The Curtis Bennett Inquiry

[David Orsam]

Have you quite finished disrupting this thread Observer?

I'll post what I want to at my own pace.

[Observer]

Have you quite finished disrupting this thread Observer?

I'll post what I want to at my own pace.

Yes, quite finished, bore on. Err at your own pace.

[Observer]

By the way, I hope you don't give me the chance to say "told you so"

[David Orsam]

Clearly you haven't finished disrupting this thread. If it's boring you - and it seems other threads are boring you too - just go away.

[Observer]

I'll go away if it suits me, you have no bearing on the matter.

[Elamarna]

Clearly you haven't finished disrupting this thread. If it's boring you - and it seems other threads are boring you too - just go away.

David

I am sorry to interrupt and I trust you will forgive me.

I find this thread highly interesting, but I guess I would given I spent months writing boring threads myself.

It seems some just want theories as to whom?
For those souls, I suggest if the threads saying such things do not exist, go start one.

Apologies David


Steve

[David Orsam]

Thanks Steve. Agreed. I do want to try and keep this thread on track, on topic, ideally without unnecessary arguments, so I will say no more about the previous posts, although there is so much more I could have said!

[Observer]

The thing is Elamarna, it sems double standards are in force here. When certain posters procrastinate, and tantalise, they are shot down in flames. As I said this thread now reaches the half century, and I merely asked what the hell it had to do with the case.

[David Orsam]

I merely asked what the hell it had to do with the case.

He's still going!

Merely asking what the hell a thread about an inquiry from July 1888 into corruption in Scotland Yard posted within a Police Officials and Procedures forum has to do with "the case" is itself disrupting the thread because it doesn't have to have anything more to do with "the case" than that, nor had I said it did.

But subsequently I've confirmed it is relevant and there is more to come yet the disruption to the thread has continued with totally irrelevant critical comments about posts made by other people in other threads (i.e. "Detailed accounts of walking speeds, pedantic argument about triangular reference points of sound when considering whether the cry of "oh murder" emanated from Mary Kelly's room.") And the disruption is still continuing!

[Observer]

Now now, calm down you'll give yourself a hernia. By the way, I'm not the only one whose "still Going" In reality the aim of this forum in general is to try and discern who the Whitechapel murderer was. Regardless of the section, I'm fully entitled to ask what the hell this thread has to do with the Whitechapel murders. If you can't appreciate this point, tough.

[David Orsam]

Now now, calm down you'll give yourself a hernia. By the way, I'm not the only one whose "still Going" In reality the aim of this forum in general is to try and discern who the Whitechapel murderer was. Regardless of the section, I'm fully entitled to ask what the hell this thread has to do with the Whitechapel murders. If you can't appreciate this point, tough.

Once again, Observer, thank you for your contribution to this thread which I am simply unable to place a value on.

[Observer]

I can live with that. Good luck with your hunt, hopefully it will produce something of interest. it's a long shot though.

[David Orsam]

it's a long shot though.

Yes, you have made your doubts very clear. Thank you for the disruption.

[Observer]

You're welcome.

[David Orsam]

Mr Moser was, of course, our old friend, former C.I.D. detective-inspector Maurice Moser who had resigned from the Metropolitan Police in January 1887 and set up his own private detective agency in the Strand.

The telegraphic address of Moser's detective agency, incidentally, was "Shadows, London".

It matched in humour that of Scotland Yard which was "Handcuffs, London".