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

[FISHY1118]

What weight should we put on Abberine’s often repeated quote? This is a man that has retired from the force and is living n Bournemouth of course. Does what he said imply any ‘insider’ knowledge? No it simply sounds like he’s responding to a suggestion about which he knows no more than any other newspaper reader. Based on the fact that it’s just a story about a man who’d killed himself just after Kelly’s murder, of course it’s not evidence of guilt. Basically all that Abberline is saying is ‘you can’t accuse a man of murder just because he committed suicide just after it.’ He clearly doesn’t know about Macnaghten’s info so his opinion is worthless on the subject. The use of it is desperation.

Utter nonsense ,

Youve changed Abberline entire thought process . Incredible how you do that .

Why would he, and what possible difference should it make that he didnt know about MM ? Abberline was talkng at the time of the murder that Druitt was found to have nothing incrimiateing him.

Abberlines quote is exactly what it is ... Perfect .......... ''Desperate'' are those who ignore it .

[Herlock Sholmes]

I post Herlock,because you continually address posts to me,and it invites a reply.I get a notification.
Your latest rant produces nothing new.You keep repeating claims that are baseless,so any continuance of worthless content is down to you.
Several people committed suicide during the Whitechapel killings,numerous others were found to have mental problems.Interesting,but of no investigational importance in regard to the murders,and contain no evidence of guilt.
Mac and Druitt get special attention because you continually refer to them.It is you ,not I ,that believe 'Suspect' to be a proper description of Druitt.
How much space have you devoted to try and prove that.? Far more than I have in refuting it,and how far have you succeeded in producing fresh information.You are stuck on the one solitary piece of useless news that Druitts family believed Druitt had mental problems,and from that unconfirmed tit-bit we should consider Druitt to be a successful and calous serial killer. Get real.

More proof that you simply don’t view the subject with an open mind and that you don’t actually read posts. If you did read posts properly you would know by now that no one on here, including myself, have claimed that Druitt was guilty. None of us have claimed that anything that we know about Druitt proves his guilt. We are simply discussing what we know and yes we are speculating (something that we are forced to do on every suspect due to the lack of evidence for guilt.)

But this isn’t what you are doing Harry. Basically all that you, Trevor and Fishy are doing is repeatedly saying ‘Druitt is a rubbish suspect so there’s no point in discussing him or exploring possibilities. So I’ll ask again, if that’s your opinion on Druitt why waste time posting. If there was a suspect that didn’t interest me I simply wouldn’t bother posting about him.

[FISHY1118]

This is a thread for discussing Druitt. What’s the point of posters simply parroting ‘he isn’t a suspect, he isn’t a suspect?’ What does that achieve?

My contribution is that I have an open mind on the subject and accept possibilities. My contribution is no more important than anyones but at least I engage on the subject. All that you, Trevor and Harry are doing is repeatedly telling us that we should dismiss him. It’s tedious and utterly pointless and relentlessly negative. At least there are some posters here who, whilst not considering Druitt a strong suspect, remain open minded and are prepared to discuss

Its you and Trevor that are ‘amazing.’ You spend so much time posting repetitions on a suspect that you don’t think is worth discussing. Why bother? If a suspect held no interest for me I wouldn’t bother posting on the subject.

Thats just it you ''Dont'' accept the possibilites when others put forward a case against Druitt being regarded as a suspect ,thats the problem

[Herlock Sholmes]

You really have no idea I would suggest you stop posting on this thread you are doing yourself no favours in your postings which are becoming repetitive i am not going to encourage your ranting and raving anymore by replying to your posts

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I post on this thread for the entirely logical reason that I have an interest in Druitt. You clearly don’t have that interest. So which of us is wasting time posting on here? I’m not ranting, I’m responding to biased repetition. I’m responding to a man who believes that his opinion is worth more than everyone else’s.

[FISHY1118]

I post on this thread for the entirely logical reason that I have an interest in Druitt. You clearly don’t have that interest. So which of us is wasting time posting on here? I’m not ranting, I’m responding to biased repetition. I’m responding to a man who believes that his opinion is worth more than everyone else’s.

