Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Warren's Resignation

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

  • Warren's Resignation

    A question has been raised on the board recently about the date of the resignation of Sir Charles Warren as Commissioner.

    There are five separate contemporary sources, including four "official" sources, indicating that Sir Charles submitted his resignation on 8 November 1888. These are as follows:

    1. His letter of resignation addressed to the Home Secretary dated 8 November 1888.

    2. A Home Office register of incoming correspondence for 1888 containing an entry for Sir Charles' resignation letter which, under the column "Received", states "[Nov] 8".

    3. A parliamentary answer in the House of Commons on 12 November 1888, according to Hansard (the official record), in which the Home Secretary stated that Sir Charles tendered his resignation on 8 November.

    4. A statement in the House of Commons on 13 November 1888, according to Hansard, when the Home Secretary said that he had written to Sir Charles on 8 November and that he "received on the same day" by reply the resignation letter from Sir Charles.

    5. An interview with a journalist for the New York Herald published on 13 November 1888, in which Sir Charles was quoted as saying, "I sent in my resignation before the Kelly murder, on the 8th of this month".

    By way of comment on the above, I note that it has been suggested that the Home Secretary was attempting to give the false impression in the House on 12 November that Sir Charles' resignation had been both offered and accepted on 8 November, thus attempting to convey to the public that its acceptance had nothing to do with the Kelly murder. Such an argument is unsustainable in view of the statement that the Home Secretary made to the House the very next day which began "In order to avoid misunderstanding as to the statement I made yesterday with respect to the grounds of Sir Charles Warren's resignation, I ask leave to offer a short statement to the House on the subject." He then went on to state that the resignation was accepted by letter on 10 November.

    The only contemporary source of which I am aware suggesting that Warren resigned on 10 November is a press article in the London Evening Post which reported on 12 November that Sir Charles had consulted with his friends about his resignation on the Saturday and only sent his resignation letter to the Home Secretary on the Saturday evening. The likelihood, however, is that the report is wrong and the reporter has confused events of the Saturday with events that actually happened on the Thursday. The Post did not, incidentally, suggest that the resignation had anything to do with the Ripper murders.

    Ultimately, the date the letter was sent is of little relevance because the evidence in the Home Office documents makes crystal clear that Sir Charles resigned on the issue of his ability (or non-ability) to publish articles after receiving a private slap on the wrist from the Home Secretary for publishing his article in Murrays and then a public slap on the wrist from the Home Secretary in the House of Commons later that day.

    As to that, Sir Charles told the New York Herald journalist that he only sent his letter on 8 November after learning of the criticism of his actions by the Home Secretary in the House that day. It follows that the Home Secretary had not received the resignation letter when he was speaking in the House on 8 November so that any attempt to make a point of the fact that the Home Secretary did not on that occasion mention the resignation is misguided.

    It has also been wondered why the Home Secretary announced a rap on the knuckles ("don’t do it again") to Sir Charles on 8 November yet accepted his resignation on 10th November. The answer is very simple. Between those two events Sir Charles told the Home Secretary that he positively refused to accept the Home Secretary’s instructions not to publish further articles and he thus offered his resignation. It was literally impossible for the Home Secretary to allow a subordinate to remain in office while refusing to accept his clear instructions and he therefore had no choice but to accept the resignation. There is no mystery here.

    Further reading on this subject can be found at the following links:

    http://www.orsam.co.uk/082239part4.htm

    AND

    http://www.orsam.co.uk/reconstructingjack.htm

  • #2
    Too simple for some.
    G U T

    There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

    Comment


    • #3
      David,

      while my view a week or so back was that Warren may have resigned because he found the statement in the house by the home secretary the final straw/ a humiliation too far so to speak; I find what you suggestion above to be perfectly acceptable.


      Steve

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
        David,

        while my view a week or so back was that Warren may have resigned because he found the statement in the house by the home secretary the final straw/ a humiliation too far so to speak; I find what you suggestion above to be perfectly acceptable.

