Casebook Examiner No. 2 (June 2010)

[Ally]

LOL..I am sorry, I just read Marriott's post above. Apparently I am a member of a band of Wescott devotees who apparently thinks he's a demi-god and never says anything negative about what he writes or posts on here.

Seriously, thanks for the giggle Trevs, that truly made my night.

[Monty]

Oh Dear God Trevor, please stop, youre cruxifying yourself man.

Your own theory is flawed, your use of evidence is both factually and historically incorrect.

And then there is the arrogance. Its amusing.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh Dear God Trevor, please stop, youre cruxifying yourself man.

Your own theory is flawed, your use of evidence is both factually and historically incorrect.

And then there is the arrogance. Its amusing.

Monty

So yet again another armchair detective nails his colours to the mast ! Another know all who when it comes to it knows nothing !

I do not intend to engage in any further pointless arguments or discussions regarding this matter. The original issue was with Wescotts essay. But some have chosen to use it to launch a direct personal attack against me personally.

I reiterate the the facts that my obseravtions in relation to the 15 reasons Tom put foward to suggest Le Grand should not be the prime suspect are vaild reasons and I stand by them.

I do not intend to post further on here. However i am happy to converse with any posters who are willing to discuss the case in a sensible objective way via private messages.

[Ally]

The trouble is some of you people can give it but you cant take it !

Indeed.

[Monty]

Trevor,

If you knew me, both professionally and personally, you'd soon realise how foolish you are to label me as an 'armchair detective'.

However I see no need to justify myself to someone whose interpretation of evidence has been proven to be flawed.

Infact, Id back The armchair plod to get closer to the facts than yourself.

Monty

[protohistorian]

Bi monthly....please....please! Dave

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

If you knew me, both professionally and personally, you'd soon realise how foolish you are to label me as an 'armchair detective'.

However I see no need to justify myself to someone whose interpretation of evidence has been proven to be flawed.

Infact, Id back The armchair plod to get closer to the facts than yourself.

Monty

Well you keep believing that !

[coral]

Hi Trevor

I met you at the Whitechapel Society meeting when you came across as someone who could take a great deal of stick & criticism and deal with with it in an amiable way.


To me now you are coming over as a Jekyll & Hyde character - what went wrong?

Coral

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor

I met you at the Whitechapel Society meeting when you came across as someone who could take a great deal of stick & criticism and deal with with it in an amiable way.


To me now you are coming over as a Jekyll & Hyde character - what went wrong?

Coral

Thank you for taking the time to post. You are correct i can take the stick and criticism and deal with it normally. It seems others on here dont possess the same attributes. Certain posters who sit here holding court day after day I feel have crossed the line and gone beyond what is acceptable.

I therfore have responded in a way that i feel is on a par with their actions.
Hopefully this will be the end of it. I am far to busy to become embroiled in these mindless arguments.

Posters whoever they are must realise that whatever they post is open to close scrutiny. If they cannot accept that or they know that what they post will not stand the test then they should consider their options.

This will be my last open posting on here as previoulsy stated anyone who wishes to contact me and discuss the case or any part of my ongoing investigation can do so via private messages.

[Scott Nelson]

No, please don't go Trevor. I just bought your book and I'm getting into it little by little. Would love to discuss it with you. Stay, stay, stay.

[Phil Carter]

Antagonism, argument and Tom Westcott's theory.

Hello all,

I have quietly sat and watched this.

Whatever reason Trevor has, whether I agree with it or not, he has my respect. Whether he chooses to return at a later date or not, no-one can take away the valuable contribution Trevor Marriot is giving Ripperology. Perhaps THE most ground breaking news for decades is hopefully about to unfold, namely the fight that Trevor Marriot is waging with Special Branch, a public authority, for the right to see the closed files, hidden away from the public under the guise of numerous lies for many decades. He has done this ALONE, and kept digging away quietly. Others have been researching the background scenario for ages connected to police and political activity. It is all now starting to bear fruit.

What I cannot, and can never respect, is the seemingly deliberate goading and desire from some people that other people simply go away. It is unacceptable public behaviour, WHATEVER the disagreements of individuals.

This isn't the first time people who have been in disagreement leave these boards. Some (thankfully a minority of people) deliberately goad, antagonise and at times, appear to be hell bent on hounding people away. My honest opinion is that it is unacceptable and has to stop. Because it is splitting Ripperology. Damned good researchers, historians and writers are leaving. That is NOT a good advertisment for Casebook, nor the genre we all give so much time to. It won't win friends saying this, but I dare to say it. If anyone believes the same, then I encorage them to speak up. Because it will split Ripperology if this carries on much longer.

There will always be a diversity of people, opinions. characteristics and feelings on such a public forum. That is fine.

I cannot approve of any action that leads to different people becoming so irritated or upset that they take their suitcase and leave happening again and again.

