Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
    Your reference to McClean and Burgess etc only highlights one type of example. Even two years ago, UK policemen were charged with breaking the OSA.
    The act seems to have changed a fair bit since the 1889 version.

    And libel? No.
    Yes, I don't believe it is possible to libel the dead.

    But the law regarding the OSA, and not just MM. ALL of them?.. Yes.. . I've posted (above) the OSA 1889, and when read through carefully, the word "knowledge" becomes important, as well as "documents" or papers. Have a look at the penalties....

    ....simply put, the OSA protects the truth from coming out.
    The phrase that seems important to me in relation to said knowledge or documents is "ought not, in the interest of the State, to be communicated at that time". Or, in the breach of official trust section (which seems the likeliest to apply) "ought not, in the interest of the State, or otherwise in the public interest, to be communicated at that time"

    Why would revealing the truth about a suspect beyong the reach of justice be against either the interests of the state, or the public interest?

    Comment


    • It just seems that with this all encompassing scope and intention of the OSA, if it effectively had such a broad net, it would have been almost impossible for any ex-policeman or official to have written their memoirs. And why would anyone have bought them if theyd known because Id OSA restrictions most of the names and even some facts had been changed to leave them little more than works of semi-fiction?
      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 Herlock Sholmes View Post
        It just seems that with this all encompassing scope and intention of the OSA, if it effectively had such a broad net, it would have been almost impossible for any ex-policeman or official to have written their memoirs. And why would anyone have bought them if theyd known because Id OSA restrictions most of the names and even some facts had been changed to leave them little more than works of semi-fiction?
        Hi Sherlock

        Bang on. My point exactly. No real name of any real suspect could be used. Bearing in mind, of course, that promotion of memoirs was almost non existant back then.
        I suspect that libraries were the main source of finding such books.

        Hi Joshua,

        Basically, to answer your pertinent question, I offer this... That the murder series were never solved. It was still an open case, not closed (although the files were). This must limit the amount of truth, it would restrict, for example, the "over 100 names" in the (now) missing Suspects file.
        So none of those names, nor any other suspect for that matter, could be named. Truthfully named, that is.


        Phil
        Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


        Justice for the 96 = achieved
        Accountability? ....

        Comment


        • Phil.

          The corner stone of your OSA argument, or at least the point you keep returning to is the use of real names.
          This being a Druitt thread, the implication must be that you question Mac's naming of Druitt, Kozminski & Ostrog as suspects.
          Yet, as I reminded you earlier, Mac. did not publicly name these suspects, they only appear in his
          'confidential' report, not for public eyes.

          As for whether the Home Office are permitted to see 'confidential' Scotland Yards files, you know Matthews was Warren's superior at the Home Office.
          You must also remember the public rebuke of Warren by Matthews, when (without Matthews permission) Warren wrote a piece for Murray's Magazine exposing certain internal details of the force for public consumption.
          Henry Matthews is the superior of the Police Commissioner, and most certainly has the required clearance to read any 'confidential' CID file.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
            Phil.

            The corner stone of your OSA argument, or at least the point you keep returning to is the use of real names.
            This being a Druitt thread, the implication must be that you question Mac's naming of Druitt, Kozminski & Ostrog as suspects.
            Yet, as I reminded you earlier, Mac. did not publicly name these suspects, they only appear in his
            'confidential' report, not for public eyes.

            As for whether the Home Office are permitted to see 'confidential' Scotland Yards files, you know Matthews was Warren's superior at the Home Office.
            You must also remember the public rebuke of Warren by Matthews, when (without Matthews permission) Warren wrote a piece for Murray's Magazine exposing certain internal details of the force for public consumption.
            Henry Matthews is the superior of the Police Commissioner, and most certainly has the required clearance to read any 'confidential' CID file.
            Hi Jon,

            I will remind you, respectfully, that those names were also on the Aberconway version. "supposedly" advanced as the first draft of the confidential Memorandum.
            THAT version, was in private hands. Family hands. Not police hands. Ipso facto, public eyes outside of the department of the CID. AND I also respectfully remind you of the errors in both versions.
            Amazing that Mac c*cked up facts on an official 'confidential' version, supposedly sent to superiors.
            Utterly amazing.

