Who Was the Body in the Thames?

[Tammy Green]

Am I odd for finding Debs's unidentified one-eyed deserter a hundred times more interesting than Monty D?

Extremely interesting!

I now believe this man was the origin of all the drowned D legends


Tammy

[Tammy Green]

Can anyone please confirm this story, and what was the source of it:

"an occurrence which happened in March, 1889. According to Dr. Thomas Dutton, Albert Backert, a high-standing member of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, had set forth his displeasure that "there seemed to be too much complacency in the force simply because there had been no more murders for some months."

The senior officers responded to his complaint, and was told that if he were to swear to secrecy he would be given information about the case. In his own words, he explains:

Foolishly, I agreed. It was then suggested to me that
the Vigilance Committee and its patrols might be dis-
banded as the police were quite certain that the Ripper
was dead. I protested that, as I had been sworn to
secrecy, I really ought to be given more information
than this. 'It isn't necessary for you to know any more,'
I was told. 'The man in question is dead. He was fish-
ed out of the Thames two months ago and it would only
cause pain to relatives if we said any more than that."

If that was true, we can return the drowned Jack story back to March 1889, notice that he was fished out two monthes before!! Towards the end of December or maybe even January 1889!

Tammy

[Sam Flynn]

Not if one knows the tidal Thames is particularly treacherous and makes sure of the job by filling one's pockets full of rocks.

I've often wondered how many pounds of rocks you'd need to stuff into your pockets in order to negate the body's tendency to float. Does anyone know? Not that I'm thinking of trying it out, you understand.

[Robert Linford]

Um - I hope you don't intend to dispose of someone, Gareth?

[Gary Barnett]

Um - I hope you don't intend to dispose of someone, Gareth?

Perhaps he does. Who could it be, I wonder? Someone he feels is a threat to his position as the UK's punniest man, perhaps? (That's me safe then.)

Just to be on the safe side, Rob, you perhaps shouldn't go anywhere near water wearing your coat that has the poacher's pockets.

[Robert Linford]

"The body, which had been weighted down with a grand piano, continued to play a number of classical compositions. However, as decomposition set in the body began playing the right notes but not necessarily in the right order."

[Gary Barnett]

"The body, which had been weighted down with a grand piano, continued to play a number of classical compositions. However, as decomposition set in the body began playing the right notes but not necessarily in the right order."

Dear Mr Preview,

Your life is hanging by a thread.

Well-wisher

[Gary Barnett]

Dear Mr Preview,

Your life is hanging by a thread.

Well-wisher

P. S. Don't go anywhere near a well wearing that coat!

[Anna Morris]

I wonder if rocks in the pockets are more psychological than effective. Perhaps the person is taking a definite action making it more difficult to back out if his mind is changed? And I still think rocks in pockets could have something to do with hoping the body would sink forever but it takes a lot more than rocks to accomplish this.

It would also be possible for the would be suicide to change his mind and remove his coat or other garment with rocks in the pockets. People fall off boats wearing heavy clothing and some are able to tear off the clothes that impede swimming.

[Caroline Brown]

Hi Anna,

A confident swimmer knows how hard it can be to sink and stay underwater in normal conditions. The instinct to keep breathing is just too strong to resist and you tend to come up again regardless. I can float on my back in a warm sea, for example, indefinitely and with hardly a movement. It's totally different for non-swimmers, like my ex husband, who simply can't imagine what that's like. He used to struggle so much to stay afloat while trying to swim a couple of strokes unaided that he would forget to breathe then find himself going under, and be terrified of not being able to come up again.

IMHO Monty made sure of it, by jumping from the bridge into icy tidal waters with those stones to weigh him down, so his body would be swept along, unable to rise to the surface and cause him to gasp for air, by which time the cold would have made him lose consciousness if he didn't drown first.

Very sad, especially if that bigoted West Country MP was behind malicious rumours about the poor man's private life.

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul Butler]

"The body, which had been weighted down with a grand piano, continued to play a number of classical compositions. However, as decomposition set in the body began playing the right notes but not necessarily in the right order."

