The Missing Memorandum

[John Malcolm]

"Macnaghten, the second most senior officer in the country"? Not quite.

[The Baron]

"Macnaghten, the second most senior officer in the country"? Not quite.

John,

You are one of my favourites!

Please keep posting!


The Baron

[Lipsky]

I wonder how long you’ve been an expert on the case?

Long enough to smell BS from a distance.
It was the Victorian times, not the stone age.
They had the technology to screen radicals and produce counter-intelligence, but not the technology to screen a bunch of doorsteps and put 2 and 2 together.
But they had the "evidence" against Druitt. I can hardly debate it.
And , Sir, I don't appreciate an argument turning personal.
This being said, and as if that makes any difference or holds any significance, I have been following/studying this case for 25 years.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Long enough to smell BS from a distance.
It was the Victorian times, not the stone age.
They had the technology to screen radicals and produce counter-intelligence, but not the technology to screen a bunch of doorsteps and put 2 and 2 together.
But they had the "evidence" against Druitt. I can hardly debate it.
And , Sir, I don't appreciate an argument turning personal.
This being said, and as if that makes any difference or holds any significance, I have been following/studying this case for 25 years.

Then it’s a pity that they didn’t have your sense of smell available to them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

John,

You are one of my favourites!

Please keep posting!


The Baron

The stalker speaks.

You really are like a child Baron. You jump up and down and cheer anyone that disagrees with me. Do you believe that I Ill-treated you in some previous life? I just can’t understand your obsession with me. It’s tiresome and embarrassing.

Please get a life. Just post. Discuss. Debate. Do what you want but ditch this pointless, troll-like vendetta against me. It’s pointless and boring.

[Scott Nelson]

I have been following/studying this case for 25 years.

25 years? That's not long enough!

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Macnaghten, the second most senior officer in the country"? Not quite.

You’re right of course John. I should have said one of the most senior officers in the country.

[Lipsky]

Then it’s a pity that they didn’t have your sense of smell available to them.

Well, as you pointed out, it was the Victorian times and they all they had was Victorian technology and Victorian nostrils.

[DJA]

I wonder how long you’ve been an expert on the case?

You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Lipsky]

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.

You turned an argument personal, by being rude and assuming a patronizing/fatherly tone without obvious reason.
"Well-meaning but clueless" sounds bloody right.
Please, try to respect the opinions of others, your "patience" or lack thereof is not the measure of politeness for this thread - or any other for that matter.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

It takes years of practical experience to be able to fully assess and evaluate evidence correctly. Many of these senior officers did not have that wealth of experience in doing just that, and very few if any would have taken a hands on role in the investigation on a day to day basis, that would have been left to the likes of Abberline and Reid and those detectives below them in rank to investigate and report back to them. They in turn would report back to their immediate superiors.

The likes of Abberline and Reid and this process are crucial to how we assess and evaluate this evidence from not only MM, but Anderson, and Swanson, because they conflict with each other. We know in later years have these senior officers were all singing from different song sheets, but there is no corroboration to anything any of them say from Abberline,Reid, or any others who were working on the ground. So can it be relied on?

As to MM does it matter what he saw, or if he actually saw anything? because there is no corroboration to what he wrote, and so it is unsafe to rely on him as a source, and what he wrote, and much of what he wrote has been proved to be wrong and misleading. To clear up another issue, I accept he cannot be dismissed because we know he penned two documents, but from an evidential perspective and in the grand scheme of things they are both unsafe to rely on.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

My post #88 which you responded to was directed at The Baron and not at you and yet you felt compelled to respond. The Baron spends almost his entire time on here turning up on random threads simply to make random, mocking comments against any post that I make or opinion that I express. There is a word for this.

You then made to posts #87 and#89 the tone of which was, to use your word, patronising. As if you were simply stating facts rather than opinions. I simply posted an alternative viewpoint.

You have now direct the phrase “well meaning but clueless” at me when it was obvious that I wasn’t using it in regard to any poster. And yet you use the word respect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It takes years of practical experience to be able to fully assess and evaluate evidence correctly. Many of these senior officers did not have that wealth of experience in doing just that, and very few if any would have taken a hands on role in the investigation on a day to day basis, that would have been left to the likes of Abberline and Reid and those detectives below them in rank to investigate and report back to them. They in turn would report back to their immediate superiors.

The likes of Abberline and Reid and this process are crucial to how we assess and evaluate this evidence from not only MM, but Anderson, and Swanson, because they conflict with each other. We know in later years have these senior officers were all singing from different song sheets, but there is no corroboration to anything any of them say from Abberline,Reid, or any others who were working on the ground. So can it be relied on?

As to MM does it matter what he saw, or if he actually saw anything? because there is no corroboration to what he wrote, and so it is unsafe to rely on him as a source, and what he wrote, and much of what he wrote has been proved to be wrong and misleading. To clear up another issue, I accept he cannot be dismissed because we know he penned two documents, but from an evidential perspective and in the grand scheme of things they are both unsafe to rely on.

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

We’re never going to agree on this one Trevor. I accept that we should treat them with caution but not to dismiss them as unsafe because we can’t know if they were correct or night. If we are faced with a, b and c scenarios we can’t just dismiss them all because we don’t know which one, if any, were correct.

I dont accept that you need years of experience to assess evidence. I’m not saying that experience doesn’t help of course. One of the stupidest statements ever made on this subject was by a former, very experienced police officer (I’m certainly not talking about you by the way Trevor) Just because there was no corroboration for Mac’s evidence still doesn’t mean that the evidence itself might not have been valid. We can’t take it to the bank of course but surely it’s worth noting. Can we say for anything like certain that he didn’t see some very incriminating evidence against Druitt but not enough to be certain? I don’t think that we can.

[Lipsky]

My post #88 which you responded to was directed at The Baron and not at you and yet you felt compelled to respond. The Baron spends almost his entire time on here turning up on random threads simply to make random, mocking comments against any post that I make or opinion that I express. There is a word for this.

You then made to posts #87 and#89 the tone of which was, to use your word, patronising. As if you were simply stating facts rather than opinions. I simply posted an alternative viewpoint.

You have now direct the phrase “well meaning but clueless” at me when it was obvious that I wasn’t using it in regard to any poster. And yet you use the word respect.

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".

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.

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.

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).