        Steve
        Warren and the Home Office. Great.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Pierre View Post
          Warren and the Home Office. Great.
          I ask you again

          What other source would there be for us to use? That is all we have, or were EVER likely to have.

          You tell us we must use the sources which is what is being done; Yes we can come up with theories but what do we support them with?


          What alternative approach would you suggest we take?


          Steve

          Comment


          • #6
            [QUOTE=Elamarna;401960]

            I ask you again

            What other source would there be for us to use? That is all we have, or were EVER likely to have.
            Hi Steve,

            Independent sources. One must look for the relevant independent sources.

            You tell us we must use the sources which is what is being done; Yes we can come up with theories but what do we support them with?
            The same applies here. Independent sources. And we do not support theories with sources. Sources make the base for hypotheses and later on for results. So we should use an inductive approach and not a deductive one.

            What alternative approach would you suggest we take?
            Forget everything you know. Start from the beginning.

            Best wishes, Pierre

            Comment


            • #7
              [QUOTE=Pierre;402050]
              Originally posted by Elamarna View Post





              Forget everything you know.

              Best wishes, Pierre
              Easy for those who know little, if anything.
              G U T

              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

              Comment


              • #8
                [QUOTE=GUT;402051]
                Originally posted by Pierre View Post

                Easy for those who know little, if anything.
                But hard for those who know a lot.

                Garbage in, garbage out.

                Comment


                • #9
                  [QUOTE=Pierre;402050]
                  Originally posted by Elamarna View Post



                  Hi Steve,

                  Independent sources. One must look for the relevant independent sources.



                  The same applies here. Independent sources. And we do not support theories with sources. Sources make the base for hypotheses and later on for results. So we should use an inductive approach and not a deductive one.



                  Forget everything you know. Start from the beginning.

                  Best wishes, Pierre



                  Pierre


                  I have looked into this and i am unaware of independent sources on this issue, if you have one please point it out.


                  Or are we talking about how you interpret a source, that is you think it means something opposite to what it says.

                  The question is very simple is there a source which actually says Warren resigned after the 8th?

                  Yes Or No?




                  I feel from what you have previously posted on this issue, that this is almost a leap of faith on your part, you have said you have chosen to take this view. that sounds like something not based on fact.

                  You suggest forgetting all I know, however even if I start from scratch i will end up with the same sources, they are all there is!

                  Ff there is another source post it, or as i always say, it does not exist.

                  Steve
                  Last edited by Elamarna; 11-30-2016, 02:31 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    [QUOTE=Elamarna;402062][QUOTE=Pierre;402050]

                    Pierre

                    I have looked into this and i am unaware of independent sources on this issue, if you have one please point it out.

                    Or are we talking about how you interpret a source, that is you think it means something opposite to what it says.

                    The question is very simple is there a source which actually says Warren resigned after the 8th?

                    Yes Or No?
                    Hi Steve,

                    There are independent sources indicating that Warren had a reason to resign because of the Kelly murder. If you look for them you may find them.

                    I feel from what you have previously posted on this issue, that this is almost a leap of faith on your part, you have said you have chosen to take this view. that sounds like something not based on fact.
                    That is not correct. There are independent sources which I must, as an historian, take into consideration for an hypothesis that Warren resigned because of the murder of Kelly.

                    I do not want to believe them but I have no choice right now. There must be this hypothesis and I am doing what I can to try and refute it.

                    I have not managed to refute it yet. Instead I have found a new source which is very strange. I do not think per definition that it has anything to do with Kelly but that is how it works. I am trying to refute an hypothesis but then I find another source.

                    You suggest forgetting all I know, however even if I start from scratch i will end up with the same sources, they are all there is!
                    That is actually quite wrong, my dear Steve. There are sources people have not found and sources people haven´t seen. They are highly relevant for the case.

