Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jumping to conclusions?

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

  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Is this the one about the guy who keeps on writing in with suggestions and wasting a lot of police time? If so, I do recall seeing it, but really never put two and two together before...that is indeed interesting in the context you mention and now I feel a bit stupid!
    -Dave-

    Dave...don't feel that way....most of us , I believe, haven't put 2 and 2 together for one reason or the other...

    Leave a comment:


  • Cogidubnus
    replied
    Hello Howard

    You'll have to pardon my vagueness but my books are currently packed away upstairs pending the construction of my new "den"...(another argument where I won a battle but lost a war - spent all of today dismantling my "wall of bookshelves")...

    I brought up the strange response Sir Robert Anderson gave to the Under Secretary following one of E. L. Larkins's suggestions on apprehending the Ripper in 1893....its in Stewart Evans's and Keith Skinner's 'Ultimate' on pages 460 and 461...Nina and I as well as some other researchers,perhaps, feel it demonstrates that the search for the murderer was still underway, regardless of what Anderson and Swanson posited in the subsequent years ( 1895 onwards). I have wondered why in the past....and I'm doing just that right now...why the response to the Home Office has seldom been discussed among us.
    Is this the one about the guy who keeps on writing in with suggestions and wasting a lot of police time? If so, I do recall seeing it, but really never put two and two together before...that is indeed interesting in the context you mention and now I feel a bit stupid!

    All the best

    Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    1.Indeed, Howard, and that was exactly my point though I should have elaborated.

    2.No way in a billion years can MacKenzie be dismissed outright as a JTR victim except for one thing, namely that JTR was known to be already safely caged.

    3.Do you not find it rather strange that in every single murder of a woman in the East End after MJK that the police bent over backwards to de-emphasize any JTR connection?

    -Stephen Thomas-

    1. After posting, I recalled us talking about this a while back...I remember you mentioning this idea before...

    2. Those who appear to have believed the Ripper had been caught/died/incapacitated/incapable of committing any further murders after Kelly's can be counted on one hand....SRA,MLM, and DSS. Most other officials believed otherwise, particularly those who got down and dirty in the investigation.
    However !
    I brought up the strange response Sir Robert Anderson gave to the Under Secretary following one of E. L. Larkins's suggestions on apprehending the Ripper in 1893....its in Stewart Evans's and Keith Skinner's 'Ultimate' on pages 460 and 461...Nina and I as well as some other researchers,perhaps, feel it demonstrates that the search for the murderer was still underway, regardless of what Anderson and Swanson posited in the subsequent years ( 1895 onwards). I have wondered why in the past....and I'm doing just that right now...why the response to the Home Office has seldom been discussed among us. The concomitant fanfare over the important comments provided by Anderson in 1910 ( for example) does not and has not materialized among modern researchers over the 1893 reply to the H.O.

    3. It can appear like there was an attempt to minimalize the murders at times....but I'm not 100 percent sure about the Mylett murder & Anderson, Stephen....that he felt it was not a murder might have been due to something other than a preferred suspect dying/incapacitation.....and there were two major murders which occurred at least 8 months after Kelly ( Mackenzie's murder) and in the other, 27 months later (Coles' murder)....so the possibility that 'time' had something to do with SRA and DSS's views may exist.....'may' exist.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stephen Thomas
    replied
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    Bond was a brilliant guy but he obeyed his masters.

    After MJK the JTR case was over.

    He was told not to rock the boat and he didn't.


    -Stephen Thomas-

    Contradiction, please.....Bond believed Mackenzie was a Ripper victim.
    Indeed, Howard, and that was exactly my point though I should have elaborated.

    No way in a billion years can MacKenzie be dismissed outright as a JTR victim except for one thing, namely that JTR was known to be already safely caged.

    Do you not find it rather strange that in every single murder of a woman in the East End after MJK that the police bent over backwards to de-emphasize any JTR connection?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cris Malone
    replied
    For some reason its become a question of my credibility - at least in the mind of one poster - than that of Bond's.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Bond was a brilliant guy but he obeyed his masters.

    After MJK the JTR case was over.

    He was told not to rock the boat and he didn't.


    -Stephen Thomas-

    Contradiction, please.....Bond believed Mackenzie was a Ripper victim.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Stephen Thomas View Post
    Bond was a brilliant guy but he obeyed his masters.

    After MJK the JTR case was over.

    He was told not to rock the boat and he didn't.
    yeah?

    Leave a comment:


  • Stephen Thomas
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    When I started this thread it was mainly with Bond's (modern) reputation in the Mylett case in mind.
    Bond was a brilliant guy but he obeyed his masters.

    After MJK the JTR case was over.

    He was told not to rock the boat and he didn't.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    No worries,Dave, It's one of those times when we are all at cross purposes I think!

    Leave a comment:


  • Cogidubnus
    replied
    Sorry Debs...we appear to have drifted away off topic...for my part I apologise...

