Missing Memorandum 2

[mariab]

Phil Carter wrote:
That document leads to questions pertaining to the Aberconway material, as it has been put forward as a "draft" of the MM. However, if the document seen by Robin Odell IS in the manner of how it was described in writing via email to Simon, then we have a very strong candidate for a "draft" version. That, in turn, asks questions of the Aberconway version.
I severely doubt that the document consulted by Mr Odell was an early draft, as I strongly assume that the description of the document in question as blue-coloured might be a lapsus in memory, as we're talking 45 years ago! I've had the exact same experience (of mixing up the paper color) with important documents discovered by no other than myself just 7-2 years ago, not 45 years! (If I might add that 45 years ago I was not yet born for at least a decade.)
I apologize for my last post on the closed thread The missing memorandum, which sounds a little bit mean, especially as it now stands all by itself, out of context, after the previous exchange has been deleted, but the post was a direct aswer to a little barb uttered by Mr Marriott, against whom NO hard feelings whatsoever exist on my side, and I wish him the best of lucks with his court dealings pertaining to the Special Branch ledgers – which are supposed to take place in about 6 months, if I'm not wrong.

[jason_c]

As much as I vehemently disagree with him about everything I do hope Trevor posts again.


"I have asked him [Stephen Ryder] to lift the ban. Should that not be done I will remove myself permanently from Casebook."

Trevor, thats just being a tad precious.

[DYLAN]

Trevor Marriott

Hello all.

Although I post very rarely on Casebook nowadays, I have retained my membership, and thoroughly enjoy all the debates of others.

But if I'm allowed to express a personal opinion, I believe that the banishment of Trevor Marriott, even if only temporary, is a little harsh. Over the years, I have seen far more offensive people get away with being banned.

Although he may be a little boisterous at times, it seems to me that this is simply the result of the man's obvious dedication to the Ripper case. He has a great deal to contribute, so as I've said above, I personally consider his punishment to be excessive.

If my comments or opinion get me banned too, then so be it. I'm just trying to be fair to a valuable asset to Casebook.

DYLAN.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Although the jungle drums had been beating steadily, until this morning [PST] I was as much in the dark about all this as everyone else.

Trevor Marriott has asked me to post the following which may help explain the the closure of the "Missing Memorandum" thread and his temporary banishment from Casebook.

His email read-

"I can perhaps offer an explantion as to why your thread has now been closed, and have attached a copy of an e-mail giving details of a banning order I yesterday received from Stephen Ryder. I have asked him to lift the ban. Should that not be done I will remove myself permanently from Casebook.

"I thought perhaps you and other Casebook members should be made aware of this.

"As I am not able to post anymore on Casebook and despite asking Stephen to post the banning notice on casebook, a request he has failed to accede to, I would be obliged if you could post the details making everyone aware of the content of his e-mail."

Hi Trevor -

"Your recent posts have been raising claims of libel - I have had to remove them. I've also suspended your account for one month to allow tempers to cool. It seems every post of yours lately is intended as a barb against one or another authors in the field. Please don't return with the same belligerence or the account will be suspended permanently.

"Thanks for understanding -

Stephen

END OF MESSAGES

Regards.

Simon

[protohistorian]

I second that, very well said. Dave

[Stewart P Evans]

Administrators

Everyone who posts on this site does so thanks to the courtesy of those who run it. The administrators of this site have the final decision on the content of what is posted and who posts. We should appreciate their hard work and not crtiticise how they run the site. Believe me when I say that they are experienced and know what they are doing.

I have pointed out, before now, that some past posts (and I am specifying no one specific here) have bordered on the libellous and that cannot be tolerated - and might be legally actionable. It's all very well to criticise and speculate but the questions being raised here are arrived at without a full knowledge of the facts and are, in my opinion, misplaced. I would suggest that administrating is left to administrators - a thankless task that I should not like.

[corey123]

Hello Phil,

Indeed. Apart from the points Dave have made, I still see no reason for why the thread was closed, for as you pointed out, there has been much worse on the boards.

