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

[Doctored Whatsit]

And if we accept it was 30 Dec??

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

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.

[Doctored Whatsit]

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

Hi George,

I am duplicating here if I am not careful - please see previous entry above. You could be right about a dismissal in absentia, but that wouldn't on its own constitute getting into "serious trouble". But an explanation being demanded before dismissal is a possibility. I really don't believe that a school would be making such a decision at such a time, or that Monty's brother could possible have left the start of his enquiries till 30th Dec.

It is the incongruities that you mention which interest me - and you too, I think. As I said previously, why would he write a suicide note, and then buy a return ticket? If he intended to return why would he write a suicide note before leaving? It is wholly logical to accept that as Hammersmith and Chiswick are adjacent areas along the Thames, that he died on 1st Dec.

The dubious and slightly confusing alleged facts of Monty's presumed suicide encourage assumptions, I think.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I’m diverting nothing Harry. I responded directly to yours and Trevor’s claims that terminology is important and that we shouldn’t use the word ‘suspect’ in regard to Druitt. Let’s talk hypothetically Harry.

If we had a modern day investigation and the Police felt that they had evidence against Mr X which gave them cause for bringing him in for questioning he would be considered a suspect by them. Further investigation might uncover evidence which strengthened their case against him or they might discover an alibi or a much likelier suspect. But from the start Mr X would have been a suspect in the eyes of the Police. You don’t need to ‘prove’ anything before calling someone a suspect.

And so a suspect is simply someone that the Police suspects. There are no police involved in this case (except for an ex-one) and so, in effect, we are the Police Officers - basically we are the armchair detectives. And so, just like the real Police, we use the term in the same way. A suspect is someone that we suspect until proven guilty or innocent. I fail to see how you can dispute this Harry? It’s also very noticeable that you haven’t answered my questions Harry. I’ve responded to all of your points after all.

1. How is the use of the word ‘suspect’ in any way detrimental to a group of researchers and armchair detectives looking into a case that occurred 134 years ago?

2. Even if we decided to employ a system of using the terms ‘person of interest,’ ‘suspect’ and ‘prime suspect,’ then who would be the judge of which of our ‘suspects’ deserves which categorisation?

[GUT]

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.

But we know for an absolute fact that the Cricket club sacked him in absentia.

[Trevor Marriott]

If we had a modern day investigation and the Police felt that they had evidence against Mr X which gave them cause for bringing him in for questioning he would be considered a suspect by them. Further investigation might uncover evidence which strengthened their case against him or they might discover an alibi or a much likelier suspect. But from the start Mr X would have been a suspect in the eyes of the Police. You don’t need to ‘prove’ anything before calling someone a suspect.

Giving the police uncorroborated information about a person who is belived to have committed a criminal act is not sufficient to define that person in law as a suspect.

The problem we face is that the term "person of interest" was not a term used in 1888, The nearest to it was the term "likely suspect" as used by MM and that falls short of catergorising person as a full blown suspect.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Giving the police uncorroborated information about a person who is belived to have committed a criminal act is not sufficient to define that person in law as a suspect.

The problem we face is that the term "person of interest" was not a term used in 1888, The nearest to it was the term "likely suspect" as used by MM and that falls short of catergorising person as a full blown suspect.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’ve seen plenty of tv shows where the cameras follow true crime investigations and the Police themselves always appear to describe people that they have suspicions against as a ‘the suspect.’ So clearly even modern day police don’t rigidly adhere to rules on terminology.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the subject of the 30th December date mentioned in the Acton, Chiswick and Turnham Green Gazette, in my opinion I think that we have to assume that this date was a newspaper error with November 30th being a more likely alternative. It has to be unlikely that William would have taken almost 3 weeks after receiving the note (on the 11th) to have gotten around to making enquiries at the school? And if the 30th is suggested as a date for Monty’s sacking how likely would it have been for William to have enquired at the school, 3 weeks after Monty’s disappearance, to be informed that he’d been sacked that very day?

If we assume that William enquired at the school on some unspecified earlier day in December and was informed that Monty had been sacked on the 30th November things make more sense. His friend said in the letter of the 11th that Monty hadn’t been seen for over a week which ties in with a sacking day 12 days earlier. It would then follow that Monty committed suicide just after his sacking. A date of the 1st for this is reasonable although I realise that some find the use of ‘since Friday’ rather than ‘since yesterday’ problematic. It also ties in with the unused ticket on the 1st.

So I think that I’m with Sugden on this issue. I jstdont see William waiting for 3 weeks before showing up.

[Doctored Whatsit]

But we know for an absolute fact that the Cricket club sacked him in absentia.

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.

[Abby Normal]

On the subject of the 30th December date mentioned in the Acton, Chiswick and Turnham Green Gazette, in my opinion I think that we have to assume that this date was a newspaper error with November 30th being a more likely alternative. It has to be unlikely that William would have taken almost 3 weeks after receiving the note (on the 11th) to have gotten around to making enquiries at the school? And if the 30th is suggested as a date for Monty’s sacking how likely would it have been for William to have enquired at the school, 3 weeks after Monty’s disappearance, to be informed that he’d been sacked that very day?

If we assume that William enquired at the school on some unspecified earlier day in December and was informed that Monty had been sacked on the 30th November things make more sense. His friend said in the letter of the 11th that Monty hadn’t been seen for over a week which ties in with a sacking day 12 days earlier. It would then follow that Monty committed suicide just after his sacking. A date of the 1st for this is reasonable although I realise that some find the use of ‘since Friday’ rather than ‘since yesterday’ problematic. It also ties in with the unused ticket on the 1st.

