Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    It’s also been suggested of course that ‘going to be like mother’ might have meant incarcerated in an asylum for the rest of his life.
    Quite right, of course.

    When he says "since Friday", it suggests that he did something specific on Friday to trigger his suicidal reaction, hence my supposition that this may be linked to his dismissal. He did something seriously unacceptable to be dismissed from the school, so it would be slightly odd if that act wasn't regarded by him as worrying, but at the same time, he did something else which we don't know about, but which was in his mind behaving "like mother".

    But it's all just possibilities!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

      Quite right, of course.

      When he says "since Friday", it suggests that he did something specific on Friday to trigger his suicidal reaction, hence my supposition that this may be linked to his dismissal. He did something seriously unacceptable to be dismissed from the school, so it would be slightly odd if that act wasn't regarded by him as worrying, but at the same time, he did something else which we don't know about, but which was in his mind behaving "like mother".

      But it's all just possibilities!
      It’s certainly frustrating that we can’t get any closer but something significant certainly happened and for all that we know it might not have been (to borrow from the Maybrick diary) ‘a one off instance.’ It’s not impossible that his behaviour had been questionable of late and that he was in ‘last chance saloon’ with Valentine. Yes, il be accused of ‘stretching it’ but it’s not impossible that he’d been struggling since November 9th. Pure speculation of course.

      So when he said that he’d decided to end it ‘since Friday,’ was he talking about being sacked or what triggered it? Or both? I’d tend toward what triggered it or both as it’s hard to see the reason for his sacking being made public knowledge. Paul Begg’s discovery of the words of Admiral Fllet are intriguing though. He said that when he lived in Blackheath (at the time of the murders) there was a rumour going around that the killer lived there. Might the schools attempt to hush something up have not been 100% successful?

      Don’t you just love a good rumour?
      Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 06-25-2022, 09:04 PM.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

        It isn't changing inconvenient evidence. It is looking at something which seems extremely unlikely, and suggesting a very plausible alternative. The "evidence" is not an official document like a witness statement or an official inquest report, which we are unlikely to dispute, it is a journalist's hurried scribble for a local paper, never checked by an official for accuracy.

        If we accept 30th December, we accept that between Christmas and the New Year, a school which was closed for the Christmas holidays was actively engaged in the business of sacking a teacher which for some reason wasn't done earlier. Or because the context doesn't make it clear, Monty's brother was advised of the former's disappearence on the 11th Dec, and "then" went to London to make enquiries", and uses "then" to mean Dec 30th! Do we really believe that he did nothing at all from the 11th to the 30th, and then during Yuletide suddenly started to act? It makes no sense. The body was discovered on Dec 31st, so maybe Dec was the month in everyone's mind at the inquest.

        As I said, I was making an assumption.
        And explained very well.
        Dates appear to fall into place more comfortably if that was the case.

        - Friday, 30 Nov., there was an incident at Blackheath, he is dismissed the same day.
        - Saturday, 1st Dec., he buys a return ticket, for a train from Charing Cross to Hammersmith.
        - Monday, 3rd Dec. he is noted as missing from his chambers.
        - Tuesday, 11th Dec. William receives a letter indicating Monty has been missing about a week.
        - William travels to London to search for Monty.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          It’s also been suggested of course that ‘going to be like mother’ might have meant incarcerated in an asylum for the rest of his life.
          And that's precisely what I think, as I couldn't find anything in his mother's diagnosis that would turn someone in to a killer. It wasn't his mother's state of mind that he referred to, it was the fact she is expected to spend the rest of her life incarcerated.

          It isn't her symptoms that concern him, if he is the killer he knows he will spend the rest of his life in an asylum (like Mother).
          They don't execute the mentally insane, they let them rot in an asylum.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            .... Paul Begg’s discovery of the words of Admiral Fllet are intriguing though. He said that when he lived in Blackheath (at the time of the murders) there was a rumour going around that the killer lived there. Might the schools attempt to hush something up have not been 100% successful?
            Yes, as circumstantial as that report is, and assuming it is true, it does raise the very serious question - from where did a rumor about Druitt emanate at the time of the murders?


