|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 79
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 8:49 am: | 
|
Chris Phillips,
I'll be oh so very proper for you and post this here. let's see if you can offer an answer.
If the Loftus / Donner version is made up or non-reliable, simply because only those two can attest to having seen it, WHY WAS MACNAGHTEN CHOSEN TO WRITE THE 1894 MEMORANDUM?
STAN RUSSO |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 462
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 9:14 am: |
|
Stan
My answer is that I don't know why Macnaghten in particular was chosen to write the memorandum. If you can suggest an answer, I'll be interested to hear it.
For clarification of the second part of your message, I don't think that Loftus's version was "made up", but I do think his memory was unreliable, for the reasons I've given, and others have confirmed, on the other board.
I don't understand why you say only those two can attest to having seen it. Isn't it only Loftus who gives us a version of its contents? Have you seen a version given by Donner?
Chris Phillips
|
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 81
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 9:42 am: |
|
Chris,
Gerald melville Donner passed away in 1968. Philip Loftus did not reveal he saw this early version until 1972. No one else has come forward to state they saw this document. That is why I said only those two.
The argument that Loftus was revealing a story because of the Lady Aberconway version having been released to the general public, followed by the Scotland Yard version, is directly contradictory to any statements that he was misremembering. If he misremembered, then how does he come up with those three suspects? If he copies the books of the time, where does he get the feeble minded young man who stabbed girls with nail scissors, mentioned by Loftus?
That is the key that ties everything together. If Loftus saw early notes of his friend's grandfather that mention these three suspects, Druitt, Leather Apron and the feeble minded man, it perfectly explains why he was chosen to write a memorandum that was for internal use only.
MacNaghten would have shown his notes to Anderson, head of the CID, and shared his belief in Druitt. Anderson, who everyone places way too much faith in, would have been the one responsible for choosing someone to refute the public comments made by The Sun about Thomas Cutbush being 'JTR'. If MacNaghten didn;t really believe in Cutbush, but mentioned him only as an added extra suspect, he would have been a worthy choice to refute those claims, having researched Cutbush before.
Outside of this, no one has ever offered a reasonable explanation why an officer who never worked a day on the case was chosen to write an internal memo refuting claims made in a local paper.
Yet because no one has seen these notes outside of Philip Loftus, or at least no one has come forward to claim they have, most researchers dismiss it, mainly because of its errors. Of course the Lady Aberconway version is also riddled with errors. And also the 'alleged' Kosminski eyewitness identification has as many errors as MacNaghten's notes on Druitt, yet because they were around at the time most people believe their ideas and statements are beyond question, no matter how many errors they contain.
MacNaghten just was not an efficient detective, and no one has ever stated he was an able officer. Most recollections of MacNaghten were regarding his likeability.
Hope this explains some things. There are no 100% answers Chris, just theory. But that theory has to make some sort of sense.
STAN RUSSO |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 445
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 3:15 pm: |
|
Stan---Hi. I want to make sure I follow you. Are you arguing that Anderson specifically chose Macnaghten because he was already prejudiced against the case against Cutbush? A bit dense this morning. I'm not sure I follow the implications...
"Outside of this, no one has ever offered a reasonable explanation why an officer who never worked a day on the case was chosen to write an internal memo refuting claims made in a local paper."
But isn't this a bit of an exaggeration?
Macnaghten was hired into the C.I.D. in June, 1889. Students of the case are obsessed with the Autumn of 1888. But we know in real life that police investigations go on for years. They kept tabs on Sadler for an extradordinary length of time. Macnaghten's tenure would have encompassed the investigations of Alice Mackenzie, the Pinchon Street torso, Frances Coles, the investigations of Cutbush, Kosminski, Sadler, etc.
|
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 84
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 3:26 pm: |
|
R. J.,
I'll offer the same deal to you then. Why was MacNaghten chosen to write this internal memo?
I believe he was for the reasons listed above. To me, him having been obsessed with the case, which he most certainly was, does not justify Anderson choosing him to write this memo.
STAN RUSSO |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 446
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 5:26 pm: |
|
Stan--
Why should I assume that the memo was "to be seen by no one but police personnel"?
Isn't it likely that someone at the Home Office had questions about the Sun exposure, and wanted filling in?
As for your question...I'm afraid I must decline. My answer cuts too close to the bone. Like you, I speak in riddles. Cheers, RP |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 89
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 5:34 pm: |
|
RJ,
Well how about you understand the fact that the memo was never revealed to the public, and then take that as meaning it was internal. Even Major Griffiths and George R. Sims, both who mentioned it, never mentioned the three suspects by name.
Internal would include the Home Office.
And as for your declination - ignorance is bliss.
STAN RUSSO |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 447
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 6:00 pm: |
|
Stan--
"MacNaghten was chosen to write an internal memo defending Thomas Cutbush, that would be seen by no one but police personnel. " ---S.R., The Maybrick Board, Friday Aug. 20
So now you're including a bureaucrat or two at the Home Office. Excellent, we're making progress.
RP |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 90
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 6:13 pm: |
|
RJ,
Perhaps I am wrong but I consider the Home Office personnel as connected to the police department. The police answer to them and the Home Office is responsible for hiring, pensions, and other matters.
Maybe MacNaghten just decided to write the memo himself and snuck it into the files? Or we could use our powers of observation and see past what has become the generally accepted ideas on this case. MacNaghten was selected to write this memo. Obviously Anderson read it, and someone wanted it, most likely because of Cutbush's familial connection to the former superintendent. If there were any basis to suspecting Cutbush it would not have been hidden in the files for 72 years.