                    If you say they do not exist, that may be true from a phenomenological perspective, since they do not exist for you. But seek and you may find.

                    Best wishes, Pierre

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Pierre View Post

                      Hi Steve,

                      There are independent sources indicating that Warren had a reason to resign because of the Kelly murder. If you look for them you may find them.


                      That is not correct. There are independent sources which I must, as an historian, take into consideration for an hypothesis that Warren resigned because of the murder of Kelly.
                      So no source which said that he did actually resign?
                      Only something which can be interpreted to say there was a reason why he may have, is that correct?

                      That is what I assumed from your previous posts on this matter.



                      Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                      I do not want to believe them but I have no choice right now. There must be this hypothesis and I am doing what I can to try and refute it.

                      I have not managed to refute it yet. Instead I have found a new source which is very strange. I do not think per definition that it has anything to do with Kelly but that is how it works. I am trying to refute an hypothesis but then I find another source.
                      That I understand.

                      However while you may not be able to refute your hypothesis yet, have you any evidence at all that suggests he in fact did resigned after Kelly, other than the source you say gives the suggestion in the first instance?


                      Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                      That is actually quite wrong, my dear Steve. There are sources people have not found and sources people haven´t seen. They are highly relevant for the case.

                      If you say they do not exist, that may be true from a phenomenological perspective, since they do not exist for you. But seek and you may find.



                      These sources you claim exist, an please forgive how i word that, are you say independent, that one assumes means not from Warren or from The Police or home office or indeed any Government department?


                      Is that correct?

                      Does this source/sources actually refer to Warren, or use his actual name?



                      steve

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        [QUOTE=Elamarna;402113]
                        So no source which said that he did actually resign?
                        Only something which can be interpreted to say there was a reason why he may have, is that correct?

                        That is what I assumed from your previous posts on this matter.
                        Steve, there already is a source showing us that Warren dated a letter with his resignment. How can you expect to find another source explicitly contradicting it?

                        If you understand how sources work, you also understand the potentially interesting source problem of Warren dating a letter with the date one day before the Kelly murder and a registrar copying that date.

                        That I understand.

                        However while you may not be able to refute your hypothesis yet, have you any evidence at all that suggests he in fact did resigned after Kelly, other than the source you say gives the suggestion in the first instance?
                        Yes, there are independent sources which may indicate it. But that has no importance for me since the object of study is not Warren. It is the murders.

                        I can say this: The comment of Monroe about a hot potato functions as a good description of how Warren may have acted when he realized who the Whitechapel killer actually was. But this it not a reliable source and I build nothing on it. It is just an illustration. That is why I say it functions as a description and nothing else.

                        The time period from the 9th November to the 23rd November has some independent sources which indicate that there may have existed a reason for Warren to resign.

                        These sources you claim exist, an please forgive how i word that, are you say independent, that one assumes means not from Warren or from The Police or home office or indeed any Government department?

                        Is that correct?
                        They are sources produced for an individual and they are all produced by advanced organizations/institutions.

                        Does this source/sources actually refer to Warren, or use his actual name?
                        I answered the question above.

                        Pierre

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Pierre View Post

                          Steve, there already is a source showing us that Warren dated a letter with his resignment. How can you expect to find another source explicitly contradicting it?

                          Pierre, the answer to that question is there could easily be a letter or diary which would provide such data, to suggest otherwise, if the scenario is true, would be unrealistic, obviously there is no such source you are aware of.



                          Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                          If you understand how sources work, you also understand the potentially interesting souerce problem of Warren dating a letter with the date one day before the Kelly murder and a registrar copying that date.

                          Pierre, that is surely a misunderstanding on your part.

                          The letter of resignation is recorded arriving at the Home Office on a specific day; The date is not copied from the letter.

                          You are proposing some form of a conspiracy, which I have no problem with, provided that is, you can produce data to say the letter was not received on the data official reported.

                          Can you?


                          To ignore primary sources, without offering clear reasons for doing so is not good research.