    All the best

    Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    uggghhh. When I started this thread it was mainly with Bond's (modern) reputation in the Mylett case in mind.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cogidubnus
    replied
    Hi Pete

    No, you were saying the usual glib, simplistic - "Journalists...word prostitutes...discuss at length!"
    Calling it glib and simplistic does not necessarily make it untrue. How many journalists can you identify who publish their words purely out of a simple charitable desire to disseminate news and communicate ideas? To that extent any of us who work for another (rather than being self employed) are prostituting our talents...and that's more or less all I'm implying...

    The Victorian journalist was generally paid according to the column inches he produced...I expect Editors and Sub-Editors worked under different criteria and employed the blue pencil accordingly.

    You most certainly CAN'T, that's not at the police court, that was at either the TRIAL or THE INQUEST
    Just read the apology - THE JURY !

    "But we learn that Mr Bond carefully explained to the jury all the medical or technical terms used by him, while the reporter omitted his explanations; that he was moreover, reported to have said many things which he did not say"
    But from the same apology (my emphasis) "The reports on which we relied of the proceedings before the Coroner, THE MAGISTRATES, and at the trial, were imperfect or incorrect"

    Clearly the Medical Gazette were basing their expressed opinions on more than just one account of the trial...otherwise why drag in all three sets of legal proceedings into their apology, thus, on the surface at least, worstening their own moral position?

    All the best

    Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Lucky
    replied
    Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
    Which was, in part at least, what I was attempting to say in post #17
    No, you were saying the usual glib, simplistic - "Journalists...word prostitutes...discuss at length!"

    You most certainly CAN claim in this case that Bond's evidence WAS understandable for the lay men at the police court because he both stated the nature of the medical evidence technically, and then, (specifically by admission of the apology), explained it again in laymans terms...because, (in this case at least), the Times abbreviated the evidence given, (for whatever reason), the Medical Times and Gazette jumped to a false conclusion and printed the item Debs quoted, which they then subsequently retracted...
    You most certainly CAN'T, that's not at the police court, that was at either the TRIAL or THE INQUEST
    Just read the apology - THE JURY !

    "But we learn that Mr Bond carefully explained to the jury all the medical or technical terms used by him, while the reporter omitted his explanations; that he was moreover, reported to have said many things which he did not say"

    See what I mean, pot / kettle

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Lucky
    replied
    Originally posted by m_w_r View Post
    Hi Mr Lucky,

    You can see what Cris is saying, though?
    Hi m_w_r

    No, I don't think there was any danger that the article could "create an unfound bias from the historical perspective" at all. That's why I called it melodrama.

    If one wasn't aware of the retraction, then one might interpret the original criticisms incorrectly - and, if one were to do that, one might well interpret it, quite improperly, in line with one's existing preconceptions. That, surely, is the moral of the story? Isn't it?
    That why I'm pointing out that it's hypocritical of him to do that when he written an article claiming something was mystery when it wasn't, when not a single contemporary source suggests that it was a mystery, and he only thinks it was a mystery, because it's 'in line with one's existing preconceptions.'

    Additionally he's criticising the writer in the Medical Gazette for his choice of the Times as a source, but at least it actually existed, he produces quotes in his article that claim to be from the Coroners Act 1887 which simply aren't there in the version passed by parliament.

    I think the moral of the story is that the proverbial pot never recognizes it's own similarity with the kettle.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Lucky
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Lucky View Post
    Hi Debs

    Wow - an action was brought by a Mr M' Wade against Mr Goodlake, as the printer and publisher of the Times in 1881, in respect of a libel contained in certain legal proceedings in the Queens Bench, which was published in that paper on the 6th December 1878.

    But, rather than anything to do with the Wainwright trial, this libel was in respect to a summary of a case from a man making an application at Bow Street against his wife, his wife’s mother, and their solicitor for conspiracy, fraud and perjury !!

    The jury found for the defendant before the journalist took the stand.
    Just to clarify, re - the Libel case against the Times' Court reporter
    What the journalist from the Times had stated in his report from the Bow Street Magistrates Court on the 6th December 1878 was false, it wouldn't have made it to a criminal trial otherwise, but the action failed as the plaintiff couldn't prove that this libel was done with malice. This case appears to be of some importance, the Attorney-General addressed the jury, and after the verdict the judge certified for a special jury. The reporter in this case had an experience of 30 years, during 20 of which he had reported law cases in the Supreme Court for the Times.

    So we have the error riddled report in the Times from the magistrates court/inquest/trial that the Medical Gazette used as a source, and we have the report that instigated this criminal libel case, both about the same time, late 1878.

    Were they the same reporter ? - very likely I would have thought - So I wonder what happened ?

    Also, prior to 1881 newspaper reports (in fact all reports) of court proceedings (but not all public meetings) had privilege at common law, but this would give no protection from vexatious writs which seems at least partially the reason for the 1881 Act. I found a article that indicated that this action (by M'Wade against the Times) was alluded to as an example of such (clearly it wasn't). It would be interesting to find out what the special jury had to say, it may have had some influence on the Act passed later that year.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X