Missing Memorandum 2

[DYLAN]

Trevor Marriott

Hello all.

Although I post very rarely on Casebook nowadays, I have retained my membership, and thoroughly enjoy all the debates of others.

But if I'm allowed to express a personal opinion, I believe that the banishment of Trevor Marriott, even if only temporary, is a little harsh. Over the years, I have seen far more offensive people get away with being banned.

Although he may be a little boisterous at times, it seems to me that this is simply the result of the man's obvious dedication to the Ripper case. He has a great deal to contribute, so as I've said above, I personally consider his punishment to be excessive.

If my comments or opinion get me banned too, then so be it. I'm just trying to be fair to a valuable asset to Casebook.

DYLAN.

[jason_c]

As much as I vehemently disagree with him about everything I do hope Trevor posts again.


"I have asked him [Stephen Ryder] to lift the ban. Should that not be done I will remove myself permanently from Casebook."

Trevor, thats just being a tad precious.

[mariab]

Phil Carter wrote:
That document leads to questions pertaining to the Aberconway material, as it has been put forward as a "draft" of the MM. However, if the document seen by Robin Odell IS in the manner of how it was described in writing via email to Simon, then we have a very strong candidate for a "draft" version. That, in turn, asks questions of the Aberconway version.
I severely doubt that the document consulted by Mr Odell was an early draft, as I strongly assume that the description of the document in question as blue-coloured might be a lapsus in memory, as we're talking 45 years ago! I've had the exact same experience (of mixing up the paper color) with important documents discovered by no other than myself just 7-2 years ago, not 45 years! (If I might add that 45 years ago I was not yet born for at least a decade.)
I apologize for my last post on the closed thread The missing memorandum, which sounds a little bit mean, especially as it now stands all by itself, out of context, after the previous exchange has been deleted, but the post was a direct aswer to a little barb uttered by Mr Marriott, against whom NO hard feelings whatsoever exist on my side, and I wish him the best of lucks with his court dealings pertaining to the Special Branch ledgers – which are supposed to take place in about 6 months, if I'm not wrong.

[spryder]

Keep it civil here or I will have to close this thread as well.

[Phil Carter]

A polite and civil reply to SPE

Everyone who posts on this site does so thanks to the courtesy of those who run it. The administrators of this site have the final decision on the content of what is posted and who posts. We should appreciate their hard work and not crtiticise how they run the site. Believe me when I say that they are experienced and know what they are doing.

I have pointed out, before now, that some past posts (and I am specifying no one specific here) have bordered on the libellous and that cannot be tolerated - and might be legally actionable. It's all very well to criticise and speculate but the questions being raised here are arrived at without a full knowledge of the facts and are, in my opinion, misplaced. I would suggest that administrating is left to administrators - a thankless task that I should not like.

Hello Stewart,

I know you dislike long postings, so my apologies to you on beforehand should this enter that sphere. So, in all civility, as Spryder requests...

In principle I would entirely agree with your posting. However, I would suggest that it is human nature to wonder why something is done without any knowledge and warning. That is perfectly natural.

Actions, as you rightly point out, of the administrators, are needed to run this site. It is a thankless task, yes. I know, I was one of many "ops" on a very popular chat site for over 10 years. Their efforts are appreciated, I can assure you. Yes, I do believe you too.

However, that does not mean that the operator's decisions cannot be questioned, nor are they deemed faultless after every action taken. There are rules to adhere to, fine, but there is such a thing as common courtesy, and whether you or anyone else think it unworthy for any individual to question said actions, or lack of, it is the basic human right to try to understand why whether the questions are deemed misplaced or not, in my honest opinion. It is a brilliant web-site, run by dedicated people, whom I rightly admire immensely. But it doesn't make them faultless either.

