Quality - Fitness for Purpose

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho

I'm putting this here as I can not think of anywhere else.

And its regarding various statements, memoranda, annotations and what nots.

For the life of me I cannot understand why people persist (other than their having nothing else to do I suppose) in over analysing ever single letter of such documents. The way they were written surely refelcts the purpose to which they were intended. If the authors had ever known that a bunch of obsessives were ever going to be picking over them for minutae.....then perhaps they would have written them different.

But if Swanson was writing notes to himself, and others were writing memoranda or letters to people who they did not feel would be looking for the tiniest nuances of meaning....then perhaps the strict accuracy was left lacking.

NOt through mistakes on the authors part but because they framed them with the amount of care or work (hence quality) they thought appropriate for the intended audience.

Surely the important point is that Mac....n mentioned Druitt. he did not pull the name out of a hat. He had obviously heard of him in some context.

The exact details are irrelevant surely?

p

[Sam Flynn]

I think that the details are incredibly important in such cases where official records give erroneous information, whether unwittingly or otherwise, MrP.

[Mr. Poster]

hi ho SamF

For a case like Druitt SamF...it hardly matters what the details are. The fact remains that for some reason he appeared on the radar.

That surely is all that counts. Whether that document was 100% accurate or not...I see no "mistake" or inaccuarcy that could have arisen in it that would negate the fact that Druitt was, at that time, in the authors head, a candidate or that would result in us now saying "Ahh no, Druitt wasn't who he meant".

p

[Howard Brown]

Thanks for creating this thread, Lars.

In addition to your fine points and Sam's likewise, allow me to add the third factor here. That being that what is NOT in some of the missives is possibly as important as what is in them.

[Mr. Poster]

This is true How. But that may just be a busy man communicating with a subordinate and not bothering himself to fill everything in.

It doesnt indicate confusion, ignorance, supposition or anything else on his part. Just the natural "skimming" of a busy man who feels his subordinate or whoever he is communicating with is not in need of all information or that whoever it is does not warrant his having to elaborate everything in detail.

We read too much into this stuff.

p

[Howard Brown]

Lars:

Re your points on Druitt within the MM.

The major issue I have with this important document would be the phrase "said to be a doctor" . I can understand that it may not be that important to some, but I likewise cannot prevent myself from thinking that it can't be considered unimportant,if you see what I mean buddy.

[Mr. Poster]

You'll have to indulge me How and further elaborate upon that Pilgrimesque comment.

p

[Currerbell]

One could say the same thing about the GSG!

[Sam Flynn]

For a case like Druitt SamF...it hardly matters what the details are. The fact remains that for some reason he appeared on the radar.

On the contrary - the details are 100% relevant if the reason for any suspect "appearing on (or off) the radar" is based on a poor source of information, speculation, inaccuracies or distortion of evidence - willful or otherwise. It is only in the detail that such factors may become apparent, and this applies to witness statements, books, press reports, and official memos alike.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi SamF

We must disagree there. In so far as a character like, lets say, some chap with a big knife who had a penchant for saying he kills women, goes...I would say that yes, speculation is a problem and is hardly reliable.

But when an innocuous, easy going, not-in-the-public-eye, reasonably successful chap is speculated against (if he was).......then ones ears should prick up and relaise that something of significance lies behind it.

I doubt respectable families and their progeny were prone to being speculated at as being Ripper breeders for no good reason.

Its the context and target of the speculation that indicates that Mc-...n didnt just come across our man.

p

[Howard Brown]

Lars:

I think these missives very important, not necessarily or exclusively the structure,grammatical idiosyncrasies, or the like....but that the source of the statements and data in the documents are of utmost importance. I understand what you mean when you say we "read too much into this stuff" ..but in the case of the MM..that "said to be a doctor" could give one the impression that MM haphazardly threw Druitt into the memoranda as some sort of "filler".

