Tweet
Hi All,
Earlier, Rob House made this observation–
"The vast majority of undercover work (surveillance, shadowing, use of informants) was conducted by the normal detectives of CID. The Special Branch at the time was a small organization within the Met that was only really concerned with terrorist activity and threats to domestic security."
This offers us a neat demarcation line between CID and SB activities; and as the WM fell within the remit of the CID the question of why a murder investigation should interest the SB unless it involved terrorist or domestic security issues becomes perfectly legitimate. Therefore, by the application of conventional wisdom, why should we expect to find anything of significance in the recently discovered ledgers?
For the sake of argument let us assume that there was such a terrorist or security issue. This might help explain why we know so little about the case. If the murders were being investigated by SB secrecy would have been of paramount importance in 1888 and equally so 122 years later.
It might also help explain the true extent of the CID investigation. In 1888 Scotland Yard comprised something of the order of 40 CID detectives, many of whom were recorded at one time or another as being involved in the investigation of what might be termed "political crime".
But if you read carefully through Stewart Evans' invaluable "JtR Companion" you will find WM reports from just three Scotland Yard officers – Abberline, Moore and Swanson – plus a single statement taken in December 1888 by Inspector Roots. And by taking the desk-bound Swanson out of the equation we are left on paper with just two Scotland Yard detectives tackling the 19th Century's biggest murder mystery and manhunt.
Abberline and Moore could not have been working alone, so where were all the other Scotland Yard CID officers during this period? What were they doing? We know, for instance, that in late 1888 Andrews, Jarvis and Shore had higher priorities, but other Scotland Yard detectives had to have been involved if the WM investigation was as huge and wide-ranging as we have been given to understand. Yet there is not one single sniff of their reports in the Metropolitan Police files. How could this be? All these reports cannot have been lost or stolen, but their absence from the WM files might be explained if they were reporting back directly to Littlechild and Monro.
So who knows what might be contained in the recently discovered ledgers?
Regards,
Simon
Earlier, Rob House made this observation–
"The vast majority of undercover work (surveillance, shadowing, use of informants) was conducted by the normal detectives of CID. The Special Branch at the time was a small organization within the Met that was only really concerned with terrorist activity and threats to domestic security."
This offers us a neat demarcation line between CID and SB activities; and as the WM fell within the remit of the CID the question of why a murder investigation should interest the SB unless it involved terrorist or domestic security issues becomes perfectly legitimate. Therefore, by the application of conventional wisdom, why should we expect to find anything of significance in the recently discovered ledgers?
For the sake of argument let us assume that there was such a terrorist or security issue. This might help explain why we know so little about the case. If the murders were being investigated by SB secrecy would have been of paramount importance in 1888 and equally so 122 years later.
It might also help explain the true extent of the CID investigation. In 1888 Scotland Yard comprised something of the order of 40 CID detectives, many of whom were recorded at one time or another as being involved in the investigation of what might be termed "political crime".
But if you read carefully through Stewart Evans' invaluable "JtR Companion" you will find WM reports from just three Scotland Yard officers – Abberline, Moore and Swanson – plus a single statement taken in December 1888 by Inspector Roots. And by taking the desk-bound Swanson out of the equation we are left on paper with just two Scotland Yard detectives tackling the 19th Century's biggest murder mystery and manhunt.
Abberline and Moore could not have been working alone, so where were all the other Scotland Yard CID officers during this period? What were they doing? We know, for instance, that in late 1888 Andrews, Jarvis and Shore had higher priorities, but other Scotland Yard detectives had to have been involved if the WM investigation was as huge and wide-ranging as we have been given to understand. Yet there is not one single sniff of their reports in the Metropolitan Police files. How could this be? All these reports cannot have been lost or stolen, but their absence from the WM files might be explained if they were reporting back directly to Littlechild and Monro.
So who knows what might be contained in the recently discovered ledgers?
Regards,
Simon
, if there is a special branch/ intelligence angle to this case it is more than likely that certain 'deniable' investigations crossed paths with the WM investigations and perhaps even required certain potentially useful evidence in the latter to be withheld for the benefit of the former- I do not think it impossible that the most famous 'missing' policeman in the case (the 'City PC in Mitre Square') may have existed in some form or another, and if so that we may be able to draw a direct line to the equally mysterious 'seaside home' which as someone else pointed out recently was more than likely a 'home' for former police personnel.
Comment