The probabilities of the MM '3'..A possible scenario?

[Phil Carter]

Silence is sublime. It feeds the wall sitters

Phil

So you'd rather make misleading statements of belief?

Sometimes, for the sake of balance, its better to keep ones gob shut until you understand what exactly went on.

I know perfectly well what you said Phil. However it is pretty clear that you have misunderstood the Police stratergy and procedure.

You have also confused the personal with the official.

Monty
[/QUOTE]

Hello Neil,

Well thank you for your interpretation of my words. Which you are welcome to make. You also judge me as misunderstanding of stratgedy and policy.
Judge, jury and executioner eh Neil? How noble.

Yup, sometimes it is better to withold from comment indeed...but you may end up doing that for the rest of your life if you dont try to investigate the whys and wherefores in things. And if you havent got a suggestion as to the possibilities of the reasons etc for the contents of the MM, then to put down others and their ideas from an island of safety is judgemental.

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Actually Phil, I do not delight at all.

Yes, I present facts whereas you speculate on selected facts to fit your views and misinterpret as you deem fit.

You do not present a fair and balanced analysis.

Your type of Ripperology creates myth in my opinion, and that has plagued the case throughout.

Speculate as you wish, just keep the facts untarnished.

Monty


PS you state that I do not contribute. Whilst my contribution has been small, its there for all to see. What have you bought to the table?

[Monty]

Hold on Phil,

You have acted as judge and jury upon the Police seniors of 1888.

How hypocritical.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Neil,

First of all Let me get this straight. You do a hell of a lot of groundwork presenting facts. Good stuff it is too. You have ben praised CONSISTENTLY over quite a period of time from many, myself included.

What I do, is another type of Ripperology. I do not, and refuse to, believe that all the facts are what you say they are...innocent.

Life isn't like that Neil. There have always been people who do things for their own reasons. Some of them do things that are wrong, some are even illegal.

You are welcome to your opinion, and my opinion of fence sitting Ripperology is that it leads the genre down the same road. The same road it has for 123 years. Not exactly "He who dares wins"....

As regards my speculation being the source of facts tarnished, please do enlighten the community and quote where I have in my presentation on posting No.1 tarnished the facts? I look forward to seeing this.

I interpreted some of the facts, which is opinion. I used the word "likely" as my point of opinion.
So comment all you wish, but don't assume the position of judge and neutral if you have already decided and judged that a person is already labelled as something he or she isn't. That tarnishes thier reputation. Allow them to do that themselves, thank you. :-)

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hold on Phil,

You have acted as judge and jury upon the Police seniors of 1888.

How hypocritical.

Monty

Hello Neil,

No, I have given an opinion. ...you judge me if I happen to have an idea or opinion based on interpretation that isn't purely 100% factual. You allow for no freedom of thought. It isn't just me either Neil, you do it to others.

As much as I respect your investigative ideas and powers, your in depth searching... you seemingly sit on an island and call the tune...seemingly putting down anything that isn't A4.
That is hypocritical as well.

best wishes

Phil

[Steven Russell]

For what they are worth (not much probably) my thoughts on the MM are these:

Message from on high - Hey, Mel. What's all this about some fellow called Cutbush being Jack the Ripper?
Sir Mel - Don't worry about it. It's rubbish. Why, just off the top of my head I could name three people way more likely to have been responsible. They are [names his three suspects]. In fact, the more I think about it, the better I like the Druitt chap.

Sir Mel did not seem particularly well informed or was perhaps speaking from memory. This is borne out by his classification of Druitt as a doctor since doctors were suss at one stage. Also his "sexing up" of Ostrog and Kosminski.

To me, the whole document is nothing more than a refutation of the Cutbush theory with the "bottom of the Thames" bit added as a knowing afterthought.
This all seems obvious on reading the document.

I believe Anderson should be taken more seriously, especially if his man is the same as Cox's and Sagar's.

Apologies if this post is a somewhat naive and obvious; I confess I have found this thread a little difficult to follow.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Steve,

Thanks for this posting.
Yes, the Cutbush put-down is possible, as I wrote in posting No.1. Perhaps not exactly in the manner you describe, but then again, perhaps it is. We don't know. Like you, all I did with this posting was to do exactly what you have done, presented an interpretation and a gentle opinion on the MM as a document.
It is inded a shame that The Sun were never presented with the MM. That would have put to bed some of the speculation regarding this.