Im sure Trevor and Harry also have logical reasons and an interest in Druitt just as you do, they see him different to you, they have made a case for their reasons just as you have herlock .

Its not time wasting or ranting or bias repetition , it called ones opinion , debateing the right to reply to another post . Surely you can see that .?

[GBinOz]

According to his brother's statement under oath at the inquest, Monty was dismissed from the school after getting into "serious trouble". As far as I am aware, this has never been questioned, and merely the nature of that offence has been discussed.

Hi Doc,

Someone must have told him his brother was dismissed, so wouldn't that constitute hearsay rather than evidence? It is a shame that very little of the inquest records have survived, and none of the sworn testimony.

This is from a report of the only known surviving fragment of William Druitt's inquest testimony:

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.

What was on the 30th of December? Having been told on 11 Dec that his brother was missing, would he have waited until 30 Dec to make inquiries? Or was 30 Dec the date Monty was dismissed? If the later it would provide a possible reason for dismissal as absenting himself from his job without notification to his employer. If the former, would that suggest that William and the family were not close enough to Monty to be providing MM with family gossip?

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

The assumption that he was gay is illogical and baseless.
The assumption that he was sacked for molesting boys is baseless.

He might have molested a boy/boys.
He might have bern violent toward a boy/boys.
He might have violently assaulted a male member of staff.
He might have violently assaulted a female member of staff.
He might have been found to have been having a ‘relationship’ with a female servant.
‘He might have been found to have been having a ‘relationship’ with a male member of staff.
He might have been caught ‘in flagrante’ with a female staff member.
His behaviour might have become strange/worrying.
He may have been subject to regular absences.
Someone might have found pornographic material in his room.

So there are 10 ‘possibles.’ I’m sure that others could be added. So to favour one over others, purely for convenience in your case, is illogical.

Yes Herlock, as you noted above, it was known in the homes of the rich for senior male members of a household to use maids for sexual pleasure. It was a mentality among the well-to-do male chauvinistic society that housemaids, scullery maids, kitchen maids were there for the taking, precisely what I was alluding to.

[FISHY1118]

Yes Herlock, as you noted above, it was known in the homes of the rich for senior male members of a household to use maids for sexual pleasure. It was a mentality among the well-to-do male chauvinistic society that housemaids, scullery maids, kitchen maids were there for the taking, precisely what I was alluding to.

Notwithstanding it was also known to be extended into higher places, not just the rich .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im sure Trevor and Harry also have logical reasons and an interest in Druitt just as you do, they see him different to you, they have made a case for their reasons just as you have herlock .

Its not time wasting or ranting or bias repetition , it called ones opinion , debateing the right to reply to another post . Surely you can see that .?

Its not about being bothered about alternative viewpoints Fishy. There’s nothing wrong with that. The point I’m making is when it keeps manifesting as little more than “there’s no evidence,” or when it’s a call for Druitt simply to be dismissed. What’s the point. And surely you can see how annoying a debate can be when, no matter how many times one person says something, other posters just continue posting as if they either never said it or that they said something completely different. This is what happens for me in every single discussion on Druitt that I’ve ever had whether on here or over on JTRForums. If I said to you “yeah but you think that Robert Mann was the ripper,” and you replied “no I don’t think that he was the ripper,” then two posts later I said “why should I listen to someone who thinks that Robert Mann was the ripper!” Wouldn’t that annoy you? Well that’s what I get on this subject multiplied by around 100.

[FISHY1118]

Its not about being bothered about alternative viewpoints Fishy. There’s nothing wrong with that. The point I’m making is when it keeps manifesting as little more than “there’s no evidence,” or when it’s a call for Druitt simply to be dismissed. What’s the point. And surely you can see how annoying a debate can be when, no matter how many times one person says something, other posters just continue posting as if they either never said it or that they said something completely different. This is what happens for me in every single discussion on Druitt that I’ve ever had whether on here or over on JTRForums. If I said to you “yeah but you think that Robert Mann was the ripper,” and you replied “no I don’t think that he was the ripper,” then two posts later I said “why should I listen to someone who thinks that Robert Mann was the ripper!” Wouldn’t that annoy you? Well that’s what I get on this subject multiplied by around 100.

