Matriculation form

[Trevor Bond]

Hello all,

Nothing here that is going to hang good ol' Monty - but for the sake of completeness I thought others may find these interesting. I had two things sent to me today from the Bodleian Library (Oxford). The first - scan below - is a photocopy of a handwritten form filled in by Druitt on October 13, 1876 when he matriculated (graduated) from New College, Oxford, with a BA in Classics (3rd Class). It is pretty short, and features no new info as such, but I was still pretty interested to see a decent sample of his handwriting.

The second item is pretty lengthy and is an extract from the relevant University guidelines showing the syllabus Druitt would have followed and the examinations he would have taken. As I say it is quite long and so will take some serious transcribing and editing later - watch this space.

For now though - and for what it is worth, enjoy:

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Easter%202011/20-05-2010134445JPG.jpg

[How Brown]

Thanks very much for sharing,Trevor. :thumb:

[Trevor Bond]

Thanks How. I can only assume that others have seen this document before, in books I am yet to read. Oh well. It is here now, for what use it may prove. I find Druitt's handwriting particularly interesting.

One slight correction - matriculation refers not to graduation but to admission. Dealing with Oxford records is like learning a new language. I only noticed my error when I began looking at dates. Whoops!

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Trevor, have you read Thomas Toughill's book, The Ripper Code? He presents evidence from Druitt's college career that strongly suggests he was a homosexual. No surprise there. I'd say the evidence is rather strong all around that Druitt was gay, which would rule him out as the Ripper. Do you agree?

[Trevor Bond]

Tom,

Do I agree that Druitt being homosexual would rule him out as the 'Ripper'? No. As much as I would love to. This is a personal opinion but I have serious issues with the kind of 'profiling' which tells us that the 'Ripper' must have been heterosexual. The truth of the matter is we know nothing, and profilers play with percentages. In betting terms, I'd give you 2 to 1 on for the 'Ripper' being heterosexual, but I still couldn't rule out the alternative, however staistically unlikely.

As for do I believe Druitt was homosexual? Almost certainly. I personally believe he was very unfortunate to find himself forced to hide his true self, and tormented by that fact, at a time when the spotlight inevitably fell on anyone acting suspiciously. He may well have been a criminal, in the eyes of the law at the time, but that hardly makes him a murderer. All the alleged 'cover up' of the inquest can be explained in terms of a well-to-do family eager to avoid the stigma of homosexuality, just as much as harbouring a murderer.

That said, I haven't read the book you mention, which sounds fascinating.

As I have said on many on occasion, I do NOT believe Druitt was the 'Ripper' and would love to exonerated him once and for all - but it's that last 1 percent that is impossible to close. I still think that the how and why of his becoming a suspect is an intriguing subject, socially and politically.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Trev. I don't believe in what's called 'serial killer profiling' at all. Nevertheless, some things are self-evident. The fact that there's never been a homosexual male serial killer who targeted women is, to my mind, a strong indicator that JTR was heterosexual. Also, keep in mind that the police of 1888 would not have known this and linked homosexuality with insantiy, thereby making Druitt and Tumblety's gayness a big part of the reason why they suspected them. If Mac had known that Druitt wasn't a doctor (thus no medical skill), was nowhere near the East End, and didn't die for many weeks after Kelly's murder, he may not have suspected him at all.

[How Brown]

Trevor & Tom...

Permit me to add this to the mix...not in an effort to stymie your discussion or derail it....but I think its just as likely, if he was one or the other, that Druitt was interested in underage males...not adult ones.

In Trevor's fine post before this one, he stated:

"All the alleged 'cover up' of the inquest can be explained in terms of a well-to-do family eager to avoid the stigma of homosexuality, just as much as harbouring a murderer."

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I think the word "pederast" could have been substituted for 'homosexuality" just as easily.

I put myself in Druitt's shoes here and took into consideration that he lived on campus around underaged boys...including the "fact" that no one else...no other adult male on campus....seems to have been jettisoned at the same time as Druitt had been....again, if the reason for his dismissal was specifically for sexual dalliances and not his moonlighting as a barrister or some other violation at Valentines.

I think if Druitt had been caught in the act or accused of homosexual conduct, the "other man" would have been given the heave ho as well.