Just an opinion, an analytical opinion.
And if I mix a word here or there from a post from yesterday or the day before I apologize. I know that everyone here is a stickler for the rules and procedures, yet most refuse to look past accepted doctrine.
STAN RUSSO
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 448
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 6:45 pm: |
|
Stan--
Slow day here.
Maybe because of the atmosphere of the boards or the past history of how these boards operate, you got the impression that I was challenging your view. Actually, I wasn't.
I'm still not. I'm merely trying to understand it.
You wrote: "If MacNaghten didn't really believe in Cutbush, but mentioned him only as an added extra suspect, he would have been a worthy choice to refute those claims, having researched Cutbush before. "
Yes; seems reasonable.
Now back to my original question:
"Are you arguing that Anderson specifically chose Macnaghten because he was already prejudiced against the case against Cutbush? ..."
You see... I was wondering if you were heading towards AP Wolf's camp here. I.e., Anderson chose someone who he specifically knew would snub the Cutbush theory. See?
Now I am starting to gather that you are only arguing for the existance of the Loftus version?
Sorry for the confusion, RP
(And actually, I like the philosophy of your last paragraph. Carry on).
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 463
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 6:51 pm: |
|
Stan
Thanks for posting those further details.
It's an interesting theory, but on the whole, re-reading the official text of the Macnaghten memorandum, the scornful way in which he dismisses the idea that Cutbush was the Ripper makes it hard for me to believe that he had previously classed Cutbush as a prime suspect.
Sugden thinks that the report was produced by Macnaghten - the Assistant Commissioner - on the instructions of the Chief Commissioner, to inform the Home Office about the claims in the press about Cutbush's guilt.
I find it easier to believe that Loftus had a confused memory of the memorandum after more than 20 years - perhaps contaminated by his reading of subsequent books - than that Macnaghten started out suspecting Cutbush and "Leather Apron", and modified his views completely.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 464
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 6:59 pm: |
|
PS If we're trying to work out how Loftus may have been confused -
Cutbush is, of course, in the Macnaghten memorandum, but as an "anti-suspect", not a suspect. An easy trick for the memory to play.
But "Leather Apron" could perhaps have come from a book read by Loftus in the interim, particularly if he connected it with a Jewish suspect referred to in Macnaghten's memorandum.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on August 21, 2004) |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 91
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 8:37 pm: |
|
Chris,
I never said he classified Cutbush as a prime suspect. I've always stated that MacNaghten believed Druitt was 'JTR', but listed two other suspects to Anderson, who by 1891 was so bothered by MacNaghten that there were considerations to transfer him to the uniformed branch.
What could these bothers to Anderson have been? Well Swanson tells us it had to do with 'JTR', as MacNaghten "vexed" Anderson, making "undue fuss" about a threatening letter. Putting two and two together, MacNaghten was told about Druitt, his "private info", and was so convinced in his guilt that he presented his findings to Anderson, the head of the CID. Of course the threatening letter had to do with the assassination plot against Balfour, which Anderson must have performed a song and dance to MacNaghten, because this suspect never appears in any version of the memorandum.
I'll have to re-read Sudgen, but if you are stating his belief correctly then he's wrong. In 1894 MacNaghten was only a Chief Constable. He did not become Assistant Commissioner until 1903, so you see how that theory is incorrect. If anybody assigned MacNaghten this duty, to refute Cutbush, it was Anderson.
I don't buy the contaminated by subsequent books theory. If so then why isn't Ostrog named? Why isn't the Polish Jew identified as Kosminski? Too many unanswered questions with that interpretation.
I'm not trying to work out how Loftus was confused. You are. I'm trying to establish that he did see something, and reported it as he saw it.
I guess you don't find it at all interesting that Kosminski is mentioned in the memorandum by MacNaghten. Who do you think gave him the name of Kosminski? It could only have been Anderson. And if you accept that because it makes so much sense, then lets go back to 1891 and remember that both Cutbush and Kosminski were incarcerated within a month of each other. Connection? I think so.
STAN RUSSO |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 449
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 9:13 pm: |
|
"Who do you think gave him the name of Kosminski? It could only have been Anderson.'
Why? Macnaghten was there. He was at the C.I.D. when it all went down in 1891. There's no reason to assume that his information wasn't first-hand.
The phrase "He was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889' might be factual, just untraced.
|
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 93
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 9:35 pm: |
|
RJ,
Go with untraced data that doesn't have any foundation in logic. Kosminski was walking the streets in 1890. I'll stick with analysis that explains rather than poses more unanswered questions. We just have different approaches to the case I guess.
STAN RUSSO |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 450
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 11:19 pm: |
|
The asylums didn't have a one-way door. (example: Issenschmidt) Yes, Kosminski walked the streets, but he was also thrown in the Mile End Infirmary in 1890, (listed in the books as already having been insane for two years) and released again. His initial Colney Hatch admission paper entry list his first attack as happening at the age of 25. Since Kosminski seemingly was born in 1864 or 1865 that could well date an earlier attack (and incarceration?) to 1889. So no, I can't entirely rule out Macnaghten being inaccurate on this point. As for being "untraced", is it more or less or equally untraced than your missing Loftus/Donner memo? Or do we only like our own logic on thes boards? RP |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 94
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 11:44 pm: |
|
RJ,
If you don;t see the difference in our differed opinions then I don;t know what to tell you. I'll give it another shot.
