The Grisly

[Simon Wood]

Hi Maria,

HoC = House of Commons.

Hi Tom,

Stewart Evans is not necessarily correct.

Regards,

Simon

[mariab]

Thanks so much Tom. Need to really study SY investigates (which is about as big as my coffee table and can't be taken along when traveling).

[Tom_Wescott]

Maria,

Stewart Evans has written a bunch of books, so his opinion regarding Warren's resignation is on record. He subscribes to the official explanation, i.e. Murray's Magazine.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Commander Bethell [HoC, 15th November 1888] {...}
The result of Warren's transgression appears to have been a diplomatic nicety: Whitehall looking after its own. Better for Warren to resign on a matter of principle, and be allowed to resume his military career, rather than one of incompetent leadership.

Might I ask what HoC is? Makes sense about November 6th, though I clearly need to spend some quality time with The Ultimate pertaining to the Mitre Square investigation.
I'd be interested to hear what Hunter thinks of this. (SPE's take on this would interest me as well.)

Regarding Schwartz, the idea that he was a club plant originated with me, but all research to this point has not proved it at all. Do I think he was telling the truth? A better questions is - can you prove he was telling a lie?

The research pertaining to this is still in its initial stage. I've got French secret police reports referring to a Hungarian/Polish, non English speaking Schwartz anarchist related to William Wess in 1902, but I need corroboration from a different side. Thing is, the IWEC's anarchist newspaper (Der Arbeter Fraint, written in Yiddish) is very sneaky and vague pertaining to the Club's members. I have a few ideas of researching this further in Jewish databases, but no time presently. It'll have to wait a bit.

I'm afraid it's not possible to prove or even to decide whether Schwartz was telling a lie, the complete truth, or some manipulated version of what happened to Stride on the night of her murder. What I'm trying to figure out is, what agenda would Schwartz (and the Club?) be pursuing with this testimony? On this I might have a notion, which will be discussed in an article.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Tom

Regarding Schwartz, the idea that he was a club plant originated with me, but all research to this point has not proved it at all. Do I think he was telling the truth? A better questions is - can you prove he was telling a lie?

Surely the fact that you felt bound to ask the question in the first place, indicates that there was considerable doubt in your mind...the fact that nobody's found any proof, either way since, (as evidenced by your clearly rhetorical second question) must, therefore, be very reassuring!

Every good wish

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Indeed.

6th November 1888.

An auspicious day for five-week-old explanatory police reports.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

I was more commenting upon those who would sooner take the word of a loaded author than view original files.

The 'original files' show that around November 6th, and investigation into Warren's actions regarding the graffiti sprung up out of nowhere, and a few days later he was out of a job.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

requested materials

Hello Dave. Thanks.

Of course, I may die of old age before my requested materials arrive.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Dave,

Yes, that's a myth. Also, Liz Stride was not dressed anything different from her normal self. Was she dressed better than Nichols and Chapman? Yes, and so was Mary Kelly. Why? Because both typically lived in homes, had more money, and therefore more things. Nichols and Coles got new bonnets, but no one is suggesting they had found the love of their lives; Stride gets a lone flower and everyone tosses out the mountain of evidence which points to her soliciting in favor of a romantic theory that she was on some sort of date. I studied all this and wrote an article for it once that was published in Casebook Examiner.

Regarding Schwartz, the idea that he was a club plant originated with me, but all research to this point has not proved it at all. Do I think he was telling the truth? A better questions is - can you prove he was telling a lie?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Simon,

I bow to your superior knowledge.

I am fully aware that, when it comes to research, you are head and shoulders above the likes of me.

This Murray article is a avenue I am not familiar with so thank you for the nudge. I shall look into it more and revise my opinion.

I cannot say fairer than that.

Regards
Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

My apologies. I did not intend to sound defensive. Also, I do not know the identity of your "loaded author".

The alleged reason for Warren's resignation was that he had contravened a Home Office gagging order by writing an article for Murray's Magazine, but, as was pointed out in Parliament, two years earlier Warren had taken it upon himself to write a similar article for the Contemporary Review but this had not been the subject of censure.

Commander Bethell [HoC, 15th November 1888]—"The ostensible cause of the resignation of Sir Charles Warren was the article he had published in Murray's Magazine. [Mr. MATTHEWS: No.] He did not mean to say it was the real reason; but, at least, fault was found with Sir Charles Warren for writing that article. He wanted to know why that article was thought to be a greater dereliction of duty than other articles which Sir Charles Warren had thought fit to write to other magazines and to the papers? It was only two years ago when there was published in the Contemporary Review a very able article, dealing with the dog scare then raging in the Metropolis, in which Sir Charles Warren clearly showed what the duties of the Metropolitan Police were with reference to that condition of things. Was that article censured? Never a suggestion was made that the Chief Commissioner should not have written that article, yet it was in no way different from the article in Murray's Magazine in the respect complained of. Nor was any fault found with the articles and notices Sir Charles Warren had lately written with respect to the duties of the police in relation to the Whitechapel murders. If it was wrong of the Chief 1344 Commissioner to write the article in Murray's Magazine, surely it was wrong to write the other articles, every one of which was telling the public what were the duties of the Metropolitan Police."

The result of Warren's transgression appears to have been a diplomatic nicety: Whitehall looking after its own. Better for Warren to resign on a matter of principle, and be allowed to resume his military career, rather than one of incompetent leadership.

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

Now Simon,

No need to get defensive.

I don't know what you have or have not investigated, and to be honest I wasn't actually referring to you.

I was more commenting upon those who would sooner take the word of a loaded author than view original files.

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

What evidence is there about the reason for Warren's resignation that I have obviously not bothered to investigate?

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

Just re read my post and it comes across rather cantankerous.

I have just cut the lawn and feel rether flustered.

Hi Monty

Not at all...it didn't come across that way to me at all!

When 3 people call you a horse, its time to buy yourself a saddle.

I think Eddowes may well be a trojan horse...

All the best

Dave

[Monty]

Indeed politics Simon.

Rather than a correct course of action.

Warren is much maligned and a too easy target for those that read the hype and buy into it.

I'd rather make up my own opinion, the evidence is there if one bothers to investigate.

Monty