Poor Monty Druitt

[sorcia_us]

This is one guy who probably had the worst timing in history.
Apparently, the only reason he is a suspect is because he had the unbelieveable misfortune to commit suicide shortly after the murders. He even left a note which said nothing about the murders and read like a typical suicide note - "it would be better if I were dead"
I am reading a novel called "Tea Rose" set in Victorian London and NYC - the London part of the book details the characters' reactions to the murders and of all the suspects that she could possibly name, who does this authour select as the Ripper - yes, poor depressed Monty.

*Sigh*

Honestly, the guy had enough troubles without posterity casting him in the role of the "Whitechapel Fiend"

Egad! Enough already! Let the man rest in peace..

[sorcia_us]

The poor sap was guilty of bad judgment and bad timing - and his failures will forever be remembered and rehashed since he happened to pick the worst possible time to commit suicide. This guy makes me feel like maybe my luck's not so bad, after all!

[How Brown]

Good point, as usual,Sorcia !

[sorcia_us]

I know _ I just feel sorry for him. He wanted it all to be over , which is why he killed himself, and now he has people dissecting his life and speculating about his activites a hundred years later.

Anyone with the misfortune to have gone off their head in the time frame or vicinity that fits with someone's pet theory and that's all it takes.

I wish we could say that investigative techniques have changed, but most of the time contemporary investigators seem to get into the same kind of tunnel vision mentality and ignore important evidence because it doesn't fit with their theory.

[Robert Linford]

The poor sap was guilty of bad judgment and bad timing

Don't forget bad swimming. :)

Robert

[Adam Went]

Those arms of his had probably bowled so many overs that they just didn't have the strength to swim anymore, Robert.... ;)

[How Brown]

Regarding Druitt and a test I was going to do,regarding those tickets and river water....since it has been so warm here on the East Coast,I decided to wait a while.

The test was to be my taking some printed matter,putting them in this old wallet,then in some old sweatpants..tieing them to a string....and then placing them in the Schuykill River. I wanted to see if the print would completely come apart from the paper it was written on over a 30 day period.

Druitt is said to have been in the water from early December on for a month. The medical personnel who investigated his torso claim that he was in the water based on their observation and experience working with "floaters" in the Thames.

This is problematic [ at least to me ] in a couple of areas.

First, I think that the m.e. took the natural,easy way of assessing the amount of time Druitt was in the Thames,by merely looking at the tickets...their dates...and the fact that he had been missing for a month.

Secondly...they were using contemporary techniques in gauging time frames for submerged bodies. True,these people were the "best available" judges in their field....but:

How much leeway...how much of a plus/minus....how intense was the inquiry into how long he had been in the water?

Lets face it...we aren't talking about the assassination of the Queen. Even then,there was no guarantee that even with the most intense inquiry would disallow a two week time frame either way.

The reason for all this? Well...I'll tell ya.

Its peculiar that Druitt's brother only mentioned himself as a relative of Druitt,upon identification of the body.

Any takers to this latest conspiratorial gobbledygook?

:)

[Stan Russo]

Howard,

His brother murdered him. I'm not the first to believe so.

Stan

[Robert Linford]

Hi How

I think he meant that he was the only relative in court.

Robert

[How Brown]

Stan:

Thats what I was alluding to. Sorry to not have been more clear.

In addition, I should have said that the m.e.'s may have been aware of his disappearance not by the tickets,but by word of mouth. My error.

Robert:

Druitt's brother responded in that way in court,meaning that there were no other Druitts there present in the court,correct?

[Robert Linford]

That's my take on it, How. otherwise, he'd have been perjuring himself and in a very stupid way, i.e. trying to make out that a prominent family like the Druitts had virtually died out. But William was a solicitor, the sort of man you'd expect to be cautious to put it at the very least.

Robert

[Stan Russo]

More importantly, I think this thread should remain true to the origin of its inception. Poor poor poor Monty. I mean, how dare we accuse a pedophile of possibly committing these murders. He was such a good and honest pedophile, that it is unfair of us to accuse him of the murders. For shame. Shame on us. We really owe his maggot infested rotting corpse an apology.

Perhaps in the future we should not accuse anyone of these crimes,unless they are bad people. What constitutes a bad person in the mind of posters like sorcia? I won't begin to try and understand.

