Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Missing Memorandum

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

  • Originally posted by Lipsky View Post

    The phrase "well meaning but clueless" was not directed at you.
    It was directed at these "senior officers" to characterize their efficiency -- or lack of, apparently.
    Combined with their penchant for public memoirs at their "golden years" of retirement, I think it shows, if anything, audacity.
    I hold Abberline and Munro in high esteem, and I think with their combined effort at the time of the events, something better would have been achieved.
    When Munro got back on track, it was "too late in the game".
    Maybe I am wrong though, and catching this person "wasn't meant to be". He has deceived subsequent researchers and crime experts, passing off as a "lust murderer".

    Fair points. But are you saying that he couldn’t have had a sexual motivation? I’m not saying that he did or didn’t by the way. I just don’t think that we can know for certain why he killed those women?

    My opinions can be deemed as "illogical" or "erroneous" (or worse) by anyone willing to do so.
    But you can hardly call them "patronising" as this term is used to characterize not opinions, but interaction with another person.
    Your inquiry as to "how long" I have been an "expert" (!) was patronising because it turned the argument personal - ad hominem.
    And it was illogical. One can follow a case for 500 years and still draw the wrong conclusions. One can follow a case for two weeks and apprehend the suspect.
    Good police work is "real-time". We are only "post-fact" observers, researchers at best.

    My comment ‘how long have you been an expert’ could have been phrased better. What I was getting at is that no one can be certain that they know the truth on all the various issues involved in the case. I got the impression that you were stating as facts what were in fact opinions. I think that we all have our own bugbears connected with this case and I suppose that my main one is over-confidence. Opinions stated as facts.

    I have no knowledge of how user "Baron" behaves with response to your posts. If he is indeed rude etc, you have my sympathies.
    I am too old to try and insult others as a means to choke my opinions down their throats.
    I try to make a case as an interested observer without anything to profit from this, with whatever tools of analysis I may possess.
    I am sure most people here do the same, and defend their convictions passionately, in compliance with our human nature.

    Correct of course. The vast majority of posters do just that. We agree or disagree. Possibly my frustration at being stalked from thread to thread spilled over here. If I misinterpreted your post I apologise. Believe me, something that certain posters will never do.

    It is this human nature that the killer defiled, along with the life and the dignity of some misguided women.
    I hold these "senior officials" responsible because they were outsmarted by a dangerous, cunning, unremorseful Raskolnikov-type of "I have no blame" self-righteous murderer, whoever he may prove eventually to be (if at all).

    Although the killer wasn’t caught I’m perhaps reluctant to blame them entirely. We’re they incompetent or just faced with a phenomena for which they were ill prepared or was it a mixture of both?
    Personally I think it likeliest that we will never solve the case to anything like a consensus. We’ll keep trying though.
    Regards

    Herlock






    "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

    Comment


    • Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Herlock.

      Isn't it interesting how sometimes truth-seeking makes some of us (and sometimes, the best of us) prone to dogma? Virtually all religions proclaim truth as an absolute "property" of theirs, and unleash condemnation or warfare to the "infidels" or (the horror!) the atheists. It's been some 12 years since I was last in a message board, and I quit because I lost grip and became rude myself... and it wasn't about "Jack" or god or politics or anything existential but.... music! -- but then again Robert Smith is god and worth causing havoc for..?

      So I know what you mean about frustration, and again, my deepest sympathies if any such conduct has got in the way of civilized, albeit passionate, discussion.

      On your very interesting questions, some very short responses, since I am about to stroll off-topic (again):
      1. Sex gratification was neither "drawn" by the killer prior to death (which could make him a sadist) or post-mortem. He has neither the time nor the strategy. These are blitz attacks followed by calculated mutilations within an extremely short time frame. If post-mortem gratification was the purpose, the murders would take place indoors and enjoyed at the killer's leisure. Same would apply if purpose was torture prior to murder.
      2. Sexual frustration provides an insight of this man and is in pattern with other serial killers. It is, probably, as in the case of Ted Bundy, the result of a serious revelation concerning the mother of the individual, which proved to be disastrous.
      3. Due to this, the man is sexually damaged, probably shy of (or hostile to) proper intercourse/ "vanilla" (sorry for the slang). Probably a masochist with a thing for austere verbal stuff (and not herbal!) by older women.
      4. Deranged, with a record probably (my fav suspect indeed has one), and with knowledge of Whitechapel and the local "festivities", our man is a hired hand for execution of a small clique who devised an not-so-well-thought out plan of blackmail which led to disaster.
      5. I believe he had some military record. This is special-ops, decoys included.

      Motive of the killer: serving as a hired hand (he is a submissive; he craves to serve a higher, strict purpose) in "character" built with his deranged "original material".
      Personal "touch" of the killer: devising the murder sites, choosing dates (very highly correlated), decoys of antisemitism and Irish persona, lunar pattern, abstaining from gratification, Lusk letter.
      The man was highyl deranged, with total lack of empathy/sociopath, considered himself "free of blame". But this was no sex fiend/uncontrolled looney-tunes.