You are saying your guess that maybe MacNaghten knew Kosminski when he may have been incarcerated in 1889, which is unrecorded, would indicate that he got Kosminski's name himself, while I am saying that MacNaghten was given the name Kosminski by Anderson, rather than getting the name himself.
Your analysis does not explain why he wrote the memo. It does not explain why MacNaghten never verified Kosminski if he knew of a first hand incarceration. It does not explain why Philip Loftus only remembered Druitt,but not Kosminski, even though MacNaghten had his name for this early draft if he wrote these early rogh notes around 1891 when Thomas Cutbush, the feeble minded young man, had just been incarcerated.
My explanation, answers why (because Cutbush was originally included in the rough notes), who (Anderson supplied the name Kosminski, giving a name to MacNaghten's Polish Jew suspect Leather Apron) and when (rough notes seen by Loftus/Donner written in 1891 - explaining why he was chosen by Anderson in 1894 to write the internal memo, how he fixed his troubled relationship with the CID in 1891 just before getting transferred to the uniform branch by Anderson (Head of the CID) and also gives a perfect time frame of reference for the emergence of Kosminski as Anderson's suspect).
You choose yours, I'll stick with mine. I like logic that leads toward answers, not toward more questions.
STAN RUSSO
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 465
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 3:41 am: |
|
Stan
I'll have to re-read Sudgen, but if you are stating his belief correctly then he's wrong. In 1894 MacNaghten was only a Chief Constable. He did not become Assistant Commissioner until 1903, so you see how that theory is incorrect. If anybody assigned MacNaghten this duty, to refute Cutbush, it was Anderson.
Sorry - that interpolation of "Assistant Commissioner" was my mistake, based on a careless reading of Sugden's previous paragraph.
But Sugden does suggest the memorandum was prepared on the instructions of the Chief Commissioner.
Chris Phillips
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 279
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 4:41 am: |
|
Phew,
There is a surprising bit of heat in this discussion. Reads like threads on more familiar topics elsewhere.
I was blissfully unaware this thread had been started, and provided AN ANSWER/THEORY on Stan's question elsewhere. On the thread entitled:" Montague Druitt's Final Days".
Well, it was my attempt to answer just WHY Macnaghten penned the Memorandum.
Two further thoughts occur.Anderson's whole police career, and as a lawyer, was bound up in confidentiality and secrecy. He was a wholly political animal.I think the final draft of Macnaghten's memorandum was a little too hot to send to THE SUN, to refute their Cutbush allegations. After all, Macnaghten's chief suspect, Montague Druitt, had never had the benefit of fair trial and conviction. Neither had the other two.Druitt had suicided before arrest was possible, and the other two could not testify
because, if either was Jack The Ripper he was manifestly insane, and therefore, unfit to plead.
Hence, the memorandum was probably read by Anderson....but wait...where are his initials on the draft document? Has he followed bureaucratic procedure and recorded having seen this document?
Why are there no papers to and from the Home Office or the Treasury Solicitor offering opinion on the wisdom of retorting THE SUN newspapers allegations about Cutbush?
Anderson was a qualified lawyer.He would have dotted every "i".
Was the information about seeing the other draft or notes for the Memorandum, by Gerald Melville Donner, quoting Daniel Farson, or did Donner speak to a third party or newspaper ?- I forget.
And how did you, Stan, arrive at Macnaghten's rough draft which Donner claims to have seen, being dated 1891? Have you interpolated that on the strength of Anderson's intention to put Macnaghten in uniform?
For my other thoughts go to the other thread. |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 95
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 8:42 am: |
|
Chris,
Why would the Chief Commissioner assign this memo to the Chief Constable? No matter how you slice the basics lead toward Anderson assigning the refutation of Cutbush to MacNaghten.
John,
I arrive at a date of 1891 because I firmly believe the feeble minded young man was Cutbush, arrested in March 1891, and that Anderson turned MacNaghten's Polish Jew Leather Apron into Kosminski, incarcerated in February 1891. That and the tiding over of bad feelings between MacNaghten and the CID.
Gerald Donner died in 1968. His friend, Philip Loftus, revelaed he saw these early notes to a paper in 1972, 7 years after the Lady Aberconway version was released in print, 6 years after the Scotland Yard version was released. There were a number of books that mentioned the three suspects in the 1894 memorandum, yet Loftus does not list these three suspects, further evidence that these early notes are dated before 1894.
STAN RUSSO |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 11:25 am: |
|
For Stan Russo to understand this I think he needs a clear explanation of the probable situation here.
Forget the idea of 'this early version' as it was probably merely a duplicate of the extant Aberconway version that Donner had; or even the very same document.
There is nothing odd or significant in why Macnaghten should have written the memorandum. He was second-in-command of the CID (under Anderson) and was no doubt delegated to prepare it by his boss.
The series of articles accusing Cutbush had been published in The Sun newspaper and with the public interest this would no doubt have caused the police anticipated that the Home Office would probably require an explanation. Thus the police felt it necessary to point out that Cutbush was not considered a suspect at all and that there were three other persons who, although no evidence existed against them, were nevertheless more likely than Cutbush to have been the Ripper.
When asked to provide a response Macnaghten penned the so-called memorandum. Obviously he first wrote a draft copy (the one preserved as the Aberconway version) that he kept and the family inherited from him. However, when writing up the full official version for submission it was suitably corrected and/or amended by Macnaghten, thus resulting in the slight variations. As the final official version is the one that Macnaghten intended to be read by his superior officers, the Aberconway version should be disregarded as having any real significance as it wasn't the final version intended by Macnaghten.
An analogy here would be a rough article penned by a newspaper reporter varying from the corrected and tidied up version finally submitted for publication.