            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Herlock,
              You state again that it is noticeable I do not reply to your questions.I believe it is noticeable that I do,I am doing so now,but if you are being truthfull,then please ask again and I will do my best to answer.
              Lets look at your latest couple.
              (1)It is detrimental to use the word suspect,because it can give a false value to the known and quality of information available. To support that view ,I cite the case of Druitt,where the only known information of importance,is that his family beilieved he might have mental problems,The truth of that belief cannot be established,therefor the information is of little quality.
              (2)The best Judge would be a person with law enforcement training.They are continually faced with the problem.
              There,I have answered.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by harry View Post
                Herlock,
                You state again that it is noticeable I do not reply to your questions.I believe it is noticeable that I do,I am doing so now,but if you are being truthfull,then please ask again and I will do my best to answer.
                Lets look at your latest couple.
                (1)It is detrimental to use the word suspect,because it can give a false value to the known and quality of information available. To support that view ,I cite the case of Druitt,where the only known information of importance,is that his family beilieved he might have mental problems,The truth of that belief cannot be established,therefor the information is of little quality.

                But name anyone within the subject that has been mislead in to thinking that there is more against Druitt than there actually is by the use of the word ‘suspect?’ If someone hears the word suspect they then go on to read about that person. They assess the available information and then form an opinion. Calling someone a ‘suspect’ has no influence at all on how people regard them.

                (2)The best Judge would be a person with law enforcement training.They are continually faced with the problem.
                There,I have answered.

                And it’s answer that I kind of expected. As Don Rumbelow and Stewart Evans are no longer active on the subject then of course you can only mean Trevor. No disrespect to Trevor but it’s difficult to think of a Ripperologist who is so consistently disagreed with or whose opinions are so often contested.
                So again, as everyone but yourself and Trevor appear to see, the rigid application of terminology would have zero effect on the subject (except for giving us yet another thing to argue about!) and there is no one suitable to act as judge and jury. So the suggestion has nothing going for it.

                And if you apply it as you suggest what change would there be Harry? I’ll tell you. There wouldn’t be a single ‘suspect’ and you’d then have a list of ‘persons of interest.’ So what? I can’t for the life of me fathom why you and Trevor persist with this non-point? I can only suggest that you think that it might lead to Druitt being dropped down some fictional league table and that it might stop people talking about him.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                  Yes, as circumstantial as that report is, and assuming it is true, it does raise the very serious question - from where did a rumor about Druitt emanate at the time of the murders?

                  I can think of no other Blackheath connection to the case Wick. Foreigners, yes. Jews, yes. Even Doctors. But Blackheath? The odds are that it was nothing of course but, as you say . It can’t be impossible that some kind of rumour leaked out from the school. After all an Admiral would hardly be gossiping in The Red Lion after a darts match or exchanging tidbits of information with Ethel as they scrubbed their doorsteps.

                  Then again Wick, I forgot the rule…….dismiss anything said by anyone in authority or who came from the upper classes.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                    And that's precisely what I think, as I couldn't find anything in his mother's diagnosis that would turn someone in to a killer. It wasn't his mother's state of mind that he referred to, it was the fact she is expected to spend the rest of her life incarcerated.

                    It isn't her symptoms that concern him, if he is the killer he knows he will spend the rest of his life in an asylum (like Mother).
                    They don't execute the mentally insane, they let them rot in an asylum.
                    Didn’t she become obsessed over money Wick or is that a false memory?
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    Comment


                    • If you supect someone of murder Herlock,it is because you believe they have killed someone.It is illogical to state I suspect that person of murder,but I do not believe he killed anyone,and that is often the case on these boards,you see posters state that.if you are going to discuss murders,then use the proper terminology.Suspect,as I have written,is a term,that when discussing murder, has a special meaning.Use it properly and not indiscriminately.
                      Now you answer my question.
                      Why should the following persons be classed as suspects in the Whitechapel murders.
                      (1) The Duke of Clarence.
                      (2) Padechenko.
                      (3) A.N.Other,my person of interest.The name doesn't matter,but he has not been named previouly
                      The evidence.He was resident in Whitechapel during the murders,but was not a native of that district.He resided at the Victorian Home,where Hutchinson resided.
                      He matches the description given by at least one witness.
                      He had deserted a wife and children,and was known to act abuseively towards women.
                      He had absconded to avoid investigation into a suspected criminal offence.
                      He died in London not long after the murder of Mckenzie.
                      Now that is far more compelling than evidence against Druitt,who was only suspected by his family,of having mental problems.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                        And that's precisely what I think, as I couldn't find anything in his mother's diagnosis that would turn someone in to a killer. It wasn't his mother's state of mind that he referred to, it was the fact she is expected to spend the rest of her life incarcerated.

