Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Senior Investigators-Inside Knowledge

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

  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    I don't deny there being a secrecy side to government activities, what I'm trying to point out in this case is that if you are unable to tie your theory to any tangible evidence then all you are doing is telling a story. What you have isn't even a theory, academically speaking a theory is one interpretation of the evidence, but without any evidence all you are doing is telling a story.
    That's where you have me wrong Jon, its not really a theory of mine. Just asking to see how others interpret these declarations by the senior men. Its just a question...and not rhetorical.

    You and I have been on here for some time now, surely you know I explore these things in a Devils Advocate style sometimes. Hell, Ive even cited contradictory arguments on some points when I could care less about the real story concerning them. I have one over arching theory for this whole event, and its that 1 mad killer did not kill 5 women called the Canonical Group. The most glaring case would be Liz Stride for me.

    That's really it. No suspects, no big presumed story. Just that when I read about this "series", or Canonical Group I feel obligated to address the less travelled road that I personally feel is better supported within just the known evidence. This is just for the record Jon, just so there are no misconceptions about how married I am to some ideas.

    I want more than a Flat Earth type belief or faith based theory, I want to see the goods before I just lump a bunch of women under one killer.
    Last edited by Michael W Richards; 04-14-2020, 11:54 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    Just pointing out Jon that secrecy is what these men did, and without any specific instance in mind Ill bet the farm that some high level investigations never saw any light in official documentation. And the continued discretion by anyone who possessed that information would be the result of honor and traditions being adhered to. Monro hints he knows something, something that would be of great interest to the people trying to find and prosecute this wild killer and the local people feeling terrorized. But he doesn't reveal anything, even informally after leaving office.
    I don't deny there being a secrecy side to government activities, what I'm trying to point out in this case is that if you are unable to tie your theory to any tangible evidence then all you are doing is telling a story. What you have isn't even a theory, academically speaking a theory is one interpretation of the evidence, but without any evidence all you are doing is telling a story.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    All this says to me is, "I don't need evidence to support my beliefs, because it doesn't exist".
    Where is the value in any conclusions you arrive at when no evidence exists for anyone to evaluate?
    Just pointing out Jon that secrecy is what these men did, and without any specific instance in mind Ill bet the farm that some high level investigations never saw any light in official documentation. And the continued discretion by anyone who possessed that information would be the result of honor and traditions being adhered to. Monro hints he knows something, something that would be of great interest to the people trying to find and prosecute this wild killer and the local people feeling terrorized. But he doesn't reveal anything, even informally after leaving office.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    .... I was just saying that if there was indeed a "hot potato" I would expect nothing in writing on that from anyone that was involved. No records on something doesn't mean no cover-up, in fact it may well indicate that there was.
    All this says to me is, "I don't need evidence to support my beliefs, because it doesn't exist".
    Where is the value in any conclusions you arrive at when no evidence exists for anyone to evaluate?

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    If Sir Robert Anderson believed Aaron Kosminski was the murderer, why was he so convinced that Mary Kelly was the last victim?
    good question. perhaps because if mckenzie is a ripper victim, its another failure on his watch to catch or at least thwart the ripper?

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    If Sir Robert Anderson believed Aaron Kosminski was the murderer, why was he so convinced that Mary Kelly was the last victim?

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    But we are talking 1888 no the 21s century

    Just as a matter of interest, what do you think they were hiding and who was responsible for keeping it all secret?

    The Special Branch recording system of information received and the outcome of what was received is very comprehensive in the registers. Even to the point that Randolph Churchill is mentioned as a likely suspect as a result of information received.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    I think if there was intentional misdirection, intentional misleading of the press and intentional withholding of information, only something of a large magnitude would be applicable. Maybe the Balfour Plot that was ongoing? Maybe another bombing plot against HRH, like the previous year. If Im correct about that, then it would be someone that if exposed would embarrass or disgrace these same men.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    I rely on almost nothing Trevor. Certainly no one investigator. I just suggested that in the same way as Black Ops operates today, there is almost no hard copy that exists on what they do. They don't even exist in administration records. I was just saying that if there was indeed a "hot potato" I would expect nothing in writing on that from anyone that was involved. No records on something doesn't mean no cover-up, in fact it may well indicate that there was.