I would say, that the fear of losing a lifes worth of work could, and I say this with caution, cause the closing of such a thread. What some fail to realize, that the progression of the case, in whatever direction it finds itself heading, doesn't call for the end of "Jack the Ripper" nor does it dictate that the theories are correct, and I am speaking of theories on both camps in ripperworld. This is the fear of the unknown.

Have a good evening all.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Dave,

Ok.. I get the point, thank you for the kind words....but those who were "verbally jousting"... I read that thread through many times, and have seen much much worse. Often.

Also, to quote you..

Some others however seem to have trouble controlling themselves and so the context of their misbehavior needs to be removed in lieu of their self control.

I saw the exchange. Feisty, yes. Uncontrolled? Hardly..in my honest opinion.

So why close the thread completely without warning? (See below, reply to Corey)

I hope to blazes no other reactions have happened in consequence of this to the "jousters"... they are most needed on these boards and are highly respected people.

Just my honest opinion my friend.

Hello Corey,

I agree with you. Sadly, not the whole of Ripperology will ever see eye to eye. The point of Simon's thread though, was the uncovering of a document said to have been clearly identified and described by a very erstwhile and much respected historian, author, researcher and Ripperologist, and that news made all our eyes open. That document leads to questions pertaining to the Aberconway material, as it has been put forward as a "draft" of the MM. However, if the document seen by Robin Odell IS in the manner of how it was described in writing via email to Simon, then we have a very strong candidate for a "draft" version. That, in turn, asks questions of the Aberconway version. That is why I am stunned that the thread is closed!

That, I think, unless I have totally misunderstood Simon completely, was the point about all of this. I may be wrong. If so, perhaps Simon may care to correct me? Thank you.

best wishes to you both

Phil

[corey123]

I would say that, in the case of trying to uncover documents, both real and imagined, and to speed up the process of moving this case further, instead of arguing and fighting for one another's views, we should band together and fight for facts as a single body, not as divided as ripperworld is.

I believe we should not accuse anyones ideas as being 'silly' nor accuse any ripperologists as unworthy. The progression of this case, whether it be unfavorable to some, is inevitable, and the fight to preserve, if it exists at all, the 'known facts' should not end, but shouldn't try to dely the progress of others.

I believe the truth behind our failure to bring this sad story to an end is the fact that without it, we would be lost. Perhaps we should put away out differences, our biased veiws, and all work for the future of ripperology.

It upsets me that we cannot put forth a future for this case and behave in a civil manor.

Just my views.

[protohistorian]

Hello Dave,

A warning? To me? For what reason? and more to the point, what are you implying? And further more "based on it's content" is rather strange if the thread founder himself doesn't even know about it being closed?

I have recieved no warning, nor reason for it's closure. So I have no reason to expect any "warning" from anyone.

best wishes

Phil

No Phil, your behavior is very good. Some others however seem to have trouble controlling themselves and so the context of their misbehavior needs to be removed in lieu of their self control. I would not know the specifics on the thread, just when I peeked in some pretty charged rhetoric was flying. Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil,

Yes, it would appear that courtesy has fallen victim to expedience, and just at the moment I was about to post something of interest to everybody.

But no matter. Perhaps some other time.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Hello Simon,

All very strange, from my memory of when a thread is closed, an administrator normally writes a covering post to explain the reason for closure. And you weren't told either, it being your thread? Most odd.

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil,

I know nothing, but judging from all the emails I've received this morning it seems there's trouble in the JtR Romper Room.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Hello Steven,

Thanks for the confirmation. Phew!

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

"Warning"?

I would imagine it was closed based on it's content. I should take that as a warning. Dave

Hello Dave,

A warning? To me? For what reason? and more to the point, what are you implying? And further more "based on it's content" is rather strange if the thread founder himself doesn't even know about it being closed?

I have recieved no warning, nor reason for it's closure. So I have no reason to expect any "warning" from anyone.

best wishes

Phil