E Petitions and Ripper Files and papers

[Trevor Marriott]

Paul and I have done no such thing. We merely pointed out the inherent problems with the petition.

And to include the phrase 'unwarranted secrecy surrounding this historically-important series of unsolved murders has prevailed for over 120 years' is factually incorrect and certainly guaranteed to earn the trust and co-operation of no one. It merely indicates that they are from the Trevor Marriott school of charm and enlightenment and will get them nowhere.

How many times do I have to keep saying this, the petitions were not drawn up by me. I can tell you that I am now aware that as far as the Uk Governemt site is concerned what was originally submitted to The Government site has been edited by the government dept responsible for these petitions and therfore does not appear as it was intended to appear.

Besides as i said before the petitions wre drawn up in good faith and the way you and a minority have pulled them to pieces is totalyl out of order.

Both you and Paul Begg and any other could have gone down the same route I went down and gone the full distance but for whatever reason you chose not to do so. Yet you now you openly critisice others that have taken it that extra mile spending 3 years and at a great personal expense. Your actions in doing that are incomprehensible.

There is nothing more that can be said now. We are where we are now end of story.



So even at this early stage the government hands are still at work.

[Trevor Marriott]

Don't be even more ridiculous than you have to be. Anyone can go back to your first post and see the second paragraph:

"I was dissapointed to see comments on JTR forums from two respected researchers who in my opinion should have known better. Both poured water on this project, both went to great lengths to elablorate on how wonderful they were and that they had tried to get access etc, and highlighted how they had failed."

Neither Stewart nor I went to great lengths to elaborate how wonderful we are, there was no requirement on you to draw attention to anything we'd written to another message board...

Oh, but why bother. You live in your own tiny world...

I live in the real world where people can understand sensible and logical reasoning unlike your world where logical and sensible reasoning are unheard of

There was every reason for me to draw attention if you are going to talk about me in a derogatory way then I will respond and will continue to respond so I would suggest you take note of an earlier post where I asked that personal conflicts be taken out of this thread. So kindly do as requested but I doubt you can becasue you are so locked in the belief that everyhting you say or write is correct.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott
I did go through them all in unredcated form

Originally Posted by mariab
That's what I thought, and thanks for corroborating.

I assume that should be redacted form.

Anyhow, in a previous discussion Trevor Marriott explained regarding the Churchill entry (which was supplied to him from another source):
I did not come across this entry, but to be fair I did not check all 36.000 entries individually I merley ran a cursory eye over the rest of the register having concluded my initial investigations. To go through the 36.000 entries one by one would take the best part of a week.

And I then said:
So if someone does have the time and stamina, there may be more entries relating to the case that can be identified in the redacted version of the register. And if they can be identified, it may be possible to persuade the authority to provide copies of those entries in their unredacted state.

And you, Maria, replied:
I wish someone would attempt this.

And Trevor Marriott replied:
That could be the case but you have to remember Clutterbuck went through them in very great detail for his thesis he makes mention of several ripper related entries. Although my recent new finds would indicate that he perhap he even missed things. ...

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=183210&postcount=66

This feels like a good time for me to bow out of the discussion...

[mariab]

You're silly.

Engaging in silly activities is very relaxing/rewarding.

[Scott Nelson]

You're silly.

[mariab]

The heavy redaction of all proper names except for police officers names has made the remaining entries almost impossible to decipher.

My impression too after FINALLY seeing a couple redacted pages from the ledgers during the coffee break at the recent conference.

I did go through them all in unredcated form

That's what I thought, and thanks for corroborating.

I most solemny attest that Paul Begg has an amazing sense of humour, which (due to my newbie status) I first managed to witness recently, during the “you're so lucky; my grandpa and the budgie“ thread over at the other site. Call me silly, but this is a thread I had tremendous fun participating in and often think fondly of.

[Stewart P Evans]

No Such Thing

No it shouldnt the thread was started by me to bring to the attention of members two e petitions which had been started by two other parties it was you and Stewart who have attempted to destroy it in your inimitable way.

Paul and I have done no such thing. We merely pointed out the inherent problems with the petition.

And to include the phrase 'unwarranted secrecy surrounding this historically-important series of unsolved murders has prevailed for over 120 years' is factually incorrect and certainly guaranteed to earn the trust and co-operation of no one. It merely indicates that they are from the Trevor Marriott school of charm and enlightenment and will get them nowhere.

[PaulB]

The police argued that they could not distinguish between entries that were not informant related to those which were.

Who could make that distinction?

[PaulB]

No it shouldnt the thread was started by me to bring to the attention of members two e petitions which had been started by two other parties it was you and Stewart who have attempted to destroy it in your inimitable way.

Don't be even more ridiculous than you have to be. Anyone can go back to your first post and see the second paragraph:

"I was dissapointed to see comments on JTR forums from two respected researchers who in my opinion should have known better. Both poured water on this project, both went to great lengths to elablorate on how wonderful they were and that they had tried to get access etc, and highlighted how they had failed."