      ON-topic:

      The police wouldnt know how to handle a lust murderer, let alone someone who could (and has indeed) pass as one, while being a "hired hand".
      Cant blame them for that.
      But Sir Charles, for all his military tenure, turned out to be highly self-indulgent, and in his days (daze?) the police became highly political, efficient for screening and dealing with radicals but farcically clueless when it came to the murders we discuss.
      This blatantly obvious contradiction wasnt missed by the public and the press, and eventually the government, though the official reason of dismissal was different.
      Munro's return was greeted with relief from police and public alike.
      Aside from that, one get the general impression that the police didnt go to many lengths to (1) establish the last actions of the victims and (2) when victims piled up, to search for correlating data, based on sheer geographical vicinity alone (3) protect prostitutes during that time (increasing bobbies on the beat dont cut it , and it didnt) (4) handle properly glaring evidence like the Goulston graffiti which wasnt even photographed.
      The public disagreements between police officials and the overall feeling one got was that the killer had outsmarted them all in the public eye.
      Not to mention that various "vigilantes" were hardly controlled or at least monitored by the police -- some of these fine men were pure dirt.
      To me, the most bewildering was the "shut down" following the MJK slaughter.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
        I’m just wary of dismissing the MM or indeed anything written by (mainly senior) police officers offhand. I’m not pointing fingers here but from past exchanges I think that some people see the senior officers as either moustache-twiddling upper-class Victorian villains or well meaning but clueless buffoons. I just don’t think that we should make assumptions. As Paul Begg said on the Druitt thread....we don’t know what the evidence was that Macnaghten saw? Just because he felt that it made Druitt a likely suspect doesn’t mean that he was guilty of course. He may have misjudged that evidence. But he may not have misjudged it. It certainly only my opinion of course but I feel that Druitt and Kosminski are the likeliest of the named suspects.
        The MM clearly is a very flawed document. 3 main Suspects (a word way too overused here)... 1 thief in jail at the time, 1 because someone in his family said they thought he was the killer, and one because he hated women.

        There isn't a shred of evidence to connect any of these men to any ripper crime...and yet Macnaughten says 3 most likely Suspects?
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

          The MM clearly is a very flawed document. 3 main Suspects (a word way too overused here)... 1 thief in jail at the time, 1 because someone in his family said they thought he was the killer, and one because he hated women.

          There isn't a shred of evidence to connect any of these men to any ripper crime...and yet Macnaughten says 3 most likely Suspects?
          One key thing that's often overlooked is that Macnaghten only says that he believed that any one of these three would have been more capable than Thomas Cutbush of committing the murders. He doesn't say that they were the 3 most likely suspects. Indeed, it's possible to read the Memorandum in such a way that these three weren't official suspects at all, only more likely Rippers in Macnaghten's eyes than the Phantom Arse-Prodder of Old London Town.
          Last edited by Sam Flynn; 08-31-2019, 05:32 PM.
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

            One key thing that's often overlooked is that Macnaghten only says that he believed that any one of these three would have been more capable than Thomas Cutbush of committing the murders. He doesn't say that they were the 3 most likely suspects. Indeed, it's possible to read the Memorandum in such a way that these three weren't official suspects at all, only more likely Rippers in Macnaghten's eyes than the Phantom Arse-Prodder of Old London Town.
            Good point Sam. And if Macnaughton thought that one of those three suspects was stronger than the other two surely he would have either mentioned that in the Memorandom or only named one more likely suspect than Thomas Cutbush.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

              Good point Sam. And if Macnaughton thought that one of those three suspects was stronger than the other two surely he would have either mentioned that in the Memorandom or only named one more likely suspect than Thomas Cutbush.
              Actually, he did.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by John Malcolm View Post

                Actually, he did.
                In the Aberconway Version, yes.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  ...

                  Even in in today's world of policing, police officers are given information on a daily basis from all different sources with respect to all types of crimes and offences. This information is recorded by them. It doesn't mean to say that the information is reliable, or they then act on it after it is recorded. The public and other criminals give information to the police for a variety of reasons, some with good intent, others with an axe to grind with another party, or the information is simply malicious.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  I wonder/ponder if Sir MM could have been deliberately misled about MJD's candidacy to protect the identity of the real JTR?

                  And hence his beliefs could have been genuine...