So, although the Aberconway version might be an earlier version of the official one, it was not necessarily more accurate, in fact quite the contrary.
Obviously the family felt that a document written by their illustrious father/grandfather and mentioning the famous Jack the Ripper case was significant and worth keeping.
Loftus saw the copy in the possession of Donner in the early 1950's, some twenty years before he wrote about it. Loftus read Cullen's 1965 book which contained the Aberconway version. The book also contained full references to Cutbush 'a relatively harmless fetishist who went around ripping women's dresses from behind with a knife.' It also, obviously, mentioned 'Leather Apron' a Polish Jew.
When Donner actually wrote about the 'Donner version' it was in 1972 on the publication of Farson's book (also proposing Druitt) - seven years after the Cullen book that first published the Aberconway version. There can be no doubt that Loftus's 20-year-old memory of the 'Donner version' and the 1965 rendering of the theory by Cullen resulted in confused memories.
What is really significant and another indicator of the fact that Macnaghten modified his draft version, before committing it to paper in the official version, is that in the former he clearly stated his own preferred suspect, Druitt, whereas in the official version he showed no such preference listing them all merely as 'any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush.' So it didn't matter if Anderson's preferred suspect was a Polish Jew, as Macnaghten himself did not show any bias in the version his boss saw.
The description of Macnaghten as 'an officer who never worked a day on the case' is totally irrelevant. When Macnaghten assumed his post at Scotland Yard in June 1889 the Ripper files were very much still open and active and Macnaghten would have had constant access to the lot. He would have seen much more than anyone here has ever seen on the case. As second-in-command of the CID he was an obvious choice to write the counter-reply to the claims of The Sun newspaper.
The Macnaghten memorandum, despite a few irrelevant (in the context) errors ably fulfilled its purpose - that of demolishing the sensational claims made by the newspaper against Cutbush. In the event, it would appear, it was never actually needed and we are fortunate that it has survived.
There can be no doubt that the best sources of information available to us today are the official ones. Maybe not 'impeccable' but certainly the best. And '37 Jack the Rippers'? I don't recall seeing '37 Jack the Rippers' in the official reports that I have seen.
There was only one policeman who ever claimed that he knew who Jack the Ripper was - that was Anderson.
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 9:43 am: |
|
My first foray into Casebook - the first of many, I hope.
I thought this an interesting thread to start with.
I think there are some things that can be said about the Macnaughton Memoranda that have not been said here (or anywhere else, as far as I know) but which might throw a relevant light on this issue.
To answer the question at the start of the thread: Melville MacNaughton (MM) wrote (or rather, to use the technical jargon) "drafted" the document because he was the relevant "desk" or "case" officer.
It would be, I think, to misunderstand the way the system worked, to believe that Anderson would specifically have had to ask or task MM to do this. MM's responsibilities in his post would have included ensuring that Home Office Ministers had appropriate briefing on matters of topical concern - ie what was in the papers or being discussed on that day. In this case "Cutbush" and assumptions about him being "The Ripper" were doing the rounds.
Remember that in the 1890s people were still accustomed to writing in longhand, and often wrote voluminously - especially personal letters - sometimes keeping copies for themselves and their records as well as sending the original to its recipient.
Even today, UK civil service docments usually go through a prolonged drafting process with a number of iterations to ensure that the discussion is factually correct, level in tone, succinct,etc. Sometimes the minute or memorandum will go through a series of circulations with specialist colleagues or senior officials commenting on and amending the draft.
In this case, rather than delegate the work to a subordinate, MM apears to have decided to do the work personally. Maybe it was a "slow" day with not much happening (the pace of Government business was MUCH more relaxed then than now); maybe MM felt he was the "expert" in the JTR case; maybe there was an element of confidentiality about this - given the Cutbush/police connection rather than Whitechapel concerns.
Now this was NOT a letter, it is clearly a memorandum (memo or minute for the file. It was not intended to be sent to "The sun" or anyone else. Anderson probably never knew it existed, would almost certainly never have seen it. If he needed briefing he called MM in. What MM almost certainly had in mind was, given the potential sensitivities of the Cutbush case, that Ministerial briefing might be urgently called for if Questions were asked in the House of Commons. the memorandum would have ensured something existed.
Now let's look at what we have. I don't have my reference books to hand - this is typed at work - but from memory we have 3 (THREE) versions of the memorandum which are known, each seemingly different. These are:
a) the Loftus version (known only by hearsay and said to be "rough notes or jottings");
b) the Aberconway version - found among MM's personal papers;
c) the file copy now in the National Archives.
My theory is that these represent respectively:
a) MM's initial "scribbled" notes as he got this thoughts in order;
b) the first draft (which he retained for his personal reference);
c) the "fair" copy for the file, from which he has excluded much of the personal opinion, emotion etc which appear in (b).
So far as facts are concerned, I believe that these three drafts were produced very quickly (perhaps in less than an hour) and without reference to the file. They don't appear ever to have been drawn on or used as a brief by (say) the Home Secretary). If they had been then I suspect MM would have had the facts checked against the file by his junior officials before the brief was finally submitted.
What is amazing to me is not the inaccuracies, but how much MM GOT RIGHT. The major distinctions (say between Druitt and Ostrog) are made - doctors and lawyers are both professionals and the term adequately defines Druitt's place in society. MM also clearly drew on much personal information now lost. His recollection of that information (verbal or written might be as technically imprecise as the facts we can tast, but I see no reason to question the overall thrust of what he wrote - the ethos of a Victorian functionary like MM would have made him very concerned about providing reliable advice and he certainly would not have lied or made anything up.
