Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who Was the Body in the Thames?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Anna Morris
    replied
    Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
    Weird to imagine someone loaded up with all that wealth; gold coins, silver coins & two cheques totaling £60, and then throwing themselves in the Thames.
    It's almost like his death was not planned, most suicides are.
    It is said that most who commit suicide or seriously attempt it do not actually want to die. What they really want is immediate relief from whatever extreme troubles they are experiencing at the moment.

    I can understand the sentiment. Every time I get a severe migraine, especially the ones that last days and nights, I tell my body I will never eat again and that will be the end. It is usually not possible to eat during a migraine attack so it is an easy "promise" to make.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicker Man
    replied
    Weird to imagine someone loaded up with all that wealth; gold coins, silver coins & two cheques totaling £60, and then throwing themselves in the Thames.
    It's almost like his death was not planned, most suicides are.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anna Morris
    replied
    Druitt had jewellery on his person also as I recall. A gold watch chain with a spade guinea. (I remember looking up "spade guinea" and trying to figure out if this had anything to do with Hutchinson's Mr. A. who had the chain and seal with red stone. I figure the answer is no.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicker Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Allison Smith View Post
    ...... As does the fact that anyone could be identified, visually, after being in the Thames for a month. .....
    The identification was likely not visual, but by the intended recipient named on the cheques, at least that would be the starting point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Allison Smith
    replied
    Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
    Ah, I can't say "how", but what does "how" mean?
    The "how" must be due to the water temperature, type of ink & paper.


    I copied a couple of sections from the article. You can find the whole account in the Chelmsford Chronicle dated Apr. 26, 1867.
    The body had decomposed, hence the arm that was brought up. The body came away in pieces.










    Do you doubt the papers were readable now?
    Hahaha. I didn't really "doubt" it per se before . . . it just seemed odd to me. As does the fact that anyone could be identified, visually, after being in the Thames for a month. But THANK YOU very much for the reference of the article. That will come in VERY handy - and save me another trip down the warren of rabbit holes I've been falling down lately. Much appreciated!

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicker Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Allison Smith View Post
    Yes, but HOW?! I find it super hard to believe that they were still legible. I have a friend that works in forensics for the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, maybe I should ask her.

    Ah, I can't say "how", but what does "how" mean?
    The "how" must be due to the water temperature, type of ink & paper.


    I copied a couple of sections from the article. You can find the whole account in the Chelmsford Chronicle dated Apr. 26, 1867.
    The body had decomposed, hence the arm that was brought up. The body came away in pieces.










    Do you doubt the papers were readable now?

    Leave a comment:


  • Allison Smith
    replied
    Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
    The book is called "Jack the Ripper - Case Solved, 1891" and it's by J.J.Hainsworth...You can't miss the slightly (?!) lurid yellow cover...

    Dave
    *brings up Amazon * Oh, that is slightly lurid, isn't it?! Hahaha. Thanks!! That will surely be a great resource.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cogidubnus
    replied
    Originally posted by Allison Smith View Post
    Jonathan's book? Sounds like something I need to get my hands on! What's the title? (And how did I miss any mention of it?!)
    The book is called "Jack the Ripper - Case Solved, 1891" and it's by J.J.Hainsworth...You can't miss the slightly (?!) lurid yellow cover...

    Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • Allison Smith
    replied
    Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
    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.
    Yes, but HOW?! I find it super hard to believe that they were still legible. I have a friend that works in forensics for the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, maybe I should ask her.

    Leave a comment:


  • Allison Smith
    replied
    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
    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.)
    Jonathan's book? Sounds like something I need to get my hands on! What's the title? (And how did I miss any mention of it?!)

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicker Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Allison Smith View Post
    .... - 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anna Morris
    replied
    Originally posted by Allison Smith View Post
    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.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Allison Smith
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jonathan Hainsworth
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Butler
    replied
    Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
    "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".

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X