Thanks for this proposal of ideas.

Best wishes

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Steve

Yes, it could have been like that.

But the 'West of England' MP story of Feb 11th 1891 is almost certainly about Druitt. He is believed to be the Ripper. And to be merely exposed to this tale is to be converted to it.

In 1914, Macnaghten produced the only document about this case under his own name for public consumption. In it the un-named Druitt is the only suspect worth writing about. He also conceded that Druitt was an unknown Ripper suspect until 'some years after' he killed himself -- which matches the MP fragment.

Mac's internal Report, the official version. was seen by absolutely nobody, we know of, until 1966 when Robin Odell scrounged a copy for the second edition of his book.

Therefore an argument can be mounted that Mac's 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' should trump some bureaucratic dodge by a Tory police chief, about a Tory suspect, found by a Tory backbencher -- whilst the Liberals are now in power (1894).

By the way it is not a Memorandum.

It's a Report. Sims in 1903 calls it a definitive 'Home Office Report', when it is nothing of the kind.

It was Mac's daughter, Christabel, who named it a memo because she had no idea what it was, let alone that it was created to show her father's literary cronies and set in motion the dissemination and yet disguising of Druitt to the public, and backdated in my opinion.

[Monty]

Just to clarify Phil, and its something you have done before, I have many opinions which have not been voiced here. However some have. This accusation of me being a Fencesitter is yet another example of a misleading comment by you.

And your reputation is of your own making.

Monty

[Monty]

Hello Neil,

No, I have given an opinion. ...you judge me if I happen to have an idea or opinion based on interpretation that isn't purely 100% factual. You allow for no freedom of thought. It isn't just me either Neil, you do it to others.

As much as I respect your investigative ideas and powers, your in depth searching... you seemingly sit on an island and call the tune...seemingly putting down anything that isn't A4.
That is hypocritical as well.

best wishes

Phil

I'm merely expressing an opinion, isn't that how it goes Phil?

I make no apologise for pointing out the facts. If that's tune calling then so what. I don't care if the stifles the crap which is discussed here on a regular basis.

Take a look at the scenery as you walk down this path of yours. It hasn't changed one jot. What you are discussing now was talked about here many years ago. You are merely repeating. The progression lays with good hard research, not just expressing of views.

There, its been said. Its noticeable that the true progressors of this case rarely contribute to these boards. Where is Sugden, Rumbelow, Skinner, Connell, Arif, Bennett et al?

Some talk, some do.

Monty
,

[Phil Carter]

Hello Neil,

Respectfully.

EVERYONE has the right to air an opinion Neil. Others have no problem with the meaning of this thread, nor the way in which it was written nor presented. I didn't disturb any facts presenting it either. You have the right to disagree with any possibility I present, but please do not assume to know better, based entirely on facts as you see them. Freedom of thought can be just as valuable. Facts are a base from which to work from. And interpret.


Believe it or not... some go and help others without having to mention it in public. Perhaps you'd be surprised. And you'd be surprised as to WHOM is helping WHO, too. Just because you aren't told, doesn't mean that all is what you see here. When you refer to me personally, you have no idea what work is being done outside of these boards. You assume. You'd be surprised. Very surprised, I'd wager.... infact you'd be surprised on what is done from a distance.

Just for your knowledge..there are NO elitists within this genre. Presumption of being better, having done it all before, is not something they would say even if there were elitists either, I'd wager. All are merely enthusiasts of a kind.

Nobody runs Ripperology, and nobody does it in any set way. No "group" is better than any other. There is no A4 method in this. If some take the high road, and others take the low road, it doesn't matter as long as things get done.... and not all that gets done is achieved by taking the road you take.

An example?

Stephen Knight wrote a book or two. He made many mistakes, but in amongst those mistakes were some ground breaking nuggets. His reputation may be tarnished, but his valuable contributions also were noted.
We learnt from him as well as other, more factually driven researchers.
They live side by side.

Whislt you are judging others Neil, just remember the litter you yourself have left behind you, and the mistakes you have made. I would not presume to judge you on those mistakes.