                        It isn't her symptoms that concern him, if he is the killer he knows he will spend the rest of his life in an asylum (like Mother).
                        They don't execute the mentally insane, they let them rot in an asylum.
                        Hi Jon,

                        Wasn't the theory at the time that, after the MJK murder JtR's brain had snapped on realising the horror of his actions and he had gone mad and jumped in the Thames. If MJD was Jtr, what could have happened at the school to create more of an effect on his mind than MJK? Had he realised, since Friday, that he had gone mad, like his mother - which Friday, yesterday? or Nov 9? There is no indication when the suicide note was written, it is only assumed that it was Sat 1 Dec before he left Blackheath, but he may have written it days, or weeks before, or a few days after Friday 9 Nov. If he was JtR, would a dismissal from the school convince him he was going mad like his mother more than the murder of five women? If one accepts that what ever the trouble at the school was, if it related to a mental state of mind that resulted in his alleged suicide, then for him to be JtR it would have had to have been worse than the mutilation murders of five women. IMO, if it is to be concluded that his alleged suicide related to events at the school rather than to the C5 murders, then it also must be concluded that MJD wasn't JtR.

                        Best regards, George

                        “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                          How exactly does this comment relate to the issue of the relevant date being 30th Nov or 30th Dec? We know that the cricket club terminated his appointment "gone abroad", on the 21st of Dec which is very probably a common euphemism, but for what, we can only guess.

                          One possibility is that they had spoken to Monty's brother, and were aware of the suicide note, and that he was missing, but body not yet found. Under these circumstances, for example, they would be reluctant to quote the reason for their decision.
                          Hi Doc,

                          I was advised in another thread by those far more learned and erudite than I that the term "gone abroad" is a euphemism for AWOL, and wondered at the time if there was another euphemism to be used if one actually did go abroad. Never the less, the Cricket Club seemed to have allowed Monty a period of grace to show up and explain himself, so why would not the School Principal follow the same tradition?

                          Cheers, George
                          “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            And explained very well.
                            Dates appear to fall into place more comfortably if that was the case.

                            - Friday, 30 Nov., there was an incident at Blackheath, he is dismissed the same day.
                            - Saturday, 1st Dec., he buys a return ticket, for a train from Charing Cross to Hammersmith.
                            - Monday, 3rd Dec. he is noted as missing from his chambers.
                            - Tuesday, 11th Dec. William receives a letter indicating Monty has been missing about a week.
                            - William travels to London to search for Monty.
                            Hi Jon,

                            That is a reasonable timeline if Monty was not JtR.

                            Here is an alternative if he was:

                            Friday 9 Nov., Monty completes the last of his murders.
                            Some time between Sunday 11 Nov and Thursday 15 Nov (or later) he pens his descent into madness letter.
                            Saturday, 1st Dec., he buys a return ticket, for a train from Charing Cross to Hammersmith.
                            Monday, 3rd Dec. he is noted as missing from his chambers.
                            Tuesday, 11th Dec. William receives a letter indicating Monty has been missing about a week and thinks (a) "am I my brother's keeper - what is the little dingbat up to now?", or (b) "No problem, he did mention to me that he might be going abroad".
                            Sun 30 Nov., Having noted that Monty didn't attend the family Christmas festivities, William travels to London/Blackheath to search for Monty. He is confronted by an irate Valentine who informs him that Monty has, some time earlier that month, been sacked for irresponsibly failing to attend to his duties at the school and that Valentine intends to see that he never gets another job in a school.

