Hate

[Elamarna]

I thought somebody already does?

Sounded like Monty had uncovered Pierre's suspect but didn't go so far as to name him. Unless it was a joke that flew over my head (which admittedly is a sound possibility).

Hi Harry,

I must have missed that?

S teve

[Harry D]

Hi Harry,

I must have missed that?

S teve

My bad, it was Mayerling, not Monty. Close enough.

This was the post in question.

[Elamarna]

My bad, it was Mayerling, not Monty. Close enough.

This was the post in question.

Harry,


Thanks I know that one, nice guess but not the man, Jeff accepts that himself.


Steve

[Harry D]

Harry,


Thanks I know that one, nice guess but not the man, Jeff accepts that himself.


Steve

Ooh well, back to the drawing board.

My curiosity only extends to drawing a line under this whole farce. From what I've gleaned from Pierre's cryptic ramblings, it's more just fantasist mumbo-jumbo.

[Pierre]

Hello Pierre,

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1888/nov/13/metropolitan-police-resignation-of-sir

You will find that when read to the House of Commons his resignation letter was stated to be from 8th November.
Matthews, the Home Secretary, replied to this letter on the 10th November.


Surely..that is irrefutable evidence of the date of Sir Charles Warren's resignation as being BEFORE the death of MJK.

Now..your external source evidence please...to refute the above?
I am being open with source evidence. Instead of playing cat and mouse games...it is "put up your exact source or withdraw your claim" time.

Thank you.

Phil

Yes, Phil, this source is dated 13th November. This is four days after the murder. Matthews, in it, says he answered the letter on November 10th. That is one day after the murder.

So the only source showing that Warren resigned on the 8th is the letter written by Warren. There is no independent source from the 8th corroborating this, is there?

Regards, Pierre

[ChrisGeorge]

Hello Pierre,

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1888/nov/13/metropolitan-police-resignation-of-sir

You will find that when read to the House of Commons his resignation letter was stated to be from 8th November.
Matthews, the Home Secretary, replied to this letter on the 10th November.


Surely..that is irrefutable evidence of the date of Sir Charles Warren's resignation as being BEFORE the death of MJK.

Now..your external source evidence please...to refute the above?
I am being open with source evidence. Instead of playing cat and mouse games...it is "put up your exact source or withdraw your claim" time.

Thank you.


Phil

Absolutely correct, Phil. Warren had already resigned when MJK was murdered, so his resignation had nothing to do with her murder, although the common myth is that the coincidence of Warren resigning was because of the Miller's Court murder. Wrong.

[Elamarna]

Yes, Phil, this source is dated 13th November. This is four days after the murder. Matthews, in it, says he answered the letter on November 10th. That is one day after the murder.

So the only source showing that Warren resigned on the 8th is the letter written by Warren. There is no independent source from the 8th corroborating this, is there?

Regards, Pierre

Pierre


Warren offers his resignation on the 8th to the Home secretary, what source would you expect there to be other than this letter?

And of course you must now assume that Matthews is in on the deception if he claims he replied on the 10th.

What data are you using to suggest that he resigned after the death of MJK?

Following somethings said in this thread, you really should give a meaningful answer to Phil. Its the polite thing to do!


Steve

[Pierre]

Pierre

Warren offers his resignation on the 8th to the Home secretary, what source would you expect there to be other than this letter?

And of course you must now assume that Matthews is in on the deception if he claims he replied on the 10th.

What data are you using to suggest that he resigned after the death of MJK?

Following somethings said in this thread, you really should give a meaningful answer to Phil. Its the polite thing to do!


Steve

Hi Steve,

I do not expect sources. If there are sources, there are sources. But there is no other source. This means that you have to trust this single source. Of course, there is always a problem when you have just one source. And in this case, Matthews said he answered Warren on 10th November. He could have answered the 8th or 9th. But he didn´t, since there are no sources showing us that he did. So, Warren wrote his resignation and the date put on it was the 8th. And since no one mentioned his resignation before the 13th, and noone has stated an answer before the 10th, that is what we have.

Now, if you have other sources indicating that there would have been a reason for dating the letter with the 8th November, you must take those sources into consideration as well. If you do not, you ignore the past, you ignore the sources and choose to believe one single source and to put that single source before several other sources.

Regards, Pierre

[ChrisGeorge]

Pierre, this is the way it unfolded as related by Brian Schoeneman in his dissertation on this site.

Relations between Warren and Home Secretary Henry Matthews were atrocious, irregardless of the Ripper investigation. Warren's resignation had nothing to do with the murder of Mary Jane Kelly, or even to do with the Met's hunt for the murderer, as Brian states:

"Warren and Matthews continued to spar, and their bickering finally ended after Warren's piece in Murrary's Magazine. The article had nothing to do with the Ripper investigation, but it nonetheless angered Matthews, who rebuked Warren. Warren resigned, and was replaced by Monro.

"The day of Warren's resignation, the final canonical murder of Jack the Ripper's autumn of terror took place. . . ."

See http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...an-crisis.html

Best regards

Chris

[Pierre]

Pierre, this is the way it unfolded as related by Brian Schoeneman in his dissertation on this site.