I hope what I have said might be of use or provide illumination for some of you. I am new to this Board, so if I have said anything out of order please forgive me and tell me. If you want to come back on any points I have made (based on many years of experience with UK Government); or have questions, then feel free to respond. I don't bite.
Regards
Phil |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 637
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 9:34 am: |
|
Phil,
Thanks for the insightful and well-written comments. If Macnaughten wasn't using the file to compile his memorandum and since he was not personally involved in the investigation is would stand to reason then that he is merely passing along second-hand or hearsay information. One wonders whose thoughts this information represents.
Andy S.
|
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 9:51 am: |
|
Why is it that so many people cannot spell Macnaghten's name correctly? Macnaghten was part of the original investigation as it was still ongoing when he came into office in June 1889. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 10:42 am: |
|
Thanks for your kind response to my first post, Andy. It's encouraging to know that someone as experienced as you felt it worth reading and replying to. 
Though he may not have referred to the file directly when composing his thoughts, I am sure that Macnaughton had read it in the past and retained a good memory of its contents.
He was known to have an interest in the Whitechapel Murders and may have made it is business to ask questions not only within Scotland Yard, but more widely, to gain an insight into a notorious and unsolved case. Given his comments about private information, I think this highly likely. In my view he gained access to information (possibly both oral and written) either at first or second hand, possibly through social connections.
My reading of the Victorian character and of public servants of that period in particular, is that they would have meant EXACTLY what they said, though their words need looking at carefully and with a knowledge of the meaning or words in 1888. This precision is in part the reason for multiple re-writings of the memorandum.
If Macnaughton used second hand or hearsay information in his final version of the memorandum it is to me proof that he believed what he had been told, or felt it relevant. this is not gossip, but a professional policeman setting out the position as he saw it.
Something I should have added in my previous post is that, although much has been made of the accuracy of the information (Druitt as doctor not lawyer) this was entirely intended as background. No policeman, official or politician (least of all the Home Secretary) was going to say a word in public of the information included by Macnaughton in his memorandum. After all a charge, and trial might have come along - so the information was in a sense sub-judice.
The line to take in the House or elsewhere (if the Cutbush as JtR claim been raised and pressed)would almost certainly have been: "The authorities are aware of several persons who are, in their view, more likely than Mr Cutbush, to be the murderer."
On that basis, the memorandum set out (for the Minister or official concerned) the reasons why it was safe to make that statement. The absolute accuracy of the information in those circumstances is less crucial that the overall THRUST of the argument. THAT is what MM captured.
Hope this makes sense,
Phil |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 638
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 4:21 pm: |
|
AIP,
What I of course meant was that Mcnaughten was not involved in the initial investigation, this being the hunt for the killer while the murders were still taking place and Macnaughten not joining SY until 1889. As to the spelling of his name, I'd advise you to lighten up a bit. No one seems to be able to spell my surname correctly, either. I doesn't bother me that people misspell it and I'm reasonably sure that Sir Melville is not bothered by my misspelling his name at this late date. 
Phil,
Again, you make some helpful points. What's your take? Is Sir Melville indicating that he believes the murderer to be one of the three suspects he names? Or is he merely mentioning three suspects who happen to be more likely suspects than Cutbush?
From the way it is worded it almost seems to me that Sir Melville is discounting the three suspects he has named -- tho stating that "even these" are more likely suspects than Cutbush. There is something about the tense and mood involved in the wording "would have been more likely than Cutbush..." that almost seems to make the proposition that one of these three is the murderer into a "contrary to fact" statement, i.e. that none of the three is really the killer and yet they are more likely suspects than Cutbush.
On the other hand, Macnaughten later wrote that he had a "very clear idea who he was." He also wrote that the killer probably killed himself after the Kelly murder, which of the three named suspects fits only Druitt. Also, going back to the memorandum, Macnaughten writes that the murder probably either committed suicide or was committed to an asylum by relatives. This is tantalizingly offset by the remark concerning Druitt that his family believed him to have been the murderer and he did ostensibly commit suicide. Is Sir Melville favoring Druitt? What do you think?
Andy S. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 5:25 pm: |
|
Andy,
At this remove its difficult to say. I think MM may have liked to drop hints - Druitt may have been a convenient smokescreen (hints to drop if people questioned him socially), or he may really have thought him the killer.
On what MM MEANT, I think one has to go back to the context. In writing the memo he had no need to name a killer. He explicitly says - as you rightly pick up - that even these are more likely than Cutbuch. His purpose in writing AT THAT MOMENT was (IMHO) solely to rubbish the current newspaper suggestions regarding Cutbush.
On the other hand MM retained his rough notes and seems to have briefed (people like Sims) thereafter on the basis of what he had written. was this a smokescreen, or what he believed?
We now know that Ostrog for one is a most unlikely suspect, but Druitt still has potential (again IMHO) and one can at least see why attention might have focused on him. Kosminski too is now known to have been favoured by Anderson (as stated specifically by Swnason) so these were definitely suspects at the time. Why ostrog was I cannot yet fathom but no doubt the police had good reason in 1888 and after.
The other (to me very real) possibility, is that the police were sensitive to something, either a "political" Fenian connection; or a mistake (the loss of Tumblety perhaps). In either case, MM might have been seeking to use plausible but secondary suspects to mask the ones who were really under the microscope. I am not talking conspiracy here, nor the hiding of a famous name, but a more prosaic and practical desire to divert attention into an alternative train of thought.