Stan

[How Brown]

Stan:

Personally,I think that of all the options that I know of [ others may know of more...]

1. Homosexual contact with adults
2. Pedophilia with students
3. Some sort of financial chicanery
4. The mere fact he was caught out of the school grounds [ lets just say "past his curfew" ].................

.....that number two,just to me, would seem to be the reason for his dismissal. If not that one,then number four would take its place.

Yet what evidence do we have that the man really did do anything more than merely commit suicide ? You are more committed to the idea that he was murdered [ something I have considered as well ]....and that he was a pedophile [ the "odds" are,in consideration of the nature of his job, to me that he may have been ].

If you get the opportunity,would you please elaborate on the murder scenario ? Sorcia mentioned her feelings on Druitt a few years ago in a phone conversation and her feeling was that he was just a man in "the wrong place at the wrong time".

Thank you paisano !!! ;)

Whoops ! Thanks Robert C. !!!! I appreciate your comments...

and a big thanks to Tim for posting his sister's photo [ the microcephalic hottie in my avatar ].... ;)

[Stan Russo]

How,

I'm not talking about Druitt's suspecthood. I'm talking about his poor self being implicated. How can we, as humans, inplicate this poor poor poor poor person. I mean all he did was molest children. That's not to bad. It certainly doesn;t make him a bad person, according to sorcia. If he is a poor poor man, then he must be a good good man.

I remember having another conversation about a poor poor man who was suspected, and how it was so awful to implicate this poor poor man. Forget that the man was also a pedophile and the person, like sorcia, had no real reason or evidence to release them from being a suspect. It's just that it tore their heart apart to see this poor poor man be accused as a suspect.

Of course, that is why over emotional people do not make good cops or investigators. because they have little or no rational control over their emotions. I'm sure Tumblety once helped an old lady across the street and Maybrick played with his kids and treated them all to nice sweet ice cream cones. The rational thinking person does not care about those things. the irrational person does. This is why the irrational argument holds no weight when discussing an un solved murder case. Sure, sorcia is entitled to her opinion. If her opinion is as ludicrous as William Beadle's argument that William Henry Bury committed the murders for profit, to rob prostitutes, then someone should say so.

To call Montague Druitt "poor Monty" is ridiculous. Come up with theory of why he wasn't the murderer. The former is sentimental hogwash and does not belong here. This is my opinion. I'm sure people will disagree and we will all celebrate with future arguments regarding "poor everyone" until no one is a suspect anymore, because a bleeding heart has feelings for them.

Stan

[Robert Linford]

A few more possible explanations for Monty's dismissal :

Offering violence to pupils, staff, or the Head (punching Valentine would have been a bad career move).

Delivering a rant about how all streetwalkers should be butchered.

Raping a female servant.

Making poltical or religious remarks which Valentine found unacceptable, particularly if made to the students.

Robert

[Stan Russo]

Robert,

I completely disagree with you. There is really only one thing that would have resulted in Druitt's dismissal AND the silence surrounding that dismissal.

You can speculate all you want. You could even go so far as he developed an addiction to the breakfast cereals they fed the kids and was found to be stealing them and eating them all up, costing the school a fortune. You could speculate that it was just about anything.

Put two and two together. Do you honestly believe that if he punched Mr. Valentine that he would have received those two checks found on his body, let alone the extreme secrecy regarding the event that Blackheath historian Neil Rhind states continues to exist today?

There are certain things that allow an investigator to go from step 3 to step 4 of an investigation. These are called logical certainties and help investigators move the case along. With all due respect, if you are stuck with the disbelief that Druitt's dismissal was for anything other than inappropriate activity with children, whom he was charged with watching over at night, then you are missing one of the key elements an investigator needs to actually get anything done.

I am sorry if these words hurt you, as that is not my intention. I just feel that in an investigation, such opinions do not do the case any good, because they are not founded in anything solid and go against the known facts at hand. Sure, he could have been dismissed for ****ting in a student's tuba, but that and your speculative ideas for his dismissal do not explain or bear out what happened next, the total secrecy regarding his dismissal. Therefore, why make them?