Fair point.

Ive always tried to discuss Druitt with the intent of what is known/not known about him , using that information to form my own opinions as to why i believe he makes a poor, dare i say it ,suspect .How others approach the subject of Druitt is not my concern ,if i agree/disagree with something they post i will respond .

If ive come across the way you suggested, im sorry for that .

Ill leave it at that .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes Herlock, as you noted above, it was known in the homes of the rich for senior male members of a household to use maids for sexual pleasure. It was a mentality among the well-to-do male chauvinistic society that housemaids, scullery maids, kitchen maids were there for the taking, precisely what I was alluding to.

I recall when I first got interested in the case Wick I got the impression that it was almost taken for granted that Druitt had been sacked for interfering with one of the boys when we just don’t know. And because Druitt wasn’t married should we really read anything into this? I can’t see why? He might have had relationships but we have no record of them but why would we? There are too many possibilities to focus on just one.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

Someone must have told him his brother was dismissed, so wouldn't that constitute hearsay rather than evidence? It is a shame that very little of the inquest records have survived, and none of the sworn testimony.

This is from a report of the only known surviving fragment of William Druitt's inquest testimony:

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.

What was on the 30th of December? Having been told on 11 Dec that his brother was missing, would he have waited until 30 Dec to make inquiries? Or was 30 Dec the date Monty was dismissed? If the later it would provide a possible reason for dismissal as absenting himself from his job without notification to his employer. If the former, would that suggest that William and the family were not close enough to Monty to be providing MM with family gossip?

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Of course we cannot be certain, but it is generally thought that 30th Dec must be a journalist's misprint for 30th Nov. If we accept that probability, everything seems quite plausible. As schools were very much closed on 30th Dec, a decision to dismiss someone on that date is extremely unlikely. However, I do accept that I am making an assumption.

[harry]

For the last time Herlock,and because you have directed a post to me,i'll reply.
Again you are diverting from the main issue.It is whether Druitt should be viewed as a suspect that I post,not whether he was guilty,and in doing so I refer to the evidence.MacNaghten himself claims there was no proof against anyone,that would include Druitt. Without proof there can be no judgement.
Police who in 1888 and beyond investigated the Whitechapel murders ,claimed there were no suspects.They are my reference,the authorities of that time.I accept their views,and use them here in my posts.
Be interested in Druitt,investigate him by all means,and if you do prove Druitt was mad,and not just believed to be so,you will have made progress.It will not prove he killed anyone,but it will be interesting.Untill then it is pure conceit to label him suspect,a condition even the police could not achieve.

[GUT]

Hi George,

Of course we cannot be certain, but it is generally thought that 30th Dec must be a journalist's misprint for 30th Nov. If we accept that probability, everything seems quite plausible. As schools were very much closed on 30th Dec, a decision to dismiss someone on that date is extremely unlikely. However, I do accept that I am making an assumption.

And if we accept it was 30 Dec??

if we accept 30 Nov where does chang8ng inconvenient evidence end.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Of course we cannot be certain, but it is generally thought that 30th Dec must be a journalist's misprint for 30th Nov. If we accept that probability, everything seems quite plausible. As schools were very much closed on 30th Dec, a decision to dismiss someone on that date is extremely unlikely. However, I do accept that I am making an assumption.

Hi Doc,

I am aware that Sugden suggested the misprint, but I am a little more reluctant to take that liberty. I see nothing wrong with an assumption that Monty was given a month to return to the school with an explanation, followed by a dismissal in absentia. But it is of course only an assumption and could be totally incorrect.

There are many incongruities in his case. The unused return ticket, the cash, cheques and valuable in his pockets when he allegedly jumped in the Thames after filling his pockets with stones, and his visiting his office on his way to Chiswick. What happened in Chiswick to prompt his suicide that wasn't in play at Kings Bench Walk?

Cheers, George