Was that why MM wrote the memorandum and put it on file - to provide a focus of some names/any names for curious colleagues without a need to know?
All supposition. But I think that everything MM said was genuine - it may just not reflect the whole truth, as his wording (picked up by you) suggests!!
AIP - my apologies if my mis-spelling of MM's name offended you. It would me - I believe that accuracy in this study (often so noticeably absent) is crucial. I can only plead that I was at work when i wrote, without my reference books, and took the spelling as previously noted in the thread. I should have checked. You have the right of it.
Regards
Phil
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 10:34 pm: |
|
Mr. Russo asked: "Why was MacNaghten chosen to write this internal memo?"
Mr. Palmer responded: "As for your question...I'm afraid I must decline. My answer cuts too close to the bone. Like you, I speak in riddles..."
>>An interesting question. If Anderson had kept the Hove identification secret, then he might have been giving out partial information concerning Kosminski for the first time for the purposes of this memo. If it had been a secret, why break silence? By doing it this way, he gets to put Kosminski's name in police records while taking the minimum of personal responsibility for the matter at the time. Perhaps McNaghten was being used as a secure messenger. The promises made to Kosminski's family would be kept, since the memo was confidential. But with Kosminski's name in the records, Anderson has succeeded in memorializing his apprehension of Jack the Ripper, in a manner of speaking. A proud moment for him. If in some far day information were to come to light that Kosminski had indeed done the crimes, then the name in the old files would ring true, and Anderson perhaps would be identified as the solver of the murder series.
Is this what you were going for, RJ?
David
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 7:31 am: |
|
I see nothing in the memorandum - and we can see its evolution through the three versions, from rough notes to file copy - that indicates that MM was being aconduit for anyone elses views.
He states what he is doing - setting out the identities of three suspects MORE LIKELY THAN CUTBUSH to have been the Ripper. I perceive no difference between his references to Kosminski and those to Ostrog or Druitt. They all seem to emerge from his recollection of the file, in the same way, and the details are edited in successive drafts. I think the tone and style would differ more if he was inserting details provided by someone else.
That is not to say that the memorandum may not be a smokesceen for more sensitive names (maybe a Fenian connection; or the loss of Tumblety) but not I think Kosminski.
Phil |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 5:34 pm: |
|
Mr. Hill wrote:
"...They all seem to emerge from his recollection of the file, in the same way, and the details are edited in successive drafts."
>>WHAT file? McNaghten's own previous memorandum files? Who put the original information into that file? Where did it come from? No evidence exists there ever was a police file mentioning Kosminski beyond McNaghten's memoranda. Kosminski was NOT arrested, and there is NO evidence that Anderson or anyone else EVER recorded information about him in a police file. Therefore McNaghten was NOT remembering from a file concerning Kosminski, unless from his OWN file, and therefore he WAS a conduit for someone else's oral advice to him concerning this person. All simple enough stuff.
|
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 3:42 pm: |
|
The 'n' in Macnaghten's name is lower case, not a capital. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 5:10 pm: |
|
We simply don't know what files may have been lost over the years by simple weeding and regular destruction. It can be inferred, however, that MM was drawing on SOMETHING. We know he maintained and later destroyed his own archive, do we not? He may have drawn on that. But somewhere, Kosminski papers must have existed, that much is clear. Anderson's remarks as well as MM's lead to that conclusion - such ment o NOT reply entirely on oral briefing and their own recollection, believe me.
Phil |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 308
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 6:54 am: |
|
Some posters on this thread are theatening to explode like an anarchistic serial killers bomb!
Let's all agree on a couple of things:
just like the spelling of his name, Macnaghten was "non U" with professional beat-bashers;
but, his leaving the Memorandum for us all to find
was, (unlike the first "N" in his name), capital! |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 7:13 am: |
|
A nice mnemonic, John. Thank you. I shall remember in future even if my sources are not around to check!!
Phil |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 1:54 pm: |
|
Mr. Hill wrote:
1. “We simply don't know what files may have been lost over the years by simple weeding and regular destruction.”
>>If we simply don’t know, then we simply don’t know. We don’t know if some files WERE weeded out or WERE NOT. Therefore if we want to theorize, we can’t assume some were weeded out unless we somewhere find a corroborating perspective. I don’t see any way to do this.
2. “It can be inferred, however, that MM was drawing on SOMETHING. We know he maintained and later destroyed his own archive, do we not? He may have drawn on that.”
>>Perhaps he did have his own archive, and he drew on that. But we don’t know from whom or from where he got the information to put into that archive. Perhaps it was hearsay, perhaps not. It would be wrong to assume either way without a corroborating perspective.
3. “But somewhere, Kosminski papers must have existed, that much is clear.”
>>The logic progresses illicitly here. You go from first talking about how there might have been official police files we don’t know of weeded out (#1) to there apparently were official Kosminski police files (#3.) There is NO empirical evidence that there were official Kosminski files. This is trick logic, it seems to me.
4. “Anderson's remarks as well as MM's lead to that conclusion - such ment o NOT reply entirely on oral briefing and their own recollection, believe me.”
I read the typographical error as “…such men do NOT rely entirely on oral briefing and their own recollection…” Just because Macnaghten may have been using some written information doesn’t mean it was OFFICIAL. It could simply have been what Anderson had told him. What remarks of Anderson do you refer to that leads you to your conclusion? I don’t find any.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1357
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 3:35 pm: |
|
I only have one "thing to say" here so i will keep it brief.
i really don't think there is a lot to "gain" why is everything down to anderson. Was he some God like figure? |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Mr Radka - you seem to like formality. Phil is fine for me.