I am also quite sure that the administration are grateful to the hundreds of researchers and contributors making this site as good as it is. Mutual appreciation is most certainly abound, I opine. (Thank you Spryder)

As it is, I personally find it sad to see Trevor Marriott or any author or researcher banned. No doubt there will be those who say "good riddance". I don't. Just think of how poor this site, or any site will be if certain high standing authors and researchers, your good self included, world-reknowned, got banned, up and left, or decided that they couldn't be bothered to contribute any more. There would be gaps that would take much time to plug, I again opine.

We would all hate to see it happen. I find this sad. Trevor Marriott contributes in a different way, positively. He raises questions. His manner is direct and forthright, yes.

I respectfully remind all here that Trevor Marriott is at the very forefront of trying to get past hurdles NONE OF US have managed to ever do, through a maze of red tape at Scotland Yard. That makes him in a class of his own, for no-one on Casebook that I am aware of has got as far as he has, at present, I would hazard to guess. It is a time consuming effort that requires much writing and perseverance and dedication, involving many beaurocratic groupings. It is appreciated by most at least, although some, I have heard, have already privately stated that he is "wasting his time."
And if he succeeds? Then ALL will benefit, for many years to come. Time, money and effort, all for the benefit of us all. Whether he succeeds or not, he is dedicated to helping us all, I again opine.

To my personal knowledge, one author won't post on here. Another has been permanently banned. A third, lesser known, also permanently banned. It's a crying shame that authors shy away from answering their public. More kudos to you Stewart for doing so. That is to be admired. Everyone to their own choice, of course. That I do respect, shame though it may be for some of us.

We, the general public, who have this wonderful interest in The Whitechapel Murders and all the spin-offs, rely heavily on author experience, knowledge and guidance. There are hundreds of people reading these very words, all over the world, of every age group. They are being encouraged by us all to participate, research, read up and even have a stab at authorship if they have something they feel can contribute to the subject. That contribution starts on discussion boards like this one.

Now... to finally get back to the original point of the actual original thread, MANY people were interested in this posting of Simon's. It was relevant to the topic of Ripperology. It raised excellent questions that pertain to it and other documentation. Robin Odell saw his version of the MM in 1965. Stewart Evans saw it, and photographed it in 1968. Both of them could still be correct in their beliefs, as I doubt if Joe Gaute and Robin were privy to EVERY Ripper related file that one weekend?

Someone posted the "chances" of the Odell document of existing as "30%".. (forgive me if I do not recall the poster's name) ...now I rate that higher than the "Donner version", if it ever existed at all. Therefore I judge the "lined, blue paper version" worthy of further discussion. We may disagree on this Stewart, but I personally see this at this moment in time with the present facts presented to us, the general public, that very way, a plausible possibility. Your opinion is certain in your own mind. Thats fine. I accept that.

I have no axe to grind here.. just so it is said. I hold the right to post a reasonable opinion, answer the opined criteria mentioned, and keep on topic within the thread, by anyone, politely, in free speech, and people can agree or disagree with it as they choose. Thats fine too! I will however say, if I personally deem it in all fairness fit for further discussion then I will not shy from it. This isn't an invitation to be banned, either. I do not "goad" admin, that is not my way. As they, and all here well know by now.

Any chance of getting back to the point of the MM seen by Robin Odell perchance? If not, then perhaps someone would tell me why we cannot discuss this particular point, as the original thread, on this point, opened by Simon Wood, was closed...

best wishes to all

Phil

[Pontius2000]

I also don't want to see Trevor Marriott banned. I have been closely following the thread regarding the Special Branch's ledgers and would hate to not see the end of it due to hard feelings.

[Supe]

It would seem that some posters have ignored what led to the sanction against Mr. Marriott. Remember, we live in a very litigious society and some of Mr. Marriott's posts might have been considered libelous. This is no idle thought as there have been instances in the past on Casebook when posts have led to the possibility of legal action. And, ultimately, it is Stephen who would end up in the wringer. Lament Mr. Marriott's temporary absence if you wish, but do understand the reason why it was felt necessary.

