Missing Memorandum 2

[Phil Carter]

Hello Stewart,

That wasn't written in any form of attack, and you are misinterpreting it if you thought so. Nobody is criticising your input Stewart. Far from it. It is praised. I have, often. Many have. We all have, I would say.
I just saw the difference in methodology in the same line of previous employment, different thought processes, thats all.
I am sorry you think that is a "load of cr*p".

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Dear Dr. Watson,

Having had the pleasure of talking with Trevor Marriott and examining the documentation he has been generous enough to share with me on the obstacles being put in his way by the Metropolitan Police Service regarding the Special Branch ledgers, I applaud his indefatigable attempts to mine what could prove to be a rich vein of hitherto unseen information.

Part and parcel of his efforts at transparency is to also bring into the public domain those documents which are known to exist but, for reasons best known to those sitting on them, remain unseen. In this I wish him every good fortune, and if that involves ruffling a few feathers, well so be it. For too long now the vast majority of us have been expected to play the game of Hunt the Ripper with a stacked-deck.

As a side-note to Mariab and Stewart, having had sight of the relevant communications I can vouch for the fact that the Davies report on the Swanson marginalia has been "borrowed".

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Nonsense

Hello Stewart,
That wasn't written in any form of attack, and you are misinterpreting it if you thought so. Nobody is criticising your input Stewart. Far from it. It is praised. I have, often. Many have. We all have, I would say.
I just saw the difference in methodology in the same line of previous employment, different thought processes, thats all.
I am sorry you think that is a "load of cr*p".
best wishes
Phil

I wasn't referring to your last post, I was referring to the ongoing, and seemingly endless, nonsense on this thread.

[Chris]

Part and parcel of his efforts at transparency is to also bring into the public domain those documents which are known to exist but, for reasons best known to those sitting on them, remain unseen. In this I wish him every good fortune, and if that involves ruffling a few feathers, well so be it.

As you know, I would also very much like to bring the Aberconway version into the public domain. Unfortunately Trevor Marriott's actions have obviously made that less likely, not more. And to be frank I find that very annoying.

As a side-note to Mariab and Stewart, having had sight of the relevant communications I can vouch for the fact that the Davies report on the Swanson marginalia has been "borrowed".

Be that as it may, it's no secret that a number of people have copies of the report. The problem is that the person who commissioned the report hasn't given permission for it to be made public.

[Stewart P Evans]

Know

Dear Dr. Watson,
Having had the pleasure of talking with Trevor Marriott and examining the documentation he has been generous enough to share with me on the obstacles being put in his way by the Metropolitan Police Service regarding the Special Branch ledgers, I applaud his indefatigable attempts to mine what could prove to be a rich vein of hitherto unseen information.
Part and parcel of his efforts at transparency is to also bring into the public domain those documents which are known to exist but, for reasons best known to those sitting on them, remain unseen. In this I wish him every good fortune, and if that involves ruffling a few feathers, well so be it. For too long now the vast majority of us have been expected to play the game of Hunt the Ripper with a stacked-deck.
As a side-note to Mariab and Stewart, having had sight of the relevant communications I can vouch for the fact that the Davies report on the Swanson marginalia has been "borrowed".
Regards,
Simon

I know exactly what Trevor is doing to access the Special Branch material and I have supported him fully. It would be great to see this material. But I also understand the reason for its not being produced. I just hope that Trevor can overcome that.

If you consider 'ruffling feathers' as the best way to 'bring documents into the public domain' then fine. Doesn't look as if it's worked so far though - does it??? I would have thought a polite and sensible approach would work better. Had that been the case then I am sure that the 'Aberconway version' would have been posted on these boards some time ago.

Seems to me that there are too many who expect others to do research, and all the work and expense that involves, then produce the goods for everyone for free.

It may be recalled that I was the first to call into question the examination of the 'Swanson marginalia' and there is no doubt that it was examined because of the points I had publicly raised. I think that we are all aware of its relevant content and most are happy with that. It is a privately commissioned, privately owned document reporting on writing in a privately owned book. Whether it has been begged, bought or borrowed is absolutely no one else's business - can you not see and understand that???

