Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
General Suspect Discussion: RE : Joseph Issacs - by Joolz 2 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Limehouse 3 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by moste 4 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by moste 4 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by GUT 5 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by Mike J. G. 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (37 posts)
Bury, W.H.: Mock trial for Bury Feb 3 - (20 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Whitehchapel pubs, with a Ripper connection...... - (11 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (11 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Mr Blotchy - (2 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Police Officials and Procedures > General Police Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #321  
Old 03-11-2015, 08:08 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,786
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Carter View Post
Hello Colin,

Could it be that before all the fuss started. .They simply didn't realise what they had?


Phil
Yes that about the top and bottom of it
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 03-21-2015, 12:10 PM
Mayerling Mayerling is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Flushing, New York
Posts: 2,696
Default

[quote=Archaic;333365][quote=Chris;333014] I think they are making up the rules as they go along in this case. The Information Commissioner does recommend not destroying any information that has been the subject of a request until six months after the last correspondence, to make sure there's been time to exhaust all the appeal procedures. But otherwise public bodies are meant to have proper schedules for disposing of records, which are not meant to be influenced by Freedom of Information requests. I don't believe for a moment that these documents had been scheduled for routine destruction, independent of the FOI requests.
Quote:

In the US a large quantity of Kennedy Assassination related documents went missing. It's unknown if they were destroyed.

Many others are being held back for 75 years - basically until all people alive at time of assassination are deceased - and quite likely their offspring too.

I've seen other Kennedy documents that have finally been been released under the Freedom of Information Act where 95% of the entire document has been "redacted for National Seurity reasons" = blacked out with opaque black marking pen, including name of agency/person(s) who wrote it, name of recipient(s), initials of those who read it, and subject matter.

Sometimes only a few words random words are visible like "and" and "the"... like tiny islands floating in a sea of black marking pen. Researchers have fought for over 51 years to get these documents, and they are finally released in a completely obliterated state devoid of any information!

It would be interesting to ask your National Archives:

a.) If they really were offered the Special Branch documents as claimed

b.) If so, what were the reasons for deciding they weren't worthy of preservation even as digital images that take up very little physical space, and

c.) Who made that decision?

Best regards,
Archaic
I suspect that the destruction of police and official records and documents could be traced as far back to Sumer or the first dynasty of Egyptian pharaohs. There is always an official slant on public presentation of government achievement and work, and an unofficial one (usually called "rumor" or unverifiable). A clear case of this that is going to be debated within two months: the 100th anniversary of the Lusitania torpedoing, and the issue of whether the ship sank in 18 minutes because of a second internal explosion due to vast quantities of illegally hidden ammunition being transported to Europe for the war. I don't propose discussing this - it just illustrates the sense of official discussion (ship sunk by torpedo) with the questions of the bigger picture. The same can be said of the assassinations of JFK and his brother Robert, and Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X. There are hundred of such cases. The U.N. just announced they are reexamining the death of Dag Hammersjold in 1961. It only took them fifty four years to get the courage to do so.

Two years back I read a rather good study on the Snyder-Gray murder case of 1927, which happened in my native Queens. Considering the notoriety of that murder (the one where Ruth Snyder was photographed as she was being electrocuted at Sing Sing in 1928) it turned out many important items were just jettisoned in the 1940s to make room for more recent case files. The thrown out material included detective notes on the interrogations of Snyder and Gray. The author was able to find newspaper reports of these, and put together a reasonable account of what happened, but the original notes would have been really of more use.

That if these books that were destroyed by the British authorities did include the names of aristocrats dead since roughly 1940 (given the books dealt with the year of the Cleveland Street Scandal in 1889) by now nobody would have cared anymore. The central problem for the people involved in that scandal was the Labouchere Amendment regarding making homosexual sex a crime, and as that no longer is a crime (and the parties involved are dead) there was no reason to worry about scandalous revelations. But some genius got it into his or her head to prevent prurient interest in the future by destroying these documents. One really would like to trace the action back to the individual who decided this, and have him or her not only lose his or her position but any government pension and honors he or she would be entitled to or have at this time. Such actions would be the only way to force similar actions from occurring in the future.

Jeff
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 03-21-2015, 03:31 PM
Phil Carter Phil Carter is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,134
Default

Hello Jeff,

I read with interest your comments on tracing the guilty individual responsible for rubber stamping this decision

I do not disagree with you..but fear that in the world of the Met Police and their doings, this action will be regarded as quite insignificant. I honestly doubt they thought twice about it. And would have done only if they actually knew the contents contained any names that could be embarrassed by being seen
The Lord's of yesteryear have prominent families still. We have seen that on a much more serious scale the lengths that The Met Police have been willing to go to protect names of those in high, prominent or powerful position.

Sadly, the open window of plain sight is all too often closed shut to the outside world and, as I personally suspect in this case, there remains within the hierarchy of the Metropolitan Police Force an old fashioned view towards revelation of their work..no.matter it's age.

I would like to know one thing. How one would go about finding out the name of the alleged individual responsible for this action. Because as sure as eggs are eggs, and going on past form, that name will not be revealed. They will put all.manor of obstacles in the way to protect one of their own.

Unless ordered to by someone within the Home Office or an independent tribunal. And I fear that this case is yet another that will be deemed not important enough for such action. Sadly.