Don.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

In the interests of fair play the site administrator might care to re-post the two messages which earlier today were deleted from this thread.

Regards,

Simon

[mariab]

I agree about the litigation issues being a real possibility here, and I don't envy at all the admin's responsibilities of disciplining (and babysitting) adults who happen to be researchers and scholars.

[Phil Carter]

It would seem that some posters have ignored what led to the sanction against Mr. Marriott. Remember, we live in a very litigious society and some of Mr. Marriott's posts might have been considered libelous. This is no idle thought as there have been instances in the past on Casebook when posts have led to the possibility of legal action. And, ultimately, it is Stephen who would end up in the wringer. Lament Mr. Marriott's temporary absence if you wish, but do understand the reason why it was felt necessary.

Don.

Hello Don,

A fair comment Don, but like Simon says..fairness here? I have deliberately ignored the litigation subject, but now ask quietly and respectfully, and in the name of all fairness, having judged Mr. Trevor Marriottt's comments, what do you have to say in judgement on the comment made AFTER Mr.Trevor Marriot's banning, by another (lady) member? I notice you make no comment upon that (lady) member's words. Or perhaps you did you not see it? Well I did, before it was wiped off the boards. I can respectfully assure you "might have" is not the description I would personally use to those particular words sir.

And yes, of course I see the predicament of Mr Stephen Ryder. That is why I believe this whole thing should be sorted out behind the scenes as soon as possible. As soon as agreement is in place, lift the ban. It might take 10 minutes....

best wishes

Phil

[The Good Michael]

What's interesting to me is how so many people have forgotten Trevor's history on this site. Go ahead and read through any thread he's been on. He is normally contentious, and maybe that is the way he did his detective work in the past. Here, there is no need to have such a tone with everyone. Yeah, we all get a little irritating at times and get pissy with each other, but it is usually the exception. When it becomes the rule, a timeout isn't a bad thing and should be self-imposed. When it isn't, that's when authority needs to step in.

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

Let It Go

Hello Stewart,
...
In principle I would entirely agree with your posting. However, I would suggest that it is human nature to wonder why something is done without any knowledge and warning. That is perfectly natural.
...
However, that does not mean that the operator's decisions cannot be questioned, nor are they deemed faultless after every action taken. There are rules to adhere to, fine, but there is such a thing as common courtesy, and whether you or anyone else think it unworthy for any individual to question said actions, or lack of, it is the basic human right to try to understand why whether the questions are deemed misplaced or not, in my honest opinion.
...
As it is, I personally find it sad to see Trevor Marriott or any author or researcher banned. No doubt there will be those who say "good riddance". I don't. Just think of how poor this site, or any site will be if certain high standing authors and researchers, your good self included, world-reknowned, got banned, up and left, or decided that they couldn't be bothered to contribute any more. There would be gaps that would take much time to plug, I again opine.
We would all hate to see it happen. I find this sad. Trevor Marriott contributes in a different way, positively. He raises questions. His manner is direct and forthright, yes.
I respectfully remind all here that Trevor Marriott is at the very forefront of trying to get past hurdles NONE OF US have managed to ever do, through a maze of red tape at Scotland Yard. That makes him in a class of his own, for no-one on Casebook that I am aware of has got as far as he has, at present, I would hazard to guess. It is a time consuming effort that requires much writing and perseverance and dedication, involving many beaurocratic groupings. It is appreciated by most at least, although some, I have heard, have already privately stated that he is "wasting his time."
And if he succeeds? Then ALL will benefit, for many years to come. Time, money and effort, all for the benefit of us all. Whether he succeeds or not, he is dedicated to helping us all, I again opine.
To my personal knowledge, one author won't post on here. Another has been permanently banned. A third, lesser known, also permanently banned. It's a crying shame that authors shy away from answering their public. More kudos to you Stewart for doing so. That is to be admired. Everyone to their own choice, of course. That I do respect, shame though it may be for some of us.
...
Now... to finally get back to the original point of the actual original thread, MANY people were interested in this posting of Simon's. It was relevant to the topic of Ripperology. It raised excellent questions that pertain to it and other documentation. Robin Odell saw his version of the MM in 1965. Stewart Evans saw it, and photographed it in 1968. Both of them could still be correct in their beliefs, as I doubt if Joe Gaute and Robin were privy to EVERY Ripper related file that one weekend?
Someone posted the "chances" of the Odell document of existing as "30%".. (forgive me if I do not recall the poster's name) ...now I rate that higher than the "Donner version", if it ever existed at all. Therefore I judge the "lined, blue paper version" worthy of further discussion. We may disagree on this Stewart, but I personally see this at this moment in time with the present facts presented to us, the general public, that very way, a plausible possibility. Your opinion is certain in your own mind. Thats fine. I accept that.
I have no axe to grind here.. just so it is said. I hold the right to post a reasonable opinion, answer the opined criteria mentioned, and keep on topic within the thread, by anyone, politely, in free speech, and people can agree or disagree with it as they choose. Thats fine too! I will however say, if I personally deem it in all fairness fit for further discussion then I will not shy from it. This isn't an invitation to be banned, either. I do not "goad" admin, that is not my way. As they, and all here well know by now.
Any chance of getting back to the point of the MM seen by Robin Odell perchance? If not, then perhaps someone would tell me why we cannot discuss this particular point, as the original thread, on this point, opened by Simon Wood, was closed...
...
Phil