Whether Trevor's choice of words were correct is one thing, but he has got the right to question theories, as have we all. Whenever anyone presents an idea, they are in line for questions and criticism. That includes Tom Westcott, who presented his theory in Casebook Examiner No.2 recently. Conversely, people have the right to criticise and question Trevor.

But the acidic like nastiness and even pride in being that way towards others, doesn't enhance the reputation of any individual. It actually creates the reverse feeling. Some find it disgraceful, even appalling.

In the last 6 months, there have been a written complaint in Ripperologist over the way some individuals are given a disrespectful treatment, there have been numerous people hounded away from the boards, there has a person leaving because of the contents of private messages being so hurtful that the said person left for a while.

There are those who seemingly revel in it. Some think it is fun. I believe it is poor public behaviour. THE WHOLE WORLD sees what you are doing. It is nothing to be proud of. It is recorded on a serious historical research and discussion web site. This isn't the local primary school playground.

I have just recieved a PM from someone who, Ripperology wise, is poles apart from my own views. In it, it states the following:-

"I get the impression that you are a fair minded person. I do not know how well you know Mr. Marriot, but could I please ask you to have a chat with him, and ask him to return. His contribution is exciting, ground breaking and at this very moment in time, very much needed for the advance of the subject...."

I will ask Trevor here, in public.
Trevor. Please reconsider your decision. You are a worthy and respected researcher and writer. It is my hope that you return, but I respect and understand your decision should you choose to keep it. My very best regards.


Now, as for the thread itself...Tom, I sent you a pm saying where my objections were on your piece. I was told I had "misunderstood" the article. So I will now do it here.

1) Although your research, over many years is very detailed and at times impressive, you have provided little substantial documentary proof of suspicion at police level for your theory. Like it or not, it is crucial.

2) The crux of your argument is based on Berner Street, and no witness recorded has ever given a statement identifying, nor pointing towards Le Grande, the person, as the killer of Elizabeth Stride. But of all the C5, she is the only one I see as being a possible for Le Grande's involvement.

3) AS regards the other 4 of the C5, no nigh on 6ft man has ever been recorded near the victims at the time of the murders. You give the ominous title of a person to potentially be "Jack the Ripper" without even a documented sighting of such a man near the victims at the time of each crime. Mary Kelly's murder, the witness statements pertaining to it, have been gone over with a fine toothed comb. Placing Le Grande there is purely circumspect. Jack the Ripper, as is generally thought of (multiple killer of x women), he is not. Not, at present, on the evidence presented. A 6ft man would stand out like a sore thumb.

4) Even given that he was a violent man, there is no psycological disturbance in his personality in 1888 that shows he was afflicted with that would lead us to believe that he was capable of multiple body slashing cuts, organ removal or such like.

5) Means, motive and opportunity.

a) Did he have the weapons to do the job? Yes. Has he ever been known to use them in such violent tirades against prostitues? No. He collected knives. Period.

b) Motive. If he was a pimp, I doubt if he is going to kill off the very people he is supposed to make money out of. Pimps beat up women, as warnings. They don't get rid of them by disembowelling them. If that were the case, there would be HUNDREDS of JTR like murders since 1888 from every major city in the world during the last 120 years. And quite a few pimps hanging from the gallows.

c) Opportunity. Yes, he was in the general area, but with a bolt hole a mile away from Berner Street (re Colin, JTR forums), he was not NEAR. Yes, he was a member of the VC at a later stage. Yes, he was on the streets. But so were many others, all from the VC, and thousands who lived nearer, who were not.

A very well presented article in my opinion. Le Grande is someone I would putwould on the same par with as Kosminski. Known to be around, no proof or enough weight to link him with 5 murders. I am sorry. That said, I encourage you to keep researching, and write that book. Perhaps you will turn over a stone that reveals all.

best wishes to all

Phil

[Ally]

You know what I find amusing. People who sit there and lament the "appalling behavior" that led to Trevor Marriott leaving, while refusing to recognize that the person on this thread who first indulged in a personal attack was in fact Trevor, himself.

If he can't take it like a big boy, he really shouldn't start dishing it out. But that's typical of egomaniacal drama queens who get their panties twisted whenever their opinions are questioned.

Editing to add: Phil's points against Tom's theories, UNLIKE Trevor's are all valid points. Finally, maybe there will be a real debate about the theory, instead of some spitter screaming CONJECTURE.

[Monty]

Phil,

He'll be back, dont fret so.

Its all part of the show.

Monty

[spyglass]

Well said Phil and spot on.

I like many are excited by the Ledger and possible new leads, and want to be kept up to date.
Is it a jealousy thing with some people?

[Monty]

No Spyglass,

More to do with respect, or rather lack of it on Trevors part.

I treat as I am treated.

Monty