I don't think the logic is false at all.
Reason insists that more files existed in 1888 and around that time than exist now - the notebooks Anderson reviewed on his return from sick leave for instance. Every Government department has policies on file retention and destruction, with regular reviews and retention periods for all but "public records" (ie what is needed for clear historical purposes). It is perfectly logical to assume that we do not now have all the information available to Anderson, MM, Swanson etc. one could even go so far as to reconstruct at least the nature of some of the lost material. When I said we don't know - I meant in PRECISE not general terms.
Thank you by the way for correctly amending my mis-typing. I was in a hurry to take the cat to the vets!!
We KNOW MM maintained his own archive and had his own sources because he and others testify to that. the Aberconway draft of the memo is a surviving fragment - his retained copy of the file fair version.
Since Anderson, MM and Swanson all refer to Kosminski, it is reasonable to inder an "ur" kosminski "database of some sort - in Victorian terms a "file".
Andersons remarks are the ones we are all familra with about the case in his articles and book. Where's the problem?
And your point is, Mr Radka?
Your tone and your lack of conclusion confuse me.
Phil |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 8:12 pm: |
|
Mr. Hill seemed interesting at first. But after reading several of his posts, I don't think we're going to learn anything about the Whitechapel murders from him.
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 666
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 12:47 pm: |
|
Phil,
With a proposed "Ur-Kosminski" document, would there also be a "Proto-Druitt?" Have we our own Synoptic Ripper theory here? Where's "Q"?
Seriously, your reasoning seems mostly sound to me.
Andy S.
(Message edited by Aspallek on December 09, 2004) |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 150
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 2:20 pm: |
|
"O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!"
Mags
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 5:09 pm: |
|
Well, thank you for writing me off so quickly, Mr R!!!
Actually, I agree you probably won't learn much about the Whitechapel murders from me - I wasn't there. I'm old, but not THAT old!! Oh, and no I didn't do it, before you ask.
Neither will you learn much from me through original research, since I have neither the time nor the talent for such work. I do very much appreciate the work of others however.
As someone who has taken an interest in the mystery for around 40 years, I think I have as much right to post here as you or anyone else without dismissive remarks based on a few initial posts.
I'd like to say that I find casebook a very congenial site, with a high standard both of scholarship and insight. Thanks to the encouragement of some I fully intend to register and hope to be around for a long time.
My grateful thanks to all who have made me welcome.
Phil
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 421
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 8:16 pm: |
|
Phil,
Yeah, I'm sure you've already noticed, but David Radka's opinion holds absolutely no weight with anyone but himself, and even there sometimes I think that even he couldn't honestly believe the things he posts. I think he's following the concept that it's better to be known as the village idiot than not to be noticed at all.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 1:50 am: |
|
Dan - Thank you very much for the reassurance. I had arrivewd at some conclusions about our friend for myself - but I'll keep those close to my chest.
Suffice to say that I am finding the majority of posters here on Casebook VERY congenial company. Every family is surely allowed its eccentric members? isn't it?
Phil |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 315
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 3:11 am: |
|
I think Melville Macnaghten seized the opportunity, when directed to draft a response for the Home Secretary to use in parliament to rebut THE SUN newspaper's allegation that Thomas Cutbush was Jack The Ripper, to do a straw poll of all the Whitechapel-murder police veterans;
review the Metropolitan Police's press clipping books; and to yarn with his crime reporter mate, George R Sims,to suggest that Scotland Yard really knew who did or - most likely did - the Ripper murders.
To my mind, Macnaghten was using the occasion to
boost flagging police morale in parlous times.
His off-the-record memorandum , was not to be read verbatim in parliament, but to be used by the Home Secretary's "Spin Doctors" to formulate
an authoritative statement.
Macnaghten was virtually saying, "No" Cutbush was not the chief police suspect for the Ripper. In fact, they were confident he did not do it, and
furthermore, that three other hitherto unmentioned suspects headed Scotland Yard's list of "Those Most Likely..".
Robert Palmer made a very valid point that Macnaghten had not looked further into the Druitt case. I think Macnaghten relied on inaccurate press clippings (describing Druitt as a medical man in his forties), his straw poll, and his own
unreliable memory to draw up his Memorandum.
Do others think it would have been Munro who nominated him to prepare the parliamentary rebuttal?
One thing I find extremely extraordinary, is the seeming lack of curiosity demonstrated by both Macnaghten and Sims in not looking further into Druitt's background, to learn more the reasons why a seemingly mild schoolmaster/lawyer would lapse into a career in violent sex crime.
Unanswered questions are why the three suspects named by Macnaghten don't have surviving files in MEPO. And why Cutbush was locked up in Broadmoor
with the criminally insane.
The Macnaghten Memorandum raised more questions than it answered and ,I think, was therefor, buried in the file and not used in parliament. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 3:46 am: |
|
The memorandum could NEVER have been used in Parliament.
Think about it for a moment:
a) how could a Minister name individuals against whom no charge had been brought?
b) to have done so might have broken sub judice conventions and put any future prosecution at risk;
c) the information had not been checked against the file, though the argument/line taken is probebly sound enough.
No question was ever tabled. Had one been, the background note existed and could be checked and drawn on in drafting a written or oral reply for the Minister.
Nothing on a file is EVER buried - files are referred to by oficials and used. If not they are archived. Civil servants are not fools and have a job to do - MM was doing his job. Why create unnecessary conspiracy theories? they are not needed and don't fit the evidence when the processes and procedures of the time are understood.