                            Best regards, George
                            “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by harry View Post
                              If you supect someone of murder Herlock,it is because you believe they have killed someone.It is illogical to state I suspect that person of murder,but I do not believe he killed anyone,and that is often the case on these boards,you see posters state that.if you are going to discuss murders,then use the proper terminology.Suspect,as I have written,is a term,that when discussing murder, has a special meaning.Use it properly and not indiscriminately.

                              Really Harry? You are suggesting that some posters have said something along the lines of ‘i suspect Mr X but I don’t think that Mr X killed anyone.’ Id certainly like to see an example of that because I’ve never seen anyone say anything so illogical.

                              And I’ve explained why using the term ‘suspect’ makes no difference whatsoever and cannot be enforced in the first place. Only you and Trevor argue this non-point.


                              Now you answer my question.
                              Why should the following persons be classed as suspects in the Whitechapel murders.
                              (1) The Duke of Clarence. - Because at some point or other he has been suspected by someone. So we call him a suspect. It makes no difference to the case. No one wastes any time discussing him. Almost no one thinks that he was guilty.
                              (2) Padechenko. Ditto - although my memory has faded in regard to him, isn’t there no proof of his existence?
                              (3) A.N.Other,my person of interest.The name doesn't matter,but he has not been named previouly. Every ‘suspect’ must have been named by someone Harry or we wouldn’t have heard of them.
                              The evidence.He was resident in Whitechapel during the murders,but was not a native of that district.He resided at the Victorian Home,where Hutchinson resided.
                              He matches the description given by at least one witness.
                              He had deserted a wife and children,and was known to act abuseively towards women.
                              He had absconded to avoid investigation into a suspected criminal offence.
                              He died in London not long after the murder of Mckenzie.
                              Now that is far more compelling

                              I’m unsure who you are talking about here Harry?

                              than evidence against Druitt,who was only suspected by his family,of having mental problems.

                              I’m afraid that, as anyone would tell you Harry, that simply isn’t true. The MM clearly tells us the Macnaughten is saying the Druitt family thought that he was the ripper. Do you really think that a family would go to the Chief Constable of the Met just to let him know that they suspected that their relation was having a few mental health issues?
                              The illogical position that you take on the word ‘suspect’ is clear Harry as demonstrated by your answer which isn’t really an answer. You claim that using the term gives a ‘false value.’ There is no JTR league table Harry. It simpy doesn’t matter. We will continue to use the word so you might as well complain about the use of the word bricklayer. A suspect is someone that has been suspected. It doesn’t matter when. It doesn’t matter by whom and it doesn’t matter on what basis. Lewis Carroll is considered one of the weakest of suspects and no one wastes a second discussing him. He’s still a suspect though. A rubbish one, but a suspect nonetheless and nothing changes by calling him one.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                                Hi Jon,

                                That is a reasonable timeline if Monty was not JtR.

                                Here is an alternative if he was:

                                Friday 9 Nov., Monty completes the last of his murders.
                                Some time between Sunday 11 Nov and Thursday 15 Nov (or later) he pens his descent into madness letter.
                                Saturday, 1st Dec., he buys a return ticket, for a train from Charing Cross to Hammersmith.
                                Monday, 3rd Dec. he is noted as missing from his chambers.
                                Tuesday, 11th Dec. William receives a letter indicating Monty has been missing about a week and thinks (a) "am I my brother's keeper - what is the little dingbat up to now?", or (b) "No problem, he did mention to me that he might be going abroad".
                                Sun 30 Nov., Having noted that Monty didn't attend the family Christmas festivities, William travels to London/Blackheath to search for Monty. He is confronted by an irate Valentine who informs him that Monty has, some time earlier that month, been sacked for irresponsibly failing to attend to his duties at the school and that Valentine intends to see that he never gets another job in a school.

                                Best regards, George
                                I’ll Amed that timeline slightly. When William visits Valentine says, well if he isn’t back in a month he is sacked (as he has been no use to me for a while anyway, always running off for legal work, cricket or god knows where at night), and then 30 Dec he is.
                                G U T

                                There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X