So I think that I’m with Sugden on this issue. I jstdont see William waiting for 3 weeks before showing up.

hi herlock
agree. and if this is true that he committed suicide right after getting sacked from tje school, is their a hint in the suicide note of why he was sacked? he said he should die because he felt like he was going to be like his mom...she went crazy. what serious trouble at the school could possibly be related to mental illness and depression?

[Herlock Sholmes]

hi herlock
agree. and if this is true that he committed suicide right after getting sacked from tje school, is their a hint in the suicide note of why he was sacked? he said he should die because he felt like he was going to be like his mom...she went crazy. what serious trouble at the school could possibly be related to mental illness and depression?

Hi Abby,

This is one of the mysteries. All we have about the note comes from the report in the newspaper of the inquest which said:

The Coroner read the letter, which was to this effect: – ‘Since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother, and the best thing for me was to die.’

So does this mean that the reporter was simply summing up and that any extra words that might have been in the note were of no interest? Or was this one line all that the coroner read out? I’m no expert in suicide notes so I don’t know how usual or unusual are ones of just one line but I’d have expected more. So if there was more to the note what was left out? The coroner knew the family so he might have read out the minimum in respect to the families feelings? But might Druitt have written something more sinister? William certainly lied under oath when he said that Monty had no other relatives. Might he have not wanted members of the family questioned who might have let something slip?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

This is one of the mysteries. All we have about the note comes from the report in the newspaper of the inquest which said:

The Coroner read the letter, which was to this effect: – ‘Since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother, and the best thing for me was to die.’

So does this mean that the reporter was simply summing up and that any extra words that might have been in the note were of no interest? Or was this one line all that the coroner read out? I’m no expert in suicide notes so I don’t know how usual or unusual are ones of just one line but I’d have expected more. So if there was more to the note what was left out? The coroner knew the family so he might have read out the minimum in respect to the families feelings? But might Druitt have written something more sinister? William certainly lied under oath when he said that Monty had no other relatives. Might he have not wanted members of the family questioned who might have let something slip?

perhaps. but maybe suicide due to mental illness and depression is enough for their to be discreetness. But what im getting at is this:
he was sacked at work. that led directly to the note writing and suicide. in the note he refers directly to not only because he felt he was going crazy like his mom, but also he refers this to since friday, the day he got sacked. hence, it seems to me that it was something to do to his mental illness that got him sacked. see what im getting at here?

so if thats the case (and seems like to me), then what behaviours due to mental issues/ depression could get one in "serious trouble" and fired??

[Herlock Sholmes]

perhaps. but maybe suicide due to mental illness and depression is enough for their to be discreetness. But what im getting at is this:
he was sacked at work. that led directly to the note writing and suicide. in the note he refers directly to not only because he felt he was going crazy like his mom, but also he refers this to since friday, the day he got sacked. hence, it seems to me that it was something to do to his mental illness that got him sacked. see what im getting at here?

so if thats the case (and seems like to me), then what behaviours due to mental issues/ depression could get one in "serious trouble" and fired??

That could have been the case Abby as mental illness was definitely considered a cause for shame. We certainly can’t read too much into the shortened quote from the note. Many point to him saying “since yesterday…” as opposed to “since yesterday…” as an issue and although I can certainly understand the point I don’t see it as fatal and he could have committed suicide on the Sunday of course.

I go with your suggestion that he was sacked then committed suicide very soon (next day or two) and his mention of Friday indicates an event on Friday - either the sacking itself or an event which led to the sacking. We know one thing for certain though Abby….it was something serious.

[Doctored Whatsit]

perhaps. but maybe suicide due to mental illness and depression is enough for their to be discreetness. But what im getting at is this:
he was sacked at work. that led directly to the note writing and suicide. in the note he refers directly to not only because he felt he was going crazy like his mom, but also he refers this to since friday, the day he got sacked. hence, it seems to me that it was something to do to his mental illness that got him sacked. see what im getting at here?

so if thats the case (and seems like to me), then what behaviours due to mental issues/ depression could get one in "serious trouble" and fired??

I agree Abby - the suicide note says clearly that he felt that he was "going to be like mother", so it is totally logical that he did something wrong that was "like mother". As well as being depressed - which wouldn't cause a dismissal as "getting into serious trouble" - his mother suffered from paranoid delusions. Maybe he did something crazy as a result of some temporary delusion. We can only guess, but it seems that he was sacked for "getting into serious trouble" and this made him think he was going to be "like mother".

[Abby Normal]

I agree Abby - the suicide note says clearly that he felt that he was "going to be like mother", so it is totally logical that he did something wrong that was "like mother". As well as being depressed - which wouldn't cause a dismissal as "getting into serious trouble" - his mother suffered from paranoid delusions. Maybe he did something crazy as a result of some temporary delusion. We can only guess, but it seems that he was sacked for "getting into serious trouble" and this made him think he was going to be "like mother".

yes i was thinking something along those lines. like odd behavior of some sort. or maybe it was something as mundane as missing too much work? (because of his mental issues/depression).

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree Abby - the suicide note says clearly that he felt that he was "going to be like mother", so it is totally logical that he did something wrong that was "like mother". As well as being depressed - which wouldn't cause a dismissal as "getting into serious trouble" - his mother suffered from paranoid delusions. Maybe he did something crazy as a result of some temporary delusion. We can only guess, but it seems that he was sacked for "getting into serious trouble" and this made him think he was going to be "like mother".

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.