    And about nobody ever leaking that kind of info, all I can say is that its a matter of record that secret operations in the US have been maintained silently for years by many individuals before. Even death bed confessions are rare.
    But we are talking 1888 no the 21s century

    Just as a matter of interest, what do you think they were hiding and who was responsible for keeping it all secret?

    The Special Branch recording system of information received and the outcome of what was received is very comprehensive in the registers. Even to the point that Randolph Churchill is mentioned as a likely suspect as a result of information received.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    It is inconceivable to think that what you postulate would result in no paper trail or the fact that with the number of people involved no one would have talked or made some reference in later years.

    the hot hot potato you seemingly seek to rely on could be anything or nothing and not necessarily ripper related

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    I rely on almost nothing Trevor. Certainly no one investigator. I just suggested that in the same way as Black Ops operates today, there is almost no hard copy that exists on what they do. They don't even exist in administration records. I was just saying that if there was indeed a "hot potato" I would expect nothing in writing on that from anyone that was involved. No records on something doesn't mean no cover-up, in fact it may well indicate that there was.

    And about nobody ever leaking that kind of info, all I can say is that its a matter of record that secret operations in the US have been maintained silently for years by many individuals before. Even death bed confessions are rare.
    Last edited by Michael W Richards; 04-11-2020, 01:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    Perhaps not, but we cannot deduce that based upon quoted opinions from some men most intimately involved with the crimes. As for the SB,... and I know your personal efforts to obtain information there, absence of memos or documents that would reveal what I suggest is what one would expect. There would be no paper trail.
    It is inconceivable to think that what you postulate would result in no paper trail or the fact that with the number of people involved no one would have talked or made some reference in later years.

    the hot hot potato you seemingly seek to rely on could be anything or nothing and not necessarily ripper related

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    I think you need to forget about all this secret squirrel angle. No one had any clues whether they were from Special Branch or the Girl Guides. The Special Branch files do not contain any smoking guns.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Perhaps not, but we cannot deduce that based upon quoted opinions from some men most intimately involved with the crimes. As for the SB,... and I know your personal efforts to obtain information there, absence of memos or documents that would reveal what I suggest is what one would expect. There would be no paper trail.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    You know Trevor that's what Ive been facing down for some time now. Theres much less available documentation, that lack of specific knowledge that came from being there at the moment, data for scientific analysis is extremely limited...let alone forensics, it seems highly unlikely that the cases can be solved with what is available. That being said, doesn't Law enforcement allow for a Case to be made without a body present? You can try someone for Murder without ever obtaining the body. On that basis, is it possible that a Case could be made in any of these cases that can be supported by the evidence we do have? Perhaps bound with Reason and Logic to some extent.

    Back on point here, as you say all this seems to tell us that there was no Suspect. No Profile. Nothing to use to filter suspects through. So yes, I think the Suspect driven research would be and has been and is Cart before the Horse. If one of these can be rationally reconstructed then met with a trial worthy premise, it would change the perspective on the entire "series". That's all that Im in the game for at this point, lets find agreement in just one case. Then stand back and lock at a whole new picture.

    Why these investigators said what they said.....believing it or not, is still very curious to me. Senior men, who know very well not to be quoted giving anything remotely sensitive to the press, even casually going on record with such polar opposite opinions. Monro with his "hot potato", indicating to me this was something covered up. What was being covered up?

    How about something like a suspect for one or more that was someone known to the Intelligence community intimately, perhaps under employment at one time or another, something that they could not make public. In particular with the parallel show of the Parnell Commission, the paranoia that would result from knowledge that the government paid terrorists who committed violent or disruptive acts at some point towards English citizens, sanctioned by high levels of Parliament...well, that would be a "hot potato". Maybe people associated with the Jubilee Plot. HMG Double agents maybe.

