Chris:
I am no expert on boarding schools, but I believe they are (and were) organised so that the students share chambers - i.e. bunk beds, several to each chamber. So if we presume that Druitt's dismissal was in some way linked to inappropriate behaviour with a student, how would he have had access to one particular student? Or do we mean to believe that he had Cleveland Street style romps with entire groups of them at once, and any other staff were oblivious to it, and no students made mention of it?
Sounds just a bit far fetched to me. As for this "serious trouble" being a euphenism of some sort, I don't believe that, especially when we've been told before that "sexual insanity" was the euphenism for "homosexuality" - how many euphenisms for the same thing was there?
Surely, if such behaviours had been involved, it would have warranted withholding of pay and perhaps even an inquest/investigation - the lack of this seems once more to point in the direction of neglect of duty rather than anything sinister.
Caz:
The old "oh, the wording must have been mis-reported" excuse is a well worn one and just doesn't cut it. There seems to have been no indication that Druitt was even suicidal, from his co-workers, team-mates, clients, family members, associates.....nobody. I've been unfortunate enough to have known€, or known of, a few people who have committed suicide over the years and in every case it's been vastly different from what supposedly happened to Druitt.
So I will just put it out there that I would not be entirely surprised if it should ever come out that Druitt was in fact murdered.....there's just something odd about the fact that nobody seemed to suspect suicide, that there was a body floating in the Thames for a month with 70 pounds or more worth of money and valuables on it that nobody discovered despite mud larks and watermen being one of the more common professions amongst the poor Londoners at the time.....perhaps i'm reading too much into it, but there's something that just doesn't quite fit into place with the whole scenario.
Why would anyone take a suicide note with them when drowning? Is that a serious question? Why would they take a train ticket and 66 pounds in cheques to the grave with them as a preference to a suicide note, Caz?
Furthermore, are you suggesting that people would have started wide spread gossip about a fairly reclusive barrister that would have spread like wild fire? Really? It's not Prince Eddy we're talking about here - at the height of the Ripper scare the dismissal of Druitt from a school for misconduct would hardly have been front page news, one has to say.
Cheers,
Adam.
I am no expert on boarding schools, but I believe they are (and were) organised so that the students share chambers - i.e. bunk beds, several to each chamber. So if we presume that Druitt's dismissal was in some way linked to inappropriate behaviour with a student, how would he have had access to one particular student? Or do we mean to believe that he had Cleveland Street style romps with entire groups of them at once, and any other staff were oblivious to it, and no students made mention of it?
Sounds just a bit far fetched to me. As for this "serious trouble" being a euphenism of some sort, I don't believe that, especially when we've been told before that "sexual insanity" was the euphenism for "homosexuality" - how many euphenisms for the same thing was there?
Surely, if such behaviours had been involved, it would have warranted withholding of pay and perhaps even an inquest/investigation - the lack of this seems once more to point in the direction of neglect of duty rather than anything sinister.
Caz:
The old "oh, the wording must have been mis-reported" excuse is a well worn one and just doesn't cut it. There seems to have been no indication that Druitt was even suicidal, from his co-workers, team-mates, clients, family members, associates.....nobody. I've been unfortunate enough to have known€, or known of, a few people who have committed suicide over the years and in every case it's been vastly different from what supposedly happened to Druitt.
So I will just put it out there that I would not be entirely surprised if it should ever come out that Druitt was in fact murdered.....there's just something odd about the fact that nobody seemed to suspect suicide, that there was a body floating in the Thames for a month with 70 pounds or more worth of money and valuables on it that nobody discovered despite mud larks and watermen being one of the more common professions amongst the poor Londoners at the time.....perhaps i'm reading too much into it, but there's something that just doesn't quite fit into place with the whole scenario.
Why would anyone take a suicide note with them when drowning? Is that a serious question? Why would they take a train ticket and 66 pounds in cheques to the grave with them as a preference to a suicide note, Caz?
Furthermore, are you suggesting that people would have started wide spread gossip about a fairly reclusive barrister that would have spread like wild fire? Really? It's not Prince Eddy we're talking about here - at the height of the Ripper scare the dismissal of Druitt from a school for misconduct would hardly have been front page news, one has to say.
Cheers,
Adam.
Comment