That's the feeling I think one besides myself could get if they focused on that specific phrase made by someone, who admittedly wasn't involved with the WM at the time, but nonetheless responsible for Druitt first being mentioned as a suspect 115 years ago. I agree with you that there's no way we can eliminate Druitt from being considered a "contemporary suspect"...since what Macnaghten wrote may have been known in late 1888...and in the interim up until 1894 his occupation somehow finding its way into the document in error. I, however, doubt that...and I think MM was fed information on Druitt and to me its important to know why, from whom, and when it was first speculated or percieved that Druitt may have been a legitimate contender.

In this instance,this simple little phrase "said to be a doctor" takes on a new life outside the Memoranda itself...to me that is.

[Howard Brown]

The phrase in the MM...may not be as important to some when they take it as part of the whole,Lars...but that phrase "said to be a doctor" becomes ultra important outside the MM itself...because it makes the whole MM look as if they tossed Druitt in the document as filler...at least to me...and maybe others too.

Thats what I meant before bubs.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi How

OK. But why would one not just argue that it was his writing that was inaccurate (ie. in the writing of teh document he just made a mistake and wrote doctor instead of lawyer as the attention he was apying to writing was commesurate with his target audience) as as opposed to his information/recollection being inaccurate?

Perhaps his consideration of the mans profession was a minor point to him?

There is no reason to logically infer that his information was inaccurate.

One can only reasonably infer that his writing/recollection was a bit off.

Otherwise, every time I write a mistake regarding a conversation I had or a recollection.....instaed of writing it off, rightly, as my fault in writing....using the logic being applied here one must always assume the event itself was inaccurate.

Its GH-guilty logic. ie. the recollection of the event is wrong ergo the event was wrong. As opposed to just concluding logically that it was the recollection of the event that erred.

p

[Sam Flynn]

But when an innocuous, easy going, not-in-the-public-eye, reasonably successful chap is speculated against (if he was).......then ones ears should prick up and relaise that something of significance lies behind it.

Not when the accuser gets such pretty basic details as the suspect's occupation hopelessly wrong, and uses the clear language of hearsay in so doing ("said to be a doctor..."), and he compounds the matter by admitting that his information does not come from an official source ("from private info..."). Add to that the fact that he doesn't even qualify the subject as a police suspect ("his family believed..."), and we're left with such an obvious pile of crap that I'm surprised it still excites the imagination.

No. The details are emphatically important, MrP.

[Howard Brown]

I understand you fully,Lars....this was a very good point below ( in my view):

"Otherwise, every time I write a mistake regarding a conversation I had or a recollection.....instaed of writing it off, rightly, as my fault in writing....using the logic being applied here one must always assume the event itself was inaccurate."

I agree. Yet, I think its an inescapable conclusion in one respect when we read the MM...that its important to know whether the mention of Druitt was simply to demonstrate for the benefit of interested contemporaries one of three "better" candidates for the candidature as the Ripper..and by us questioning that phrase to determine whether his status as a suspect still existed in 1894 or whether he had already been dispatched with the Pizer's and Issenschmidt's before the draft of the MM in '94.

In short, how damned good of a suspect was Druitt by 1894? Had he been cleared as a suspect and so forth...and was he only mentioned to show one of three more likely individuals than Cutbush.

Other than the one or two minor points I have with the MM...I'm fine with it.

To me,its not a matter of an event being written incorrectly or that if the event or fact is written to our dissatisfaction we should therefore automatically discount it and call the internal content of a document or missive into excessive overscrutinization nullifying the very existence of the document and dismissing its worth or value to us. Quite the contrary. That the MM is the origin of Druitt-as-suspect on paper or at least the first known and available Druitt-as-suspect reference on paper makes it very important and no nitpicking of the syntax can reduce its importance. I don't so much nitpick at the one phrase...I am curious as to whether the casual reference to his profession is reflective of the Yard's previously made determination that he wasn't Jack The Ripper,but only a better candidate that Cutbush.

Sorry for being long winded.

Good thread Lars..