[Phil Carter]

Hello Stewart,

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that long before the "ruffled feathers", attempts have been made in polite request form. I believe Chris talked of an attempt along this route, if I understood him correctly? (Apologies to Chris for perhaps misinterpreting his previous comments)
Apparently therefore, this has not been successful either.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that long before the "ruffled feathers", attempts have been made in polite request form. I believe Chris talked of an attempt along this route, if I understood him correctly? (Apologies to Chris for perhaps misinterpreting his previous comments)

I think you are referring to my comment of encouragement to Trevor Marriott last month:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=151359&postcount=7

That related to approaches to the Aberconway family. It's not the Aberconway family whose feathers he has been ruffling (at least as far as I know).

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

Thank you for the clarification. My memory is not what it was. "Alzheimer's light" they call it in this neck of the woods.

best wishes

Phil

[John Bennett]

If you consider 'ruffling feathers' as the best way to 'bring documents into the public domain' then fine. Doesn't look as if it's worked so far though - does it??? I would have thought a polite and sensible approach would work better. Had that been the case then I am sure that the 'Aberconway version' would have been posted on these boards some time ago.

Seems to me that there are too many who expect others to do research, and all the work and expense that involves, then produce the goods for everyone for free.

Wise words, Stewart.

I do not wish to become embroiled in the specific arguments of this thread, but I have to agree that sometimes there is too much 'sabre-rattling' and demanding of information as if we have some divine right to it as a community.

Many of us (myself included) have relied upon the good will and generosity of others to furnish us with 'stuff' we hope will be of use or value, but it never hurts to go out on a limb occasionally and go down the right channels to acquire access to information from the appropriate sources or agents. When they are approached courteously and in the right way, one can often come up trumps (and a rewarding feeling it is too). However, I do believe that how the recipient of that information chooses to publish or release that info is entirely up to them. If they choose not to, then what is to stop others going down the same route and releasing their findings?

We should be thankful to people like Stewart, Don Rumbelow, Keith Skinner, the A-Z authors and goodness knows how many others (well-known or otherwise) who, owing to their clout or well-meaning approach and desire for true information, have given us less fortunately placed so much to work from over the last half-century!

JB

[Stewart P Evans]

Thank You

Wise words, Stewart.
I do not wish to become embroiled in the specific arguments of this thread, but I have to agree that sometimes there is too much 'sabre-rattling' and demanding of information as if we have some divine right to it as a community.
Many of us (myself included) have relied upon the good will and generosity of others to furnish us with 'stuff' we hope will be of use or value, but it never hurts to go out on a limb occasionally and go down the right channels to acquire access to information from the appropriate sources or agents. When they are approached courteously and in the right way, one can often come up trumps (and a rewarding feeling it is too). However, I do believe that how the recipient of that information chooses to publish or release that info is entirely up to them. If they choose not to, then what is to stop others going down the same route and releasing their findings?
We should be thankful to people like Stewart, Don Rumbelow, Keith Skinner, the A-Z authors and goodness knows how many others (well-known or otherwise) who, owing to their clout or well-meaning approach and desire for true information, have given us less fortunately placed so much to work from over the last half-century!
JB

Thank you for that John. A breath of fresh air from someone who understands.

And may I add here that John is no slouch himself. He has contributed greatly to this field of research and has located and shared some fantastic photographs and illustrative material.

[Stewart P Evans]

Stephen Ryder

I am sure that Stephen Ryder is heartily sick of all this nonsense.

However, it has been suggested to me that I used 'my clout' to get Trevor removed from the boards. I did explain that I have no clout whatsoever on these boards and that Ally would laugh at such a suggestion.

I would appreciate it if Stephen could just point out that I did not contact him at all and that I didn't have Trevor banned.

[Dr. John Watson]

. 'Contacts within the Department' - what does that mean???

Come on now, Stewart. You know exactly what that means. Most retired police officers retain friends within the department, whom they may call upon from time to time for favors. They may also return favors from time to time. This exchange is based on absolute trust. What could this mean? Only that former officers researching the Ripper could have special access to certain documents that the public does not. It's even possible that they could be allowed to remove these documents from the department for special copying or other reasons, all with the understanding, of course, that the document would be safely returned to the department and that the exchange - and the identity of the police contact - would never be revealed. It happened in my day, and it's likely happening now

Also, you are probably correct that whoever has the original Abercomway letter Trevor is looking for "has no obligation to produce." Yet apparently they produced it for you. Not so clear the Swanson marginalia report, of which the original is (or was) held by the police museum. I presume you had no problem obtaining a copy, perhaps even examining the original. As for the Suspects file, no one suggests you know where that is. But I think it likely that someone with police connections was able to walk out with the entire file. This has nothing to do with the current thread, but it is evidence that police files are subject to removal from the premises, then and perhaps even now.