                  Martyn

                  It was me. I let the dogs out.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post

                    I wonder/ponder if Sir MM could have been deliberately misled about MJD's candidacy to protect the identity of the real JTR?
                    I doubt it. Why would anyone connected with Druitt's friends or family have known who the real JTR was?
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • I know that Sam disagrees with me on this point but I’ve always wondered why he opted for Druitt if he didn’t feel that he had a good reason to do so (of course it’s a possibility that the evidence that he saw wasn’t a strong as he believed it to have been) It’s usually said that he alighted on Druitt because he conveniently committed suicide after Kelly but Monro felt that Mackenzie was a ripper victim and Mac held Munro in high regard. Mac had ample resources to hand to have a picked a more obvious suspect than Druitt to add to his ‘‘more likely than Cutbush’ list.’ After all Kosminski was a lunatic and Ostrog was a criminal but Druitt was a highly respectable Barrister/Schoolteacher who was related by marriage to one of Mac’s closest friends. Surely it would have been easy enough for him to have picked some hopeless, permanently incarcerated lunatic with some history of violence or some not too long ago deceased criminal? So why the eminently respectable Druitt purely on criteria that could easily have been applied to someone that fitted the general perception of the ripper better?
                      Druitt and Kosminski are the best of the named suspects in my opinion.
                      Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-01-2019, 12:59 PM.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






                      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                      Comment


                      • Druitt is not even a suspect.

                        In order to suspect a person you should have an evidence that points to him, you cannot just say this one is a supect without providing an evidence, we are not in a forest, the law of the jungle doesn't apply!

                        Druitt is as clean a person as anyone of us.

                        Why MacNathen named him is another matter completely, and something to be expected from a young non-experienced officer.



                        The Baron

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                          Druitt is not even a suspect.

                          In order to suspect a person you should have an evidence that points to him, you cannot just say this one is a supect without providing an evidence, we are not in a forest, the law of the jungle doesn't apply!

                          Druitt is as clean a person as anyone of us.

                          Why MacNathen named him is another matter completely, and something to be expected from a young non-experienced officer.

                          Just thought that I’d help you out by highlighting the spelling and grammar errors

                          The Baron
                          Surprise, surprise. Herlock + Druitt = The Baron appears with a nonsense post.

                          Druitt is not even a suspect.
                          Its not down to one person to decide who is or is not a suspect. He was named by Sir Melville Macnaghten and so he has to be at least considered. All posters are free to weigh up his validity as they please. There are writers and researchers who no more about the case than you or I who believe him to be worthy of consideration Baron. You seem to have great confidence in your own genius though.

                          In order to suspect a person you should have an evidence that points to him, you cannot just say this one is a supect without providing an evidence, we are not in a forest, the law of the jungle doesn't apply!
                          Macnaghten said that he’d seen evidence. Again, if you want to dismiss Macnaghten without reason then it’s up to you.

                          Plus....name a suspect with evidence against him? Can we discuss no one? You can discuss Hardiman, Mann, Lewis Carroll and Sickert if you want to. I’ll give more weight to those mentioned by senior police officers.

                          Druitt is as clean a person as anyone of us.
                          Thats not saying much.

                          Why MacNathen named him is another matter completely, and something to be expected from a young non-experienced officer.
                          Why he named him is of the utmost importance!

                          He was 41 at the time and so not young. He’d been in The Met since June ‘89 so 5 years. Not someone that had risen through the ranks for sure but this doesn’t make him incompetent or incapable of making a reasoned judgment unlike some that comment 125 years later.

                          We know that you don’t consider Druitt a suspect so why do you feel the need to keep repeating it without actually adding anything of substance? I recall that you even dismissed a book on the subject without having read it. Says it all really?
                          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-01-2019, 10:03 PM.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






                          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

                            One key thing that's often overlooked is that Macnaghten only says that he believed that any one of these three would have been more capable than Thomas Cutbush of committing the murders. He doesn't say that they were the 3 most likely suspects. Indeed, it's possible to read the Memorandum in such a way that these three weren't official suspects at all, only more likely Rippers in Macnaghten's eyes than the Phantom Arse-Prodder of Old London Town.
                            Hi Sam,

                            Yes, I think this is a valid point for consideration. The memorandum is phrased such that what he appears to be literally saying could be paraphrased as "Cutbush is a horrible suspect and the argument put forth in the newspapers are so fundamentally flawed that one could build a more convincing argument in favour of just about anyone. And to demonstrate my point, here's three off the top of my head ..."

                            My one concern about that, though, is that he does go on to say how he tends to exonerate two and his suspicions grow concerning MJD. If he was just doing the pro-offered exercise this last bit would not make sense to add. I suppose one could argue he was just "staying in character", so to speak, and this too is meant as part of his "demonstration how one could build a better argument", but that seems a bit far fetched.

                            I do think, McNaughton was working from memory, and given its tendency to warp facts over time, his apparent strength of conviction towards MJD may well be overstating the implied weight of the information he had been given. That said, I do think he received information that connected a suspect to the murders and this information came from someone close to that suspect. It is possible, though, the suspect was not even MJD but the transfer of information would have been around the time that MJD was found dead in the Thames (which could result in a memory "transfer", linking the passing on of information from the original suspect to MJD). That's a bit stretched, though, and of course it's just a possible hypothesis (and not one I'm even pushing, just one of many hypothetical situations that could be true).