Relations between Warren and Home Secretary Henry Matthews were atrocious, irregardless of the Ripper investigation. Warren's resignation had nothing to do with the murder of Mary Jane Kelly, or even to do with the Met's hunt for the murderer, as Brian states:

"Warren and Matthews continued to spar, and their bickering finally ended after Warren's piece in Murrary's Magazine. The article had nothing to do with the Ripper investigation, but it nonetheless angered Matthews, who rebuked Warren. Warren resigned, and was replaced by Monro.

"The day of Warren's resignation, the final canonical murder of Jack the Ripper's autumn of terror took place. . . ."

See http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...an-crisis.html

Best regards

Chris

Hi Chris,

I know this. And of course there where always problems within and between the organisations and the people working in them.

People also demanded that Warren should resign. All of this is well known.

But the 8th is a problematic date, I think, since it is the day before the murder of Kelly. So, since there are reasons for me to think that Warren dated it the 8th November when he could have dated it the 9th November, and since that source is the only source, that is my hypothesis right now.

Regards, Pierre

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Pierre can usually be relied on to talk bollocks, but in this instance he happens to be correct.

Sir Charles Warren resigned over the Millers Court murder, but that is not the reason which Parliament and the public were given.

In late October, Murray's Magazine published an article written by Sir Charles Warren. Such articles were not permitted.

In a letter to the Home Secretary dated 8th November, Sir Charles Warren argued that he was not aware he was constrained by an 1879 Home Office rule which forbade police officers from publishing works relating to their duties.

“I desire to say that I entirely decline to accept these instructions with regard to the Commissioner of Police, and I have again to place my resignation in the hands of Her Majesty’s Government.”

Sir Charles Warren was throwing down the gauntlet. Henry Matthews could either accept that Warren was unaware of a Home Office ruling with which he disagreed, or he could take a stand and demand his immediate resignation.

Henry Matthews made his decision, and during a debate on the evening of 8th November he told the House of Commons—

"The present Commissioner, however, informs me that he was not aware of the existence of this Rule. I have accordingly drawn his attention to it, and have requested him to comply with it in future.”

". . . and have requested him to comply with it in future.”

Sir Charles Warren may have offered his resignation on the day before the Millers Court murder, but there is not a hint of it having been accepted until the day after Millers Court.

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Simon Wood;400188

Hi All,

Pierre can usually be relied on to talk bollocks, but in this instance he happens to be correct.

Sir Charles Warren resigned over the Millers Court murder, but that is not the reason which Parliament and the public were given.

In late October, Murray's Magazine published an article written by Sir Charles Warren. Such articles were not permitted.

In a letter to the Home Secretary dated 8th November, Sir Charles Warren argued that he was not aware he was constrained by an 1879 Home Office rule which forbade police officers from publishing works relating to their duties.

“I desire to say that I entirely decline to accept these instructions with regard to the Commissioner of Police, and I have again to place my resignation in the hands of Her Majesty’s Government.”

Sir Charles Warren was throwing down the gauntlet. Henry Matthews could either accept that Warren was unaware of a Home Office ruling with which he disagreed, or he could take a stand and demand his immediate resignation.

Henry Matthews made his decision, and during a debate on the evening of 8th November he told the House of Commons—

"The present Commissioner, however, informs me that he was not aware of the existence of this Rule. I have accordingly drawn his attention to it, and have requested him to comply with it in future.”

". . . and have requested him to comply with it in future.”

Sir Charles Warren may have offered his resignation on the day before the Millers Court murder, but there is not a hint of it having been accepted until the day after Millers Court.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

I see.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi All,

Pierre can usually be relied on to talk bollocks, but in this instance he happens to be correct.

Sir Charles Warren resigned over the Millers Court murder, but that is not the reason which Parliament and the public were given.

In late October, Murray's Magazine published an article written by Sir Charles Warren. Such articles were not permitted.

In a letter to the Home Secretary dated 8th November, Sir Charles Warren argued that he was not aware he was constrained by an 1879 Home Office rule which forbade police officers from publishing works relating to their duties.

“I desire to say that I entirely decline to accept these instructions with regard to the Commissioner of Police, and I have again to place my resignation in the hands of Her Majesty’s Government.”

Sir Charles Warren was throwing down the gauntlet. Henry Matthews could either accept that Warren was unaware of a Home Office ruling with which he disagreed, or he could take a stand and demand his immediate resignation.

Henry Matthews made his decision, and during a debate on the evening of 8th November he told the House of Commons—

"The present Commissioner, however, informs me that he was not aware of the existence of this Rule. I have accordingly drawn his attention to it, and have requested him to comply with it in future.”

". . . and have requested him to comply with it in future.”

Sir Charles Warren may have offered his resignation on the day before the Millers Court murder, but there is not a hint of it having been accepted until the day after Millers Court.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon

That seems reasonable, offers on the 8th but not accepted until later.
If that explanation seems plausible to Pierre, we may be in some sort of agreement.


Steve

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve,

There's a first time for everything.

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

Hi Simon

That seems reasonable, offers on the 8th but not accepted until later.
If that explanation seems plausible to Pierre, we may be in some sort of agreement.

Steve

Hi Steve,

How come you don´t understand what Simon is writing here?

"Sir Charles Warren resigned over the Millers Court murder, but that is not the reason which Parliament and the public were given."

Pierre