Missing Memorandum 2

[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.

[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

[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

[Stewart P Evans]

Not My Place

Hello Stewart,
For the sake of clarity only, for all who read this and may or may not be confused, can you please clarify the following? Thank you.
In the "A-Z", a photograph of one page of the Aberconway version is supplied. It states, in the index, that this is copyright of the authors of the book.
a) does this mean that this photograph is copyright of the authors, or
b) that the original documentation, shown as this piece of paper, is copyright of the authors, or
c) that this document as a whole, and part of shown in the photograph, is copyright of the authors?
It may seem confusing to some.
best wishes
Phil

It is not my place to answer such questions for the authors of the A-Z. Why don't you hop over to JTRForums and ask Paul Begg?

[Stewart P Evans]

Better Understanding

Hello Stewart,
I like the pun, hahaha... no not a "cop" out. I generally like to consider things, as you know, before I write anything, that's all. I don't believe I run and hide on these forums, and I don't believe I generally shoot from the hip either, not when writing, at least. Besides, I like to read other opinions and comments. Enhances knowledge, balances thought, confirms good ideas and dismisses lingering poor ones.
I have never had the honour of being a policeman Stewart, and do not think like one, as you yourself recently admitted to doing so. What does strike me though, is that policemen posting here, as has been evident, think in different ways, non?
best wishes
Phil

If a better understanding the laws of evidence, the nature of police hierarchy and reporting, a healthy cynicism and common sense means thinking in different ways then yes.

However, it doesn't have much to do with what has been going on here. Scurrilous accusations without foundation, a lack of understanding of what is involved, posts that evidence that posters do not know what they are talking about and aggressiveness to mention the worst.

All I have ever done is try to help people where I can, I have posted more official material and relevant documents than anyone else and tried to restore common sense.

What do I get in return? A load of crap. You know what? It's time to take a long break.

[Phil Carter]

2.Most of what is relevant has been published. However, this is another privately commissioned and privately owned document and there is no obligation to produce it to anyone nor to make it public.

Hello Stewart,

For the sake of clarity only, for all who read this and may or may not be confused, can you please clarify the following? Thank you.

In the "A-Z", a photograph of one page of the Aberconway version is supplied. It states, in the index, that this is copyright of the authors of the book.

a) does this mean that this photograph is copyright of the authors, or
b) that the original documentation, shown as this piece of paper, is copyright of the authors, or
c) that this document as a whole, and part of shown in the photograph, is copyright of the authors?

It may seem confusing to some.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Stewart,

I like the pun, hahaha... no not a "cop" out. I generally like to consider things, as you know, before I write anything, that's all. I don't believe I run and hide on these forums, and I don't believe I generally shoot from the hip either, not when writing, at least. Besides, I like to read other opinions and comments. Enhances knowledge, balances thought, confirms good ideas and dismisses lingering poor ones.

I have never had the honour of being a policeman Stewart, and do not think like one, as you yourself recently admitted to doing so. What does strike me though, is that policemen posting here, as has been evident, think in different ways, non?

best wishes

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Cop Out?

Hello Stewart,
Thank you for the invitation. However for the moment, I am content with what I have written, my respectful and personal opinion upon another poster's comments.
best wishes
Phil

Is that a cop out Phil?

[Stewart P Evans]

Main Points

...
Mr. Marriott is trying to track down a missing document. He suspects someone knows more then they're telling. From what I've read, I think he may be right.

Add to this the case of the missing expert report concerning the Swanson marginalia, about which the police archivist seems to be less than forthcoming with the facts.

Add to this the long-missing Suspects file, which almost certainly was stolen by someone researching the Ripper murders, someone with special access to historic police files.

It's hard to believe that among the many current and retired police officers who are Casebook members - some of whom no doubt still have contacts within the Department - that no one has a clue as to the whereabouts of any of these missing documents, especially the recently missing.

I have split the above post into the three main points it raises in order to make the queries clearer.

1. 'Trevor Marriott is trying to track down a missing document' and 'He suspects someone knows more than they are telling' - really, who?

2. 'The missing expert report concerning the Swanson marginalia about which the police archivist [?] seems to be less than forthcoming with the facts.' Presumably you mean Mr. McCormick the curator of the Crime Museum, I didn't know the report was lost, we certainly know the content anyway.

3. 'The long missing Suspects file'.

I would answer as follows

1. We do not know that the 'Aberconway version' is missing. It should be with the family. We have a copy. This is a privately owned document (so there is no obligation to produce it to anyone) and the copy we have was properly obtained - many years ago.