If I said that Druitt could have been dismissed for reading French novels, I would hope that someone would say, "Stan, your speculative idea does not bear the fruit of later events", rather than , "Stan, that is a possibility that, despite not making any sense out of the later events I shall applaud your efforts because you are an ice human being and I feel like i should support your endeavors at all costs".

I understand that we should be civil to each other, despite some people's belief that I choose to attack them. This is not an attack, this is tough love, because this kind of ridiculous speculation should end. If you are looking for the person to hold your hand and applaud your comments that do n othing for the case, I am truly sorry Robert, because you will never get them from me.

Stan

[Robert Linford]

Stan

First, I do not want anyone holding my hand.

Now, those possibilities I mentioned above were meant as just that - possibilities. I do not see any reason to definitely pick one over the others, either from my list or How's. I don't know which possibility is the correct one.

You are convinced that Druitt was a paedophile, and your reasons seem to be

1. The cheques
2. The secrecy

You say that if he'd punched Valentine, he wouldn't have received the cheques. Then why on earth should they give him cheques if he was a paedophile? Are yoiu saying that he was blackmailing Valentine? Seems unlikely - Monty would have brought himself, as well as the school, down if he'd mentioned what he'd been doing, and he'd have ended his legal career.

As for the secrecy, you have me at a disadvantage with Mr Rhind, because I don't know (or can't recall) what he said about secrecy. But it seems clear that there wasn't much secrecy at the time. William said at the inquest that Monty had got into serious trouble at the school. It only needed Diplock to ask "What kind of trouble?" and what would William have replied? So if there was this terrible skeleton in the closet, why should William mention the serious trouble at all?

Perhaps Diplock actually did enquire about the trouble, and William mentioned the nature of it - it's our bad luck that the inquest reports are so inadequate.

Macnaghten's remarks about "sexual insanity" might push the odds closer to some sort of sexual reason for the dismissal, but we can't be dogmatic about it.

Robert

[Stan Russo]

Robert,

Neil Rhind is a Blackheath historian. Because of Druitt's suspect candidacy he spoke with elders regarding the Druitt situation. He also searched all historical records, to my knowledge. His assessment of the situation is that secrecy still continues regarding the history of why Druitt was dismissed, even to this day. That is obviously from oral tradition.

Regarding the checks(cheques), punching out your boss would be not only an overt act of assault but have given Valentine every reason to not pay him for the year. Plus, there would be no need for such secrecy over assaulting your boss. The fact that Druitt was dismissed and still given checks (cheques) leads me to believe that the offense was of a serious and scandalous nature where secrecy was of the utmost importance. This can only indicate one thing.

Please explain the issue with Druitt and the Blackheath Cricket Club for any one of your ludicrous scenarios of dismissal. On November 19th, 1888 Druitt is listed as the treasurer and actively taking part in the monthly meeting. On December 19th, 1888, a vote is taken and he is ousted from not only his position, but also from the Club. I suppose he hit all of them also?

Like I previously said, you can wander around the land of speculation, but what is your next step? There is no next step, because your speculations don't lead anywhere to what is known about Druitt after he is let go.

William lied about a number of things at the inquest and got away with it for over 100 years, before Andrew Holloway pointed this out. Are you telling me that he couldn't have sidestepped that issue? There would be no reason for Diplock to inquire about what the serious trouble was. he was not at all interested in that, only in what he believed was a suicide whilst of unsound mind.

Once again, speculate all you want. In a few years, you can catch up to the rest of us who know that all the facts point toward Druitt as a pedophile, Valentine having to let him go in secrecy because he probably found something out regarding this and wanted to avoid a public relations nightmare, the silent release of Druitt from the cricket club, of which Valentine was a member, and the info given by William Druitt, who initially said he was let go from Valentine's school on December 30th, before having to correct it.

Stan

[Robert Linford]

Stan

According to Skinner and Howells, Druitt was removed from his post of Hon Sec and Treasurer on Dec 31st. There's no mention of his being kicked out of the club. Then on Feb 7th the minutes record a vote of regret at his death.

Now are you suggesting that Valentine was trying to keep this terrible dark secret - so terrible that he had to pay off Druitt - and yet he let the Directors of the prestigious Blackheath Cricket Club in on the secret too? Funny way for Valentine to protect his social standing and his school's reputation.