                            In short, the MM is a rich source of ideas that needs to be tackled by research. Unfortunately, research is a slow and time consuming process, so the fact that nothing has yet been found to clarify important questions like 1) what was the private information he received? 2) who was the source of this private information? 3) when was this private information made available to MM? Until we can nail those down, the possible answers are like hunting a specific snowflake in the wind - there's too many to hold that are moving to fast to see clearly and they are too quick to melt to inspect more closely, so you never know if you found the right one.

                            Dismissing the MM entirely is wrong, because it does suggest potentially interesting information may be out there and there's enough information in it to compare things to. Relying on it as a solution, though, is also wrong because the information it contains is too flimsy, and clearly it contains some factual errors, probably due to him working from memory. But we can't be sure how deeply, or shallow, those memory errors run. That again is where research is the tool by which we hope to address those gaps in our knowledge.

                            What answer research eventually provides us, if any, is neither here nor there to me, if it were to definitively prove MJD was JtR, then that would be obviously very interesting, but if research demonstrated that McNaughton's information was, in fact, not as impressive or convincing as it is implied, then that too would be very interesting. It is the unveiling of the truth that is important more than what the truth turns out to be. When our view shifts to placing the importance on what the truth should be, then we start supporting Royal Conspiracy theories, and other such flights of fancy.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                              Hi Sam,

                              Yes, I think this is a valid point for consideration. The memorandum is phrased such that what he appears to be literally saying could be paraphrased as "Cutbush is a horrible suspect and the argument put forth in the newspapers are so fundamentally flawed that one could build a more convincing argument in favour of just about anyone. And to demonstrate my point, here's three off the top of my head ..."

                              My one concern about that, though, is that he does go on to say how he tends to exonerate two and his suspicions grow concerning MJD. If he was just doing the pro-offered exercise this last bit would not make sense to add. I suppose one could argue he was just "staying in character", so to speak, and this too is meant as part of his "demonstration how one could build a better argument", but that seems a bit far fetched.

                              I do think, McNaughton was working from memory, and given its tendency to warp facts over time, his apparent strength of conviction towards MJD may well be overstating the implied weight of the information he had been given. That said, I do think he received information that connected a suspect to the murders and this information came from someone close to that suspect. It is possible, though, the suspect was not even MJD but the transfer of information would have been around the time that MJD was found dead in the Thames (which could result in a memory "transfer", linking the passing on of information from the original suspect to MJD). That's a bit stretched, though, and of course it's just a possible hypothesis (and not one I'm even pushing, just one of many hypothetical situations that could be true).

                              In short, the MM is a rich source of ideas that needs to be tackled by research. Unfortunately, research is a slow and time consuming process, so the fact that nothing has yet been found to clarify important questions like 1) what was the private information he received? 2) who was the source of this private information? 3) when was this private information made available to MM? Until we can nail those down, the possible answers are like hunting a specific snowflake in the wind - there's too many to hold that are moving to fast to see clearly and they are too quick to melt to inspect more closely, so you never know if you found the right one.

                              Dismissing the MM entirely is wrong, because it does suggest potentially interesting information may be out there and there's enough information in it to compare things to. Relying on it as a solution, though, is also wrong because the information it contains is too flimsy, and clearly it contains some factual errors, probably due to him working from memory. But we can't be sure how deeply, or shallow, those memory errors run. That again is where research is the tool by which we hope to address those gaps in our knowledge.

                              What answer research eventually provides us, if any, is neither here nor there to me, if it were to definitively prove MJD was JtR, then that would be obviously very interesting, but if research demonstrated that McNaughton's information was, in fact, not as impressive or convincing as it is implied, then that too would be very interesting. It is the unveiling of the truth that is important more than what the truth turns out to be. When our view shifts to placing the importance on what the truth should be, then we start supporting Royal Conspiracy theories, and other such flights of fancy.

                              - Jeff
                              Excellent post Jeff. To dismiss the document out of hand would be just as grievous an error as it would be to claim that Druitt was definitely the ripper. It’s also worthy recalling of course that Mac mentioned, on the occasion of his retirement in 1913, that the ripper committed suicide so he appeared to maintain his suspicion of Druitt.

                              This is also intriguing of course:

                              “I have destroyed all of my documents and there is now no record of the secret information which came into my possession at one time or another.”
                              Regards

                              Herlock






                              "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                                It is possible, though, the suspect was not even MJD but the transfer of information would have been around the time that MJD was found dead in the Thames (which could result in a memory "transfer", linking the passing on of information from the original suspect to MJD).

                                Excellent Jeff!



                                The Baron

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X