                          Whilst I appreciate you may claim to have documents you are not prepared to disclose, which allow you to privately propose an hypothesis.

                          Surely you cannot then publically present said hypothesis until such time as you are ready to post the details, that is standard research practice, no matter which disciple you are from.


                          Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                          Yes, there are independent sources which may indicate it. But that has no importance for me since the object of study is not Warren. It is the murders.
                          I note the reply is only MAY, it is not therefore conclusive

                          Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                          I can say this: The comment of Monroe about a hot potato functions as a good description of how Warren may have acted when he realized who the Whitechapel killer actually was. But this it not a reliable source and I build nothing on it. It is just an illustration. That is why I say it functions as a description and nothing else.

                          You know as well as I that the hot potato comment is questionable for both reliability and validity, However I note your following comments.


                          Originally posted by Pierre View Post

                          The time period from the 9th November to the 23rd November has some independent sources which indicate that there may have existed a reason for Warren to resign.
                          Can I ask where the 23rd comes from, maybe I have missed something, it happens?




                          Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                          They are sources produced for an individual and they are all produced by advanced organizations/institutions.

                          So you are claiming that a senior person in the "Establishment" was personally given this information?

                          Are these sources in the public domain?



                          Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                          I answered the question above.
                          you mean NO.


                          Thank you Pierre.


                          Steve

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                            The letter of resignation is recorded arriving at the Home Office on a specific day; The date is not copied from the letter.
                            On this point, Steve, I can confirm that other correspondence in the register is recorded as being received either on the date on the face of that correspondence or at a date later than the date on the face of that correspondence which certainly suggests that the "received" dates in the register were not simply copied from the dates on the face of the correspondence but were supposed to indicate the dates that the correspondence was received at the Home Office.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              [QUOTE=Elamarna;402145]

                              Pierre, the answer to that question is there could easily be a letter or diary which would provide such data, to suggest otherwise, if the scenario is true, would be unrealistic, obviously there is no such source you are aware of.

                              Pierre, that is surely a misunderstanding on your part.

                              The letter of resignation is recorded arriving at the Home Office on a specific day; The date is not copied from the letter.

                              You are proposing some form of a conspiracy, which I have no problem with, provided that is, you can produce data to say the letter was not received on the data official reported.

                              Can you?
                              Hi Steve,

                              If you ask historical questions you will get historical answers. If you ask common sense questions, you will have no good answers. I suppose that you prefer historical answers. So if you read my historical answers to you again, you will see the meaning of them.

                              To ignore primary sources, without offering clear reasons for doing so is not good research.
                              "Without offering clear reasons". But I did, Steve. Did you not read it?
                              Whilst I appreciate you may claim to have documents you are not prepared to disclose, which allow you to privately propose an hypothesis.
                              Do you now?

                              Surely you cannot then publically present said hypothesis until such time as you are ready to post the details, that is standard research practice, no matter which disciple you are from.
                              You can always discuss hypotheses, with or without publishing sources on the internet. This is not the standard research practice place, i.e. the university. It is a forum on the internet.

                              I note the reply is only MAY, it is not therefore conclusive
                              I think you and most people already know that an hypothesis is never conclusive. So what is the point of saying it?

                              You know as well as I that the hot potato comment is questionable for both reliability and validity, However I note your following comments.
                              And so I told you.

                              Can I ask where the 23rd comes from, maybe I have missed something, it happens?
                              "Missed something"! Well, you can certainly say that!

                              I do no want to sound cryptical and how can I tell you that you have missed something without telling you what you missed? And what do you want me to tell you?

                              What you have missed, and what I think everyone else has missed, are the dates on a micro level. There are about 14 important dates which I hypothesize as being connected to the murders.

                              So you are claiming that a senior person in the "Establishment" was personally given this information?

                              Are these sources in the public domain?
                              Many sources are in the public domain.

                              Regards, Pierre

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X