How do we know that MM did not look firther into druitt's background? Sims had no locus to do so. But MM refers to provate information, and to the views of the family (whether directly or indirectly ascertained). he clearly had information - we do not know how he acquired it. Nothing extraordinary there to me.
No one had to "nominate" MM to write the memorandum. It WAS HIS JOB - part of his day-to-day responsibilities. he was required, without further instruction, to ensure that Ministers and other senior officials were briefed and (the technical word is "protected" but don't misconstrue that in a conspiratorial way, it simply means forewarned) of matters of public interest, so they were not caught off guard bu questions. In reacting to the newspaper articles, MM was simply demonstrating penetration and foresight, prime qualities of an official of his rank.
I have adressed the "morale" issue (baseless and illogical) you mention in a separate response elsewhere.
Cordially,
Phil
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2196
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 6:55 am: |
|
Interesting that in the ‘Sun’ interview with Labouchere published on the 19th February 1894 the following exchange took place:
‘Then you would recommend public investigation?’ asked the Sun representative.
‘Yes; If I were Mr. Asquith I should elect a clever officer to look into the matter.’ (Labouchere replied).
This presumably was the clarion call for the Macnaghten Memoranda.
Asquith was of course the Home Secretary of the day.
The timing is kinda cute:
Labouchere interview 19th February 1894.
Macnaghten Memoranda 23rd February 1894. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 662
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 7:46 am: |
|
I doubt that Macnaghten was actually specifically tasked or "chosen" to write his memorandum. As I have said before, it would be one of his responsibilities and given the potential sensitivities might well be something that was done at his rank.
The three known versions of the memorandum hint at the care which went into the wording (not interestingly about Cutbush, so much as about the suspects). At his level, Melville Macnaghten could ensure that the tone and balance were right, and that the line being taken was also one that was suatainable and supported by senior officers. Things would be no different today.
The timing is not necessarily suspicious either, in my view.
The articles themselves meant that the topic was "live", and macnaghten would not necessarily have been aware of the labouchere interview though he may have been.
But NOTE: Macnaghten did NOT undertake a review, not had he been appointed to look into the matter. What he penned was a piece that could have been used as the background note to lines to take/speaking notes to be drawn on by the Home Secretary in the House. As I have noted above it would have been improper for a politician to cite names and details of suspects in a case.
Of course, Macnaghten's memorandum would have leant itself to a line in the House if needed, something along the lines of:
"I am aware of the Hon Gentleman's call for a review. However, it is the view of Scotland Yard that none is needed as several suspects have been identified who are more likely that the person recently named by The Sun as having committed these atrocious crimes."
End of story.
Had Labouchere (Labby) been serious about making a clarion call for an investigation, he had several avenues open to him - including oral or written questions to the Minister, a debate in the House, or a letter to Mr Asquith. All would have demanded a formal and official response.
In the event, Sir Melville's work languished on the file until the 1970s.
While I am open to the view that Macnaghten's memorandum could be a clever piece of manipulation (perhaps in relation to Fenian issues as to Cutbush), I think that probably too much is made of it. Any civil servant would recognise it as routine business.
Phil |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4552
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 8:25 am: |
|
Hi Phil
If the scenario you've painted had occurred in the House, what would have been the minister's reply to the follow-up question asking whether he'd seen the detailed evidence which the "Sun" claimed to have in its possession but hadn't printed for reasons of discretion? Sir M makes no mention of this evidence - not even to dismiss it.
Of course, the "Sun" could have been lying when it said it had this evidence, though I doubt if it had nothing at all - the question would be rather, is the evidence that it did have convincing?
Robert |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1554
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 9:13 am: |
|
Hi all
My belief is that Macnaghten probably was asked by the Home Office to write the report so that the Home Secretary, Henry Matthews, could have an answer ready if a debate on the case arose in the House of Commons. Such a debate was probably anticipated because, as noted, the radical MP and journalist Henry Labouchere had been drawn into the question by the Sun and he was interviewed about Cutbush. In the end, the anticipated debate did not arise and a Home Office response was not called for. Such a scenario readily explains the existence of the memoranda and shows us the probable chain of events that lead to its composition.
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
See "Jack--The Musical" by Chris George & Erik Sitbon
The Drama of Jack the Ripper Weekend
Charlotte, NC, September 16-18, 2005
http://www.actorssceneunseen.com/ripper.asp
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 664
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 10:54 am: |
|
The memorandum cannot be a formal document. It is directed at no named individual (as a brief would be), contains no recommendation or guidance on lines to take, and is inaccurate in detail though not in thrust - so has clearly not been checked against the file.
Those facts, taken together with the known drafts which clearly track the evolution of the file copy, imply to me that this was Macnaghten getting his (and potentially his department's) thoughts straight AGAINST THE POSSIBILITY that the subject might be raised publicly.
Again, convention would suggest that, had the memorandum been a response to a request from someone else, the opening paragraph would have contained phrases such as: "I have the honour to respond to your request for information...."
This is absent.
Frankly, I do not understand the need for a senior official (such as Melville Macnaghten was) to have to have been instructed to set pen to paper. Now and then, senior officials have the responsibility to be pro-active in providing advice and to ensure that appropriate defensive lines exist. That is what I see the evidence indicating happened in this circumstance.
As to the supplementary, Robert, I would suggest that the Minister would have replied:
"It is not the usual practice of this Department to comment on unsubstantiated press reports. If The Sun wishes to send to me the evidence it has, I will be glad to consider it."
End of discussion.
Hope this helps,
Phil |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