Neither Stewart nor I went to great lengths to elaborate how wonderful we are, there was no requirement on you to draw attention to anything we'd written to another message board...

Oh, but why bother. You live in your own tiny world...

[Trevor Marriott]

Thank you so much for clarifying. It looks like the librarians at the NA are going through these files. But how can you mean that “one item from 1880“ refers to the case? Or did you mean, “from the 1880s“?


Thank you again for clarifying. I wasn't aware that Trevor Marriott ONLY has had access to the redacted xerox copies, and only part of them. I was under the impression he went through the entire thing in one day. A second search (even under similar hurried circumstances) would certainly be of benefit.

I did go through them all in unredcated form

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm not sure what you mean. I checked the online catalogue before posting the message you've just replied to.

The files with descriptions don't appear to refer to the case. (Apart from one item from 1880, the earliest dates from 1916.) But there's no way of knowing whether any of the files without descriptions and dates do. Those are now relatively small in number, though.



Yes, but Trevor Marriott was able to identify two relevant entries in the redacted version because they contained the phrases "Jack the Ripper" and "Whitechapel Murders," which hadn't been redacted. He was then provided with copies of those two entries in full.

If I understand correctly, only part of the redacted version has been checked in this way, so there is potential for identifying further relevant entries and (with luck) then getting unredacted copies of them (particularly if they contain nothing that could be construed as a reference to an informant.)

When I first identified the entries I did just that slap another request in for access to those entries in un redacted form. Those initial requests were refused. It was not until much later that they agreed to release them.

The police argued that they could not distinguish between entries that were not informant related to those which were. The heavy redaction of all proper names except for police officers names has made the remaining entries almost impossible to decipher.

[mariab]

I checked the online catalogue before posting the message you've just replied to. The files with descriptions don't appear to refer to the case. (Apart from one item from 1880, the earliest dates from 1916.) But there's no way of knowing whether any of the files without descriptions and dates do. Those are now relatively small in number, though.

Thank you so much for clarifying. It looks like the librarians at the NA are going through these files. But how can you mean that “one item from 1880“ refers to the case? Or did you mean, “from the 1880s“?

Yes, but Trevor Marriott was able to identify two relevant entries in the redacted version because they contained the phrases "Jack the Ripper" and "Whitechapel Murders," which hadn't been redacted. He was then provided with copies of those two entries in full. If I understand correctly, only part of the redacted version has been checked in this way, so there is potential for identifying further relevant entries and (with luck) then getting unredacted copies of them (particularly if they contain nothing that could be construed as a reference to an informant.)

Thank you again for clarifying. I wasn't aware that Trevor Marriott ONLY has had access to the redacted xerox copies, and only part of them. I was under the impression he went through the entire thing in one day. A second search (even under similar hurried circumstances) would certainly be of benefit.

[Supe]

Trev,

Well a serious lack of understanding thats rich coming from you. How ever you have the cheek to come out with that when you yourslef have upset more then enough posters on here and on JTR forums with your arrogant know it all attitude.

Whatever are you on about? Your comment has nothing to so with your slur aimed at Paul, so I guess you really don't understand the term "sense of humor." As to your insult aimed at me, what few things I do know I will post, but about that of which I have no knowledge I keep sensibly quiet. An attitude you might adopt to your advantage.

Don.

[Chris]

I'm under the impression that it does include MEPO 38, Chris.

Might I inquire when was the last time that someone had a look at these? I can ask at another occasion, in a PM.

I'm not sure what you mean. I checked the online catalogue before posting the message you've just replied to.

The files with descriptions don't appear to refer to the case. (Apart from one item from 1880, the earliest dates from 1916.) But there's no way of knowing whether any of the files without descriptions and dates do. Those are now relatively small in number, though.

Problem is, Chris, I finally saw a couple of the redacted pages during the recent conference, and there are hardly any names left not covered by ink in there. But I'm sure you would know how to proceed against this problem? Comparing the redacted ones to Clutterbuck might not be of help, as I'm under the impression that he didn't discuss the Whitechapel murders investigation.

Yes, but Trevor Marriott was able to identify two relevant entries in the redacted version because they contained the phrases "Jack the Ripper" and "Whitechapel Murders," which hadn't been redacted. He was then provided with copies of those two entries in full.

If I understand correctly, only part of the redacted version has been checked in this way, so there is potential for identifying further relevant entries and (with luck) then getting unredacted copies of them (particularly if they contain nothing that could be construed as a reference to an informant.)

[Carol]

Hi everyone!

I don't know if anyone is interested but I've just signed the perdition.

Don't forget - if at first you don't succeed TRY, TRY AGAIN.

We must never give up trying to get access to ALL THE INFORMATION. Surprises do happen - for instance, I never thought the Berlin Wall would be torn down!

Also, I really feel we must try our hardest to get some sort of justice for those poor women.

I'd just like to thank everyone who has entered into the pro's and con's of the petition on this thread so that I could make up my own mind.

By the way Cam, I'll miss you.

Love
Carol