When Beethoven's body was exhumed he was found to be in the process of frantically scribbling over several of his scores. When asked what he was doing he simply replied "decomposing".

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

The West of England MP, Henry Richard Farquharson, was not behind any malicious rumours about Montie Druitt.

He was a clumsy politician, at times, and indiscreet once he was told the truth about Jack the Ripper.

On the other hand, he was the first to partially disguise the solution to protect the druitt family. Montague was the nephew of the late Dr. Robert Druitt one of the most famous physicians in England. It fools peopled\ to this day.

[Allison Smith]

My questions about his suicide are more a confused jumble than I'd like to admit.

I don't quite get the rocks in the pockets thing, either, but that is beside the point I'm concerned with.

My questions stem from the things that were, ultimately, used to identify him.

Quoted from Wikipedia (I know, I know, but it was the quickest quote I could find):

On 31 December 1888, his body was found floating in the River Thames, off Thornycroft's torpedo works, Chiswick, by a waterman named Henry Winslade.[59][60] Stones in Druitt's pockets had kept his body submerged for about a month.[61] He was in possession of a return train ticket to Hammersmith dated 1 December, a silver watch, a cheque for £50 and £16 in gold (equivalent to £5,500 and £1,800 today).[18][62][63] It is not known why he should have carried such a large amount of money,[64] but it could have been a final payment from the school.[28][65]

After a body has been in the Thames for a month (back then especially - wasn't it just after The Great Stink?) - how could train tickets and a check still be legible? Is the assumption that they were put there later? And, again, if he'd been in ANY body of water for A MONTH, he wouldn't be recognizable, would he? So, the brother's "identification" had to have been made based on the contents of the pockets, right? Which wouldn't have remained legible that long . . . would they?

[Anna Morris]

My questions about his suicide are more a confused jumble than I'd like to admit.

I don't quite get the rocks in the pockets thing, either, but that is beside the point I'm concerned with.

My questions stem from the things that were, ultimately, used to identify him.

Quoted from Wikipedia (I know, I know, but it was the quickest quote I could find):

On 31 December 1888, his body was found floating in the River Thames, off Thornycroft's torpedo works, Chiswick, by a waterman named Henry Winslade.[59][60] Stones in Druitt's pockets had kept his body submerged for about a month.[61] He was in possession of a return train ticket to Hammersmith dated 1 December, a silver watch, a cheque for £50 and £16 in gold (equivalent to £5,500 and £1,800 today).[18][62][63] It is not known why he should have carried such a large amount of money,[64] but it could have been a final payment from the school.[28][65]

After a body has been in the Thames for a month (back then especially - wasn't it just after The Great Stink?) - how could train tickets and a check still be legible? Is the assumption that they were put there later? And, again, if he'd been in ANY body of water for A MONTH, he wouldn't be recognizable, would he? So, the brother's "identification" had to have been made based on the contents of the pockets, right? Which wouldn't have remained legible that long . . . would they?

Hi, Allison. Yes, I agree with everything you are pondering because I ponder the same things. (I have read of other drowning suicides with rocks in their pockets. I assume it is an added inducement to go through with the act but I really do not know. Or that the body might stay down and be lost forever or something. But of course that would not work out with rocks that fit into pockets.)

I have really wondered about the checks, etc. The water was cold and perhaps he had a wallet or something.

Anyway I really should not say anything because I have not read Jonathan's book yet and I should before I say anything else. (I have a problem getting delivery of books at my home so I don't order them very often.)

[Wicker Man]

.... - how could train tickets and a check still be legible? Is the assumption that they were put there later? And, again, if he'd been in ANY body of water for A MONTH, he wouldn't be recognizable, would he? So, the brother's "identification" had to have been made based on the contents of the pockets, right? Which wouldn't have remained legible that long . . . would they?

Other cases of bodies pulled out of the river after much longer, in one case after a year, paperwork; bills, cheques, invoices, etc., were still legible.