Yes, I do dislike long posts.

I thought that it was patently clear that certain posts had reached a level of being near libellous - or even actionable. I warned of this and my warnings were ignored. It should have been no surprise to anyone when the posts were removed - so no one should have been wondering why it was done. And the administrators, who are responsible for site content, have no obligation to explain their actions to anyone. To endlessly question what they have done is pointless and only prolongs the issue.

I suggest that anyone who wishes to question the decisions made by administrators of this site should do so by private message or email - and not moan on a public forum.

Yes, it is sad to see Trevor banned, I know him personally and I like him. Perhaps he became over-enthusiastic but it is wrong to make unfounded suggestions about others, who are professionals, and this was what I warned about.

I have often left the boards for extended periods when I feel that things are becoming a bit silly or offensive. I could easily give them up forever and I often think that fellow authors and friends such as Phil Sugden and Don Rumbelow are rather wise to stay away. But I enjoy the exchanges and I know that these sites have a lot to offer. They are now the cutting edge of Ripperology. I have always tried to help others and have posted a lot of my own information and documents on these boards and JTRForums. Sometimes when I have given help I end up getting kicked in the teeth - it is then I feel like giving up.

What you have dubbed 'the Odell document' is nothing more than the self-same original official version that still resides amongst the files at Kew. And I speak here with, perhaps, a deeper knowledge of all these things than anyone else posting. Unless someone cares to challenge me on that. Some of my peers who are aware of all this, but do not post, are in agreement with me.

Yes, everyone has the right to post their own opinion, but we all know that in this world of political correctness and rapid litigation we are not as free to speak as, perhaps, we once were. So my advice is turn to non-public communication on this or let it go.

[Stewart P Evans]

No Individual

As much as I vehemently disagree with him about everything I do hope Trevor posts again.
"I have asked him [Stephen Ryder] to lift the ban. Should that not be done I will remove myself permanently from Casebook."
Trevor, thats just being a tad precious.

Right, no individual is bigger than the boards - not Trevor, nor me, nor anyone. If I left the boards I'd be missed for all of five minutes.

[mariab]

SPE wrote:
If I left the boards I'd be missed for all of five minutes.
Don't be so sure.

[The Good Michael]

If I left the boards I'd be missed for all of five minutes.

Six and a half, surely.

Mike