Gotten by the short and curlies.



Phil
__________________
Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE AND CHAMPIONS AGAIN. 💙


Justice for the 96 = achieved
Accountability? ....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 03-21-2015, 09:28 PM
Mayerling Mayerling is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Flushing, New York
Posts: 2,696
Default

Hi Phil,

Thanks for your comments. I have to admit that my spleen (to use an old fashioned, but good word for anger) is roused when I hear of such pointless destruction. You are probably correct that all sorts of road-blocks would be put up by the bureaucracy in Britain to protect one of their own. Having been a New York State bureaucrat for 3 decades before retiring, I can think of some boneheads that flourished for awhile and were never punished for really stupid blunders (not necessarily like this) without the public being aware of it. It's universal. If you can recall the series "Yes Minister" Nigel Hawthorne's "Sir Humphrey Appleby" keeps pointing out that the only way bureaucracy can show success is to increase it's own red tape and size. It's actually the reverse of the idea of modern business to consolidate and supposedly make public use of the businesses easier and faster.

I'm also reminded of a quote from G.K. Chesterton (a writer I can't totally like due to his bigotry, but who fascinates me none-the-less) that the problem with England is that (unlike the United States - he said this about 1912 at the time of the so-called "Marconi Scandal") the English government tends to hide errors, while the United States tends to expose them. This is not totally true - we've hidden things on many occasions, or outwardly lied about them. But it seemed to Chesterton that the U.S. had more openness investigating errors and scandals than the English did.

Jeff
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 03-22-2015, 01:51 AM
Chris Chris is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,840
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Carter View Post
I would like to know one thing. How one would go about finding out the name of the alleged individual responsible for this action. Because as sure as eggs are eggs, and going on past form, that name will not be revealed. They will put all.manor of obstacles in the way to protect one of their own.
I think you'd stand no chance at all of finding out the names of individuals because of the exemption in the Freedom of Information Act relating to personal data:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/40
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 03-22-2015, 01:59 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,786
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Carter View Post
Hello Jeff,

I read with interest your comments on tracing the guilty individual responsible for rubber stamping this decision

I do not disagree with you..but fear that in the world of the Met Police and their doings, this action will be regarded as quite insignificant. I honestly doubt they thought twice about it. And would have done only if they actually knew the contents contained any names that could be embarrassed by being seen
The Lord's of yesteryear have prominent families still. We have seen that on a much more serious scale the lengths that The Met Police have been willing to go to protect names of those in high, prominent or powerful position.

Sadly, the open window of plain sight is all too often closed shut to the outside world and, as I personally suspect in this case, there remains within the hierarchy of the Metropolitan Police Force an old fashioned view towards revelation of their work..no.matter it's age.

I would like to know one thing. How one would go about finding out the name of the alleged individual responsible for this action. Because as sure as eggs are eggs, and going on past form, that name will not be revealed. They will put all.manor of obstacles in the way to protect one of their own.

Unless ordered to by someone within the Home Office or an independent tribunal. And I fear that this case is yet another that will be deemed not important enough for such action. Sadly.

Gotten by the short and curlies.



Phil
I have put in FOI requests to both police and national Archives to obtain those answers.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 03-23-2015, 05:32 PM
Premium Member
SirJohnFalstaff SirJohnFalstaff is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Abzurdistan or Canada, depends
Posts: 564
Default Jacques Brel is alive and well?

Quote:
Originally Posted by claire View Post
Good luck, Trevor...when did Clutterbuck die? Very recently, it must be--I was under the impression he was working for Rand now
I am confused too.

http://www.rand.org/about/people/c/c...k_lindsay.html
http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR785.html

second link is a report (unrelated) he published in 2012.
__________________
Is it progress when a cannibal uses a fork?
- Stanislaw Jerzy Lee
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 03-24-2015, 09:46 AM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,629
Default

Some of these artefacts may not have been destroyed for reasons of skulduggery. The police generate huge quantities of paperwork (as I'm sure Trevor can confirm!). Custody records, for example, are routinely destroyed after about 6 years as are pocket note-books. Such material accumulates over time until storage space becomes critical and a decision has to be made as to what should be kept and why. Inevitably more recent material is prioritised for retention, sometimes with unfortunate consequences for subsequent researchers.

I still think the timing of the destruction of the material requested by Trevor is highly suspect, given that it had previously been stored for so long, but was there ever anything of real interest to begin with? Guess we'll never know now and that is the frustrating aspect.
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.

Last edited by Bridewell : 03-24-2015 at 09:48 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 01-10-2018, 06:59 AM
The Station Cat The Station Cat is online now
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 432
Default

Please forgive my ignorance here, but are we saying that although the Metropolitan Police official reports on the whitechapel murders have long since been plundered and or lost. Within the Special Branch on a dusty shelf, there are their records which have survived unmolested but we can't see them because there still classified as secret?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 01-10-2018, 07:05 AM
The Station Cat The Station Cat is online now
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Station Cat View Post
Please forgive my ignorance here, but are we saying that although the Metropolitan Police official reports on the whitechapel murders have long since been plundered and or lost. Within the Special Branch on a dusty shelf, there are their records which have survived unmolested but we can't see them because there still classified as secret?


a quick search on Google appears to have answered my own question..............

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...es-secret.html


How fascinating!!!!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.