[Trevor Bond]

How,

It's certainly possible, but bear in mind that we only know about Druitt's sacking because he committed suicide not long after and so it came out at the inquest, and we only know about that because rightly or wrongly the whole incident got entangled in the 'Ripper' saga. The secretive, seemingly gentlemanly way in which it was done - here's your full pay for last term, go quitely old bean - was not necessarily for Druitt's benefit, it would also have been seen as best for the school's reputation. Therefore, it is quite possible (unless there are complete records for all staff in 1888 that I have not seen) that another member of staff was involved but history never found out about it, because they went quietly and slotted in somewhere else and there was no inquest to ask awkward questions.

Also, such was the, for want of a better word, paranoia about homosexuality at the time that a man being gay and being in charge of underage children would be seen as almost as bad as being a proven pederast. Therefore the relationship/ dalliance/ whatever that alerted the school to the fact need not to have been anything to do with another member of staff - just being gay would have been enough of an offence, it would not necessarily need to be a case of 'being gay on duty'.

Tom - I completely agree that a homosexual 'Ripper' would be unlikely. I guess we all have to decide how high we set our individual burden of proof. I can't say to my satisfaction that Druitt definitively wasn't the murderer, because until someone else is named (ie never) its still theoretically possible the murderer was gay, and it's still theoretically possible Druitt could have made his cricket matches, albeit it's very tight. I would love to find some record, ala Prince Eddie, that puts him out of the reckoning altogether, but it just ain't going to happen is it? You pay your money and take your choice.

If only one of those damn cricket matches had been 2 hours earlier, eh?

[How Brown]

Trevor:

Fine response,sir.

How long was Druitt employed at Valentine's ? Do you know offhand ?

[Trevor Bond]

How,

Definitely from 1881, possibly before that. As you will know, he left Oxford in 1880, as his 1884 MA was conferred without any requirements for residence or study (although he did at least attend the ceremony to receive it), so it is possible he was at the school since graduating in 1880 or shortly after.

So, seven or eight years. A long time to then dismiss someone without ceremony.

[How Brown]

Thanks for that Trevor.
So...Druitt was a member of the faculty for 7-8 years...and, without him engaging or attempting to engage in homosexual behavior, he managed to stayed closeted all the while.

Because, as you have recently remarked:
"just being gay would have been enough of an offence..."-T.B

....thats remarkable. In all the time Druitt was in his position at the school, he either got "caught" or found out as being a homosexual in late 1888 for the first time.

[Trevor Bond]

Very true, How. It really does make you wonder whether it is possible that they didn't have any suspicions over that period of time. Of course, the same could be said about if he was sacked for being a violent potential murderer, too (I know you're not that mad though :biggrin1:).

One answer would be that maybe they did know/suspect his homosexuality but that they valued his work and it was initially possible to keep it an 'in-house' secret - if Monty was as eager as his employers to keep it quiet - but that SOMETHING in 1888 threatened to bring it into the open, unless he left the school. The hush-hush nature of the dismissal would also make even more sense then, as had the 'scandal' gone public then the school would have been at least partly complicit in allowing him to teach whilst knowing of his proclivities.

Blackmail was of course a constant worry for homosexual men at this time - as our own Tumblety seems to have found out. It is an interesting possibility (to me at least!) but it is merely a speculative point.

I know mental illness has been suggested in the past for obvious reasons as an example of something that may or may not have been noticed by Druitt's exployers and yet would not have immediately required his removal, but progressed to a point where it was inevitable - but his performance as a barrister in the period immediately prior to his disappearance does not bear that out.

One thing that has always seemed very odd to me about the whole incident is that Druitt's brother even mentioned the vague 'trouble' that Montague had got himself in at all. It would have been very simple to just say that he had left to concentrate on his legal work, and had been paid for the term past- as the school, for whatever reason, do not seem to have been eager to give any further details to the press, and thus were hardly likely to contradict him. I do not necessarily doubt the prevailing opinion that William was acting as the family's representative to manipulate proceedings so as to avoid embarassment (for whatever reason), but this crucial action does not seem to fit with it. Any thoughts, How?

Curiouser and Curiouser, said Alice.

[How Brown]

Trevor:

Thats a very good question Trevor....and one that gives me the impression that the brother felt he had better mention something even as open ended and vague as the word "trouble" because he may have felt the police would inevitably find out what that trouble was from Valentine's.
I don't know Trevor. It may also have been a slip of the tongue.
Thats a very good question and if anyone else has an idea to offer, please do.
Thanks Trevor.