However, as mentioned before, you, and some others, see everything presented to us...the facts as you call them, as totally innocent. Some others do not. I'd wager both groups of enthusiasts are partially right.
I wouldn't say one set of looking at things was all correct. That would seem pompous.

The Whitechapel murder investigation had political undertones running all the way through it. Did the memoranda? That is a question I pose on this thread. Where there is politics, and personal the self-righteousness of persons involved therein, there is always dirt.

I don't know whether you actually realise this Neil, but the complete and utter failure of the Met and City Police in this matter is a fact. They have absolutely NOTHING to be proud about in all of this mess, which they left the innocent with. Not to mention those falsely accused without proof!

Branding "A polish Jew" or Kosminski or Druitt or Ostrog or even Chapman, as "Jack the Ripper", WITHOUT any form of factual evidence, tells me, and many many others much. They didn't have a clue. Reid said as much. Not a "tittle of evidence".
They were covering their backsides to not tarnish their own reputations and possibly even the reputation of the police in general.

These same so-called law enforcement officers at the top of the tree spouted about it in their memoirs and their private annotations, memorandae etc. Whilst ordinary people still lived in the fear of the possible fact that one or more killers roamed free possibly amongst them.

"Relax, he's been locked up. We know who... but cant say who"
"Relax, he's dead, his mind went and he committed suicide"
"Relax, he is insane and in Broadmoor or a such-like institution"
"Relax, he fled the country and lives in South America"
"Relax, we are in total control."
"Relax, we are the best police force in the World"

Try telling that to all those still living in fear left behind. It's called a whitewash.

Yes Neil. I opine. I opine on the suitablility of these men to have even been policemen. Many of the top brass had little or no form of police, let alone beat experience. Major this, Colonel that, Dr this... many of them were not policemen before they were brought in by people who were their friends.

"Ex-army you know...good chap... was in India when I was there you know... thoroughly decent fellow, family with Lord this or Lady that ...all-round good egg, just the man for the job...knows how to discipline his men...what?"... You can imagine it very easily indeed.

You harp on about "they did the best they could given the restraints of the time"...but it wasn't good enough, they failed miserably..and in failing, they also made colossal errors of judgement. Some of those errors are glaringly obvious.

It really is going to "protect and serve" the hapless local poplace, many of whom could not read nor write, had never attended school, couldn't even sign their name, or even, in some cases, speak English... by blowing up a scrawled threatening letter into poster size and put copies up outside police stations, asking people if they knew of any person with this type the writing. Those that could read it, told those who couldn't. And those disgustingly sick words Neil, frightened the life out of people. The very same people who lived day afterday after night after night in utter fear. Protect and serve? These ex-army fellows knew how to show calm to the poplace didn't they? And that was "doing the best they could"? Good grief.

Sir MM had reasons to write that memoranda. Those reasons are looked into in this thread. I invited people to read and discuss the pro's and con's the why's and wherefores. I personally opined that some things were possible, and some likely. I suggested, gently, thought on the matter. It was written fairtly and reasonably. Freedom of expression is like that Neil. It isn't obtuse.
It isn't ignorant, nor is it the be all and end all answer. It wasn't meant to be either.



best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

I've no idea what is going on behind the scenes Phil?

If you really want to pay the pathetic "I know what's going on more than you do" game then go ahead. I won't participate in such unimportant shenanigans.

I will say that I know what is going on behind the scenes regarding this matter and raise you a heads up that you and yours are not the only ones making such inquiries, but hey, what do I know huh?

I do not take to being lectured by someone who expresses respect here but shows nothing but contempt in private.

Regards

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Neil,

Thank you for your reply.

If you do not like the words I use, ok, but respectful they were and the manner was too. It was not a lecture, nor meant that way. Live with it.
I have no comtempt for you at all, actually. Try reading my words of praise for your ability. Try asking ME, personally. Might be better to listen to the cheif engineer instead of an oily rag.

I am not playing any game and didn't suggest at any time that "I did know more than you" Neil. I only said you do not know of some things either. You would be surprised, I'd wager too. That is what I said. No, none of us know it all. Thats not lecturing either. Its logical.
You spoil for an argument. You get calm replies. Sorry.

Have an enjoyable Sunday evening.

best wishes

Phil