2. I have not seen proof that this document is missing. Most of what is relevant has been published. However, this is another privately commissioned and privately owned document and there is no obligation to produce it to anyone nor to make it public.

3. The suspects file has been missing for over 27 years so how on earth would anyone today have any idea who took it? At the time it went missing there was public access to it. 'Contacts within the Department' - what does that mean???

[Phil Carter]

Hello Stewart,

Thank you for the invitation. However for the moment, I am content with what I have written, my respectful and personal opinion upon another poster's comments.

best wishes

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Perhaps

Hello Dr Watson,
I have to agree with much of what you have written here. Trevor Marriott has swung a spotlight on the things you mention. Perhaps it was much needed, whatever one thinks of his methodology. In return, no, he isn't intimidated either. Not even by the red tape of Scotland Yard and all the excuses under the sun they can dream up either.
Thank you for your thoughts.
best wishes
Phil
best wishes
Phil

Perhaps you would like to enlarge upon what you agree with, exactly what 'the spotlight has been swung on', who has intimidated whom, and what 'red tape and excuses' Scotland Yard has 'dreamed up'.

[mariab]

Dr. John Watson wrote:
As for the case in point: Mr. Marriott is trying to track down a missing document. He suspects someone knows more then they're telling. From what I've read, I think he may be right. Add to this the case of the missing expert report concerning the Swanson marginalia, about which the police archivist seems to be less than forthcoming with the facts.
Like Simon Wood, I must have missed the post about also the Davies report on the marginalia allegedly missing. Where on earth was that posted? I seriously doubt that it's a fact.
Dr. John Watson wrote:
Add to this the long-missing Suspects file, which almost certainly was stolen by someone researching the Ripper murders, someone with special access to historic police files. It's hard to believe that among the many current and retired police officers who are Casebook members - some of whom no doubt still have contacts within the Department - that no one has a clue as to the whereabouts of any of these missing documents, especially the recently missing.
The suspects file for the Emma Smith case is indeed missing. It is utterly preposterous to connect this unfortunate fact to the Aberconway version of the Swanson marginalia, and to concoct conspiracy theories out of this.
Dr. John Watson wrote:
In pursuing this matter, Treaver (sic) Marriott is, if nothing else, aggressive and doggedly persistant.
Trevor Marriott put forward allegations, but completely refused to pursue this further in any proactive manner (as in discussing it with the editors of A-Z and others) in a cohesive investigation, despite having been repeatedly encouraged by many of us to do so. It should not be too hard to draw conclusions out of this, especially for someone who has followed the threads since their inception.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Dr Watson,

I have to agree with much of what you have written here. Trevor Marriott has swung a spotlight on the things you mention. Perhaps it was much needed, whatever one thinks of his methodology. In return, no, he isn't intimidated either. Not even by the red tape of Scotland Yard and all the excuses under the sun they can dream up either.
Thank you for your thoughts.

best wishes

Phil

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

Who allegedly stole not only the Aberconway version of the Macnaghten memorandum but also the Davies report on the marginalia?

I must have missed that one.

What was posted related to three specific researchers. Anyone who was following the discussion at all knows who they were. Of course it was all done by smear and innuendo, but the implication was crystal clear.

[Dr. John Watson]

Why do people have to get involved in debates about which they know little, or what they do know is ill-informed or incorrect?

Mr Evans, please put away your sword - you're not under attack. I've been a member of these boards almost since their inception, and I've been following this thread since it started. I know Steve to be an honest and dedicated administrator. My comments reflect my personal feelings about the integrity of these boards and my hope that they remain free and unfettered for open and spirited discussions among the members. As for the case in point: Mr. Marriott is trying to track down a missing document. He suspects someone knows more then they're telling. From what I've read, I think he may be right. Add to this the case of the missing expert report concerning the Swanson marginalia, about which the police archivist seems to be less than forthcoming with the facts. Add to this the long-missing Suspects file, which almost certainly was stolen by someone researching the Ripper murders, someone with special access to historic police files. It's hard to believe that among the many current and retired police officers who are Casebook members - some of whom no doubt still have contacts within the Department - that no one has a clue as to the whereabouts of any of these missing documents, especially the recently missing. In pursuing this matter, Treaver Marriott is, if nothing else, aggressive and doggedly persistant. He's not intimidated, won't be sidetracked, and bows to no sacred cows. For this, I admire him and support him. More to the point, I fervently hope that Casebook will remain the fair and open board it always has been, without being influenced by pressure from anyone or silly threats of lible suits.