[John Bennett]

Gosh, Stew, you're too kind!

I just thought of something else...

even when one DOES come into possession of potentially interesting material, how does one go about putting it out to the world? An article? If so, which publication? A post on an internet message board? Which one? A blog? A book? A lecture?

Again, this decision is up to the person who has the material and from personal experience it can be a little frustrating deciding the right way to go about it (if one wants to make a coherent and considered presentation).

That's enough from me, in any case!!

[corey123]

I have to agree with John and Stewart.

I know I am technically a 'newbie' and I know comparitively little of the subject(compared to some of the biggies), and just this year I have finally started writing essays for publication. Two currently. One in December in the other in the following month. Yes, I am young, and some tend to ignore my thoughts because of it(less so now) but I have a few words I would like to say. Doubtless they will be taken into consideration, but its worth a try.

Now, I may be what Stewart is describing, posting with little knowledge, but what I do know, is that those who have worked for a goal, at then to accomplish said goal(s) are not very willing to let their hard work go at the snapping of one's fingers.

I would think of the current situation at a hunting trap. The more you pull and pull, the tighter the trap gets, thus it is less likely for you to release you leg from the constraint. Its the same in this situation. The more we demand, the more we protest, the less liklely it will be that we may aquire those documents of interest.

Just my two cents.

p.s. Stewart, I have to agree with Phil, I haven't heard of anyone denounce your achivements. Thank you for all the work you have put forth for this feild, so lower researchers such as myself(not many are this low ) can benefit from it. I am speaking for all and to all. Thank you.

Yours truly,

Corey

[Stewart P Evans]

Here We Go Again

Come on now, Stewart. You know exactly what that means. Most retired police officers retain friends within the department, whom they may call upon from time to time for favors. They may also return favors from time to time. This exchange is based on absolute trust. What could this mean? Only that former officers researching the Ripper could have special access to certain documents that the public does not. It's even possible that they could be allowed to remove these documents from the department for special copying or other reasons, all with the understanding, of course, that the document would be safely returned to the department and that the exchange - and the identity of the police contact - would never be revealed. It happened in my day, and it's likely happening now
Also, you are probably correct that whoever has the original Abercomway letter Trevor is looking for "has no obligation to produce." Yet apparently they produced it for you. Not so clear the Swanson marginalia report, of which the original is (or was) held by the police museum. I presume you had no problem obtaining a copy, perhaps even examining the original. As for the Suspects file, no one suggests you know where that is. But I think it likely that someone with police connections was able to walk out with the entire file. This has nothing to do with the current thread, but it is evidence that police files are subject to removal from the premises, then and perhaps even now.

Here we go again.

No, I don't know what that means. 'The Department'? I was a member of the Suffolk Constabulary and had nothing at all to do with the Metropolitan Police force. Don Rumbelow was a member of the City of London Police and not the Metropolitan Police. Need I go on. I have been retired for 13 years now, and Don even longer.

These are odd ideas. No one owes me any favours in the Metropolitan Police Force and all the Ripper documentation is at the National Archives at Kew anyway, available to any member of the public. The Metropolitan Police hold no relevant documents whatsoever.

THe 'Aberconway version' is owned by the Aberconway family and ultimately any copyright would be theirs. No one has produced it for me. A colleague did obtain a photocopy some 23 years ago.

What I have 'no problem obtaining a copy' of is my business and no one else's. I have not seen the original of the Davies report, but as it is a privately owned document I have no right to see it anyway.

At the time the Suspects file went missing, before 1983, the public had access to it and had had such access since 1965. Simon himself gave an instance of members of the public accessing the files, and actually borrowing them, in 1965.

The police have no such files now, and haven't since 1965, so it would be difficult to borrow them from the police. They went to the Public Record Office in 1965.

N.B. I have answered these questions as a courtesy, not because I have to. I'd hate to think that people thought that I evaded questions.