Then, after Valentine's told the Directors that Druitt was a paedophile, which prompts them to sack him, these Directors have a sudden change of heart and express their regret at his death?

Meanwhile, William has been lying his head off at the inquest, but he isn't clever enough to hold back that piece of info about Druitt getting into serious trouble and being dismissed. But it's OK, because fortunately Diplock is a stupid old donkey who doesn't follow it up.

Sounds likely!

Robert

[Stan Russo]

Robert,

Howells and Skinner's book is from 1986 and even they admit there are some historical inaccuracies. Sugden's 1995 book states that by December 19th, Druitt was out of the Cricket Club and there was a queer silence about it, just moving on to new business.

Plus, who says Druitt didn't resign? Oh yeah, that would be William Druitt who lied about almost everything. Why would he lie about the serious trouble? Perhaps because it was William who killed Monty and it shows a man who is suffering from the loss of a job, enough for that man to kill himself. Once again, there are people who have examined the evidence and it leads toward Monty having been killed by William, who more than likely wrote the awful and unsubstantiated suicide note.

As far as the Cricket Club - are you saying that with Druitt allowed to leave, or prompted to leave on November 30th, that valentine would not have said something to the Club, to the effect that there were some compromising things regarding Druitt and a boy or boys, and to keep it hush hush? That is less likely than any one of your speculative ideas? It sure would explain the secrecy.

As far as their mourning his death, one has nothing to do withy the other. He can be removed from his post but for close to four years he had shared the fields with these guys. Of course they had some kind of bond with him. Keeping secret the fact that he was a pedophile could have been as much for his benefit as for Valentine's school.

It seems that you keep working from what could have happened, rather than what made sense as to what happened because of what happened next. It's kind of a matter of logic versus philosophy. he could have eaten enough tomatoes to kill a grizzly bear and that caused his dismissal. Explain any of the next occurrences using any of your speculative ideas.

As far as MacNaghten's info, there is a simple solution to that, but one which no one wants to hear, even though it has been offered before.

Stan

[Robert Linford]

Hi Stan

Could you direct me to the place where Sugden says that Druitt was gone from the club by Dec 19th? I have the 1995 edition, not the update.

If William killed Druitt, that would be one of the best arguments for Monty being JTR that could be advanced. Although, again, if the motive was to save the family from being exposed to scandal, why would William mention the serious trouble, and their mother's insanity?

If I was Valentine, I'd keep the Monty business secret from everyone! (if I was selfish that is - ideally he should have told the police, to protect any future pupils). I'd only tell the BCC people if I desperately needed their help in a cover-up. So the "gone abroad" business may indicate that Valentine spun the committee a line to explain Druitt's absence. Valentine may simply have told Druitt to sever all connection with the school and the BCC - not expecting him to walk off and drown himself. I don't think that the "gone abroad" proves a cover-up, though - just fits in with one.

To take up your challenge, a possible scenario would be :

Druitt's under stress. He's worried about his mother. Maybe the kids are giving him hell. maybe he's been briefed with a tough legal case. Maybe he's JTR! At some point, he punches Valentine, Mann, or a pupil. Valentine tells him that he must fire him. Her won't be able to write him a reference for a future teaching career, because he doesn't think he's psychologically suited to teaching. So there can be no question of allowing him to resign. However, Valentine appreciates the stress he's been under with his mother, and gives him the cheques. Druitt says he supposes this means the end of his association with BCC, and Valentine says yes, but in the interests of all concerned he'll just tell the committee that Mr Druitt has gone abroad.

Robert

[Stan Russo]

Robert,

You taking up the challenge still does not explain the hundred plus years of secrecy. I see this is a futile argument. You simply will not take the necessary next step in an investigation. You want to list every possible speculative possibilty about what happened even though they do not jibe with what happens next.

The new material is in Sugden's updated version, pages 382 through 384. I'm sure you will one hundred interesting ways to think what could have happened. It lists the November 19th memoon the books by Druitt and that the following month he was removed as Treasurer. There is another book that mentions that by December 19th Druitt was discharged from his duties from the Blackheath Cricket Club as their treasurer.