    I think if this is something like that, then why not just offer any suspect with motives that have nothing to do with that. Which "Suspect" doesn't really matter, the point would be to misdirect the attention of the public. Isnt that what these guys did every day at work anyway?
    I think you need to forget about all this secret squirrel angle. No one had any clues whether they were from Special Branch or the Girl Guides. The Special Branch files do not contain any smoking guns.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post


    Agree!

    Thats why we say Kosminski is the prime suspect of the case.


    The Baron
    You cant say that there is no evidence other than what these officers wrote, and that is unsafe to rely on. If Kosminski was the prime suspect and this ID parade had taken place do you not think more people would have known about it because it was potentially a groundbreaking achievement for the police. Whereas the only two people who knew and wrote about this were Anderson and Swanson

    read what Insp Reid says after Anderson's book was published in 1910

    “I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence of any kind against anyone. The earth has been raked over, and the seas have been swept, to find this criminal 'Jack the Ripper’, always without success. It still amuses me to read the writings of such men as Dr Anderson, Dr Forbes Winslow, Major Arthur. Griffiths, and many others, all holding different theories, but all of them wrong. I have answered many of them in print, and would only add here that I was on the scene and ought to know.”

    You need to forget Kosminksi as a suspect

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    But Monro says almost the same and he wasn't being specific about any one incident!

    But my point being is that the two most highly ranked police officers in London who you would expect to have known what went on as far as the investigation is concerned especially in relation to suspects, and were both directly answerable to government officials both say they did not have any clues as to the identity of the killer. That must count for something in the grand scheme of things. Officer of that ran should not be ignored.

    Those statements they made years later can be corroborated by the fact that there is nothing from any government official to the contrary that I am aware of, surely tells us that the police did not have any clues, and all the suspect's researchers have been trying to pin the tail on the donkey for all of these years have been wasting their time chasing lost causes. Because if the police in 1888 couldn't identify the killer, there is no chance for anyone 132 years later to do what they could not.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    You know Trevor that's what Ive been facing down for some time now. Theres much less available documentation, that lack of specific knowledge that came from being there at the moment, data for scientific analysis is extremely limited...let alone forensics, it seems highly unlikely that the cases can be solved with what is available. That being said, doesn't Law enforcement allow for a Case to be made without a body present? You can try someone for Murder without ever obtaining the body. On that basis, is it possible that a Case could be made in any of these cases that can be supported by the evidence we do have? Perhaps bound with Reason and Logic to some extent.

    Back on point here, as you say all this seems to tell us that there was no Suspect. No Profile. Nothing to use to filter suspects through. So yes, I think the Suspect driven research would be and has been and is Cart before the Horse. If one of these can be rationally reconstructed then met with a trial worthy premise, it would change the perspective on the entire "series". That's all that Im in the game for at this point, lets find agreement in just one case. Then stand back and lock at a whole new picture.

    Why these investigators said what they said.....believing it or not, is still very curious to me. Senior men, who know very well not to be quoted giving anything remotely sensitive to the press, even casually going on record with such polar opposite opinions. Monro with his "hot potato", indicating to me this was something covered up. What was being covered up?

    How about something like a suspect for one or more that was someone known to the Intelligence community intimately, perhaps under employment at one time or another, something that they could not make public. In particular with the parallel show of the Parnell Commission, the paranoia that would result from knowledge that the government paid terrorists who committed violent or disruptive acts at some point towards English citizens, sanctioned by high levels of Parliament...well, that would be a "hot potato". Maybe people associated with the Jubilee Plot. HMG Double agents maybe.

    I think if this is something like that, then why not just offer any suspect with motives that have nothing to do with that. Which "Suspect" doesn't really matter, the point would be to misdirect the attention of the public. Isnt that what these guys did every day at work anyway?
    Last edited by Michael W Richards; 04-11-2020, 10:50 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Because if the police in 1888 couldn't identify the killer, there is no chance for anyone 132 years later to do what they could not.

    Agree!

    Thats why we say Kosminski is the prime suspect of the case.


    The Baron

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X