            You are trying.. I will grant you that.. Trying hard, to dismiss the OSA. I suggest that because its a thorn, it is irritating.. Because it upsets the time offered history.

            The MM has holes in it. The Druitt details as presented, are in some cases very wrong. Now.. You can "explain" them away as much as you wish.
            The OSA explains those anomalies.. Also ALL such anomalies from others.. Anderson and Co included.
            The OSA covers them all. That way, none of them are incompetent.


            Phil
            Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


            Justice for the 96 = achieved
            Accountability? ....

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post

              Hi Jon,

              I will remind you, respectfully, that those names were also on the Aberconway version. "supposedly" advanced as the first draft of the confidential Memorandum.
              THAT version, was in private hands. Family hands. Not police hands.....
              Hi Phil.

              There is nothing unusual for government officials to take their work home with them, or work at home on some official business.
              The fact they may bring files home, or create an official document at home from private information cannot be used to suggest their work is publicly available.
              The Aberconway version, likely the draft of the official document, is not in the public domain. It was never published, or quoted from by Sims, or in any press interview. Officials view their home as an extension of their office, this is true from the highest government official down to the police detective. Trust is integral to their position, whatever they work on at home is treated with the same degree of confidentiality as if at work. You may think this is not right, be that as it may, this is not unusual at all. And, working on official documents at home is a world away from contravening the official secrets act.
              The state is not in jeopardy, neither is public safety.

              You are trying.. I will grant you that.. Trying hard, to dismiss the OSA. I suggest that because its a thorn, it is irritating.. Because it upsets the time offered history.
              The OSA is not irritating Phil, it just doesn't apply to the memoir, and where it may apply to his report, there is no contravention.

              The MM has holes in it. The Druitt details as presented, are in some cases very wrong. Now.. You can "explain" them away as much as you wish.
              The OSA explains those anomalies.. Also ALL such anomalies from others.. Anderson and Co included.
              The OSA covers them all. That way, none of them are incompetent.
              Phil
              If what you say is true, then the official report should contain no errors. There's no need to lie or misrepresent any facts to his superiors. In fact that would be counter productive and could result in Matthews taking him to task about it.
              Mac. would be inviting trouble for himself.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                The OSA is not irritating Phil, it just doesn't apply to the memoir, and where it may apply to his report, there is no contravention.
                Hi Jon

                That is your opinion only..I hope?

                For I see you've decided what may or may not apply, and have the legal whack to determine that there is no contravention either... Hmmm.

                Opinion is fine, I've no problem with that..
                But potential law breaking decisions in justice of such calibre? Unless, of course, you are a highly qualified High Court judge with experience in such matters? If so, my apologies!

                ​​​I'm not so quick to dismiss it. I leave it as an open possibility. And what parts it contravenes, if any,I might add.


                Phil



                Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


                Justice for the 96 = achieved
                Accountability? ....

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                  If what you say is true, then the official report should contain no errors.
                  Hi Jon

                  Now you have hit the nail on the head. Excellent.

                  Having so many errors, and not being addressed to any person nor department, and having, in 1966, when first seen, not been officially stamped with a file reference number, nor countersigned as, seen by any other person nor department.. (like all others in the files)

                  MM didn't have a clue it seems. High ranking policemen passing such judgement on an oh so important case, would be expected to get his facts right, when passing on a memorandum to "supposedly" higher authorities.

                  Ipso facto.. It's hardly likely to be an "official" document, is it?

                  Druitt's candidature therefore is severely weakened, not strengthened, by the Macnagtgen Memoranda.
                  Why? Because it doesn't fit the facts.