I just refuse to stay behind with you thinking about all the things that could have been when what probably happened is staring me right in the face. Ask yourself one question - where am I going with all these speculative possibilities? The answer is nowhere, but that does not surprise me at all.

Keep thinking about what could have happened rather than trying to logically deduce what did happen.

Stan

[Robert Linford]

Stan, what 100 plus years of secrecy? What exactly are we talking about here? Has Valentine's logbook been found, with Dec 88 mysteriously ripped out? Have BCC papers gone missing?

I mean, what?

Robert

[Stan Russo]

Robert,

It's nothing. You'll never be able to see it. It's ok. Just keep coming up with things it could have been. You are really making some headway in the case.

Stan

[Spiro]

Stan,

Your speculative idea does not bear the fruit of later events. So, as in the statement by Macnaghten, your 'private information' of poor ol' Monty being a pedophile is evidence enough to place a rope around his neck for changing his tastes to the mutilation of East End prostitutes. Brilliant deduction and if that is not your concern then I would say you have deviated from the cause and solution of the investigation.

Obviously, there is no competition grand enough here for you! I'm sure Mr Sugden would be more your size.

[How Brown]

The reason he was dismissed WITHOUT the disclosure was to protect the institution, not Druitt or his reputation....end of story. If pedophilia, then what better reason NOT to disclose this behavior ? Its not exactly a calling card or inducement for enrollment for someone's child...." Oh yes,Mrs. Went...we DID have trouble with Schoolmaster Mosley....but he is no longer with our school.."..but its got some company as a viable reason. Here's why:

Remember that in Victorian times and even into the mid-20th century, private schools in the U.K. and even in the U.S. would NEVER disclose information which was scandulous. Even getting a child with a non-English, non-Protestant background...like a Spiro or Stan or myself, admitted to a boarding school was tough....and thats because they knew what our lot was like ! :)

This wall of silence is what people face even today with the London Hospital on security issues[ which are of interest to me and Robert Chazz]...to drift a bit from the issue.

The school would likewise NOT file charges against Druitt for pedophilia,in all likelihood,because of the reprecussions of bad press and word of mouth. The two checks were either contractually based severance payoffs OR payoffs to distance the school from Druitt. Its not unusual for a school/business to honor their end of a contract despite the dishonoring of said school/business by an employee in violation of the "rules".....and to date,these "rules" or the actual infraction are not clear cut...to me and maybe some others. What is a fact is that it COULD be any of the potential reasons,albeit unusual by OUR standards today,that led to his dismissal.

Druitt was guilty of something for certain. He isn't exactly "poor Monty",because he did seal his fate [ in his mind with the possible suicide and in later career opportunities available ] from whatever he did at Blackheath. He may well be a non-suspect as Sorcia inferred a while back and that the MM is what done him wrong. Its improbable that Mr.Valentine used improper judgment against Master Druitt,despite the fact that Druitt HAD committed a serious and dismissable offense.

Stan...paisan...I'm not seeing any definitive reference to pedophilia,other than the listing of this heinous offense by Sugden on page 383 and even Sugden appears to be open enough to comment that both homosexuality and/or pedophilia are "just conjecture".

Hugs to all. :)

Stan...I also think that murder is not out of the question as well,referring to Druitt's death.

[Stan Russo]

Howard,

It's ok. I let it go. People can think whatever they want. If they want to spend time on 10 levels of conjecture for every single possible item then so be it. It won't ever get them anywhere.

As far as discussing it I'll let it go. Whether better or worseI am just on a different level than most. Its not a good thing or a bad thing, but I await the insecure people who will say I am calling myself better than them.

Eventually someone will have to step up and make a decision on what the logical answer is so we can analyze the case further. It is apparent that most are not willing to do that. In about 20 years maybe what the field has de-evolved into will be ready again.

Stan

[Spiro]

"The quality of mercy is not strained... "

...from The Merchant of Venice surely Shakespeare Druitt would have read with his pupils. It's odd how the most touted suspects by the police are the ones least accountable for...

[Robert Linford]

Interesting association of ideas, Spiro, with the Juwe Shylock and Kelly paying the price.

Given the rumours about his private life, though, I think Monty would have been wise to stick with The One Gentleman Of Verona. :)

Robert