "suspects", the terrible if's accumulate.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

One might believe,if you read some of the above,that I am the only poster who has ever asked for proof.Has Al or George ever asked? Have you? Has anyone,Beside myself, ever stated a person shouldn't be treated as suspect because the evidence doesn't support it.You bet they have,many,many times.

Hi Harry,

I guess it depends on your definition of "proof". Most of the official records have been lost and what remains is the contradictory press reports. You claim to have "proof" for your secret suspect, but are unwilling to provide it for peer inspection, making your protests seem a little hypocritical. Name your "suspect", present your "proof" and be judged by your peers.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

I suppose one needs to consider in what context MM was actually saying here, and how it should /shouldnt be interpreted . In his opinion was Druitt more likely to have committed the murders just because he thought Cutbuss was a poor suspect ? Who then decides whether MM means in a ''Suspect capacity'' ?

For me based on my interuptation and exactly what MM wrote, i cant see where, or read into this where he calls /names Druitt a '' ''suspect'' .

Trevor can you please provide me with some evidence where Ostrog was in jail at the time of the murders, as i cant locate that information . Thanks



No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer; many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one. I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been ''More likely than Cutbush'' to have committed this series of murders:

(1) A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.

(2) Kosminski -- a Polish Jew -- & resident in Whitechapel. This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies: he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889. There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'.

(3) Michael Ostrog, a Russian doctor, and a convict, who was subsequently detained in a lunatic asylum as a homicidal maniac. This man's antecedents were of the worst possible type, and his whereabouts at the time of the murders could never be ascertaine

“Personally, & after much careful & deliberate consideration, I am inclined to exonerate the last 2. but I have always held strong opinions regarding no 1., and the more I think the matter over, the stronger do these opinions become. The truth, however, will never be known, and did indeed, at one time lie at the bottom of the Thames, if my conjections [5] be correct.”

He doesn’t use the word ‘suspect’ of course but it’s quite clear that he has strong opinions on Druitt. He clearly favours Druitt whilst accepting that there wasn’t enough to build a case. And even when he retired 25 years later he was still going for Druitt.