                  Just like the marginalia.



                  Phil

                  Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


                  Justice for the 96 = achieved
                  Accountability? ....

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post

                    Hi Jon

                    That is your opinion only..I hope?

                    For I see you've decided what may or may not apply, and have the legal whack to determine that there is no contravention either... Hmmm.

                    Opinion is fine, I've no problem with that..
                    But potential law breaking decisions in justice of such calibre? Unless, of course, you are a highly qualified High Court judge with experience in such matters? If so, my apologies!

                    ​​​I'm not so quick to dismiss it. I leave it as an open possibility. And what parts it contravenes, if any,I might add.


                    Phil


                    Hi Phil.

                    What has intrigued me through this exchange is the question, who told you the OSA is applicable to any of these instances in memoirs where suspects have been named?
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post

                      Hi Jon

                      Now you have hit the nail on the head. Excellent.
                      Hi Phil, again...

                      I don't think that is the end of it though...

                      According to you, because these officials are so afraid of the OSA police coming down on them for telling truths out of school, these officials make up lies about genuine people as a deception????
                      As opposed to say a more conscientious approach and make up a false name, or better still (xxxxxxxxxxx)?
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
                        Having so many errors, and not being addressed to any person nor department, and having, in 1966, when first seen, not been officially stamped with a file reference number, nor countersigned as, seen by any other person nor department.. (like all others in the files)
                        Phil, Doesn't this assume that (a) the memoranda was actually sent anywhere? It has been argued that Macnaghten prepared the report in anticipation of receiving a request for information from the Home Office (or elsewhere) regarding the allegations in the Sun, but that no request came and Macnaghten just stuck it in the files. Hence it had none of the stamps and file references and seen by signatures. Or, alternatively, (b) the memoranda in the files is a draft, perhaps prepared to be copied by a secretary (as some of Swanson's reports are known to have been), the neatly handwritten copy then being forwarded to the Home Office and, if it had survived, been complete with all the the expected stuff.

                        Also, I think I have missed something somewhwere, but it was standard practice to close files for 100 years, in the case of criminal cases this was in part to protect witnesses, suspects, victims, and so forth, in part because the files contained theories, speculation, suggestions, rumours, information about past crimes, and so on and so forth, which couldn't be made public during the lifetime of the people involved. The same reason prevented policemen from revealing the same details in their autobiographies, which is why names and details not in the public domain weren't given. Doesn't this sufficiently restrict what policemen were able to say in their post-retirement writings without anyone having to invoke the OSA? Druitt was never named in any document not intended for limited internal circulation.



                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                          Hi Phil.

                          What has intrigued me through this exchange is the question, who told you the OSA is applicable to any of these instances in memoirs where suspects have been named?
                          Sorry, Jon, but what memoirs that named suspects do you have in mind?

                          Comment


                          • Had the February 1894 Macnaghten memorandum been prepared in anticipation of a request from the Home Office, it would have stumbled at the first hurdle.

                            That Thomas Hayne Cutbush was the nephew of Superintendent Charles Cutbush was demonstrably untrue.

                            All anyone had to do was ask the Superintendent, who didn't commit suicide until 1896.
                            Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                              Sorry, Jon, but what memoirs that named suspects do you have in mind?
                              Yes, agreed, I should have wrote 'recollections'.
                              If I understand Phil correctly, when an official named a suspect (in some footnotes, or recollections) the name used is false, an intentional deception to avoid contravening the Official Secrets Act.
                              One more reason, in Phil's view, that we cannot trust Macnaghten.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Hi Simon, the trouble is that you often need to have doubted the accuracy of a belief in order to seek clarification and thereby discover that it lacks foundation. In other words, if Macnaghten believed that Charles and Thomas were uncle and nephew, which he self-evidently did believe, he wouldn't have sought confirmation unless he had reason to think it might be wrong. He therefore didn't discover his error.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X