Mind boggling..and yet, a reason for it maybe?

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Having dived into The Ultimate Sourcebook, and with thanks to messrs Evans and Skinner for the above, I've had a look at the comments and writings of, Sir Charles Warren, Godfrey Lushington, Robert Anderson and A.F.Williamson. Also thanks to David, (DVV) for his supplying of the quotes from "La Presse".
Have a look at this lot and see what you all think...

7th October 1888 (to the French newspaper "La Presse")

A.F.Williamson (Cheif Constable, Met CID)

"Now, to tell you the truth, I don't think such deeds will occur again."


Sir Charles Warren

8th Oct 1888 (to a Fench newspaper, "La Presse")

"....my own private information allows me to practically assert it (that the murderer) was a member of society's ruling class..."

and further

"....It could be a bishop - or a Prime Minister. I really have reason to think that it must be someone who came from a good family but who is today an outcast."

and further

"....we are currently following several lines of inquiry and I believe that the public will have its curiosity satisfied."

....................

Further to this, Warren states in a letter of the 10th October to Godfrey Lushington..

" I have today rec'd a letter from a person asserting himself to be an accomplice, and asking for a free pardon...the letter is probably a hoax.... but I cannot see what harm could be done in this or any future offering of a pardon..."

......................

Just two days later however, Sir Charles Warren said the following...


12th October 1888 (Ref HO 144/221/A49301D.ff23-6) (file)
responding to a suggestion that originated in Vienna, of the certainty of the capture of the murderer, given through Her Majesty's Ambassador in Vienna.

"....As Mr.Matthews (Home Secretary) is aware, I have for some time past inclined to the idea that the murders may possibly be done by a secret society as the only logical solution to the question..."

and further

"...the last murders were obviously done by some one desiring to bring discredit on the Jews and Socialists or Jewish Socialists..."

and further

"...I propose that Mr. Anderson's views should be telegraphed to Sir Augustus Paget (Ambassador to Austria) as a suggestion, but specially giving him freedom to use his own discretion in the matter.
If from our straining in the matter we miss the opportunity of capturing the murderer it would be unfortunate."

Here it must be noted that GL (Godfrey Lushinton, Under Secretary of State, Foreign Office) replies to Warren's letter by saying at the end...

"....I cannot at all agree with the Commr.'s (Warren's) idea that the only logical solution of the question is that the murders may possibly have been done by a secret society.

and further

"...it seems to me...that the last murder was done by a Jew who boasted of it."

At this point, it is clear that our friend Mr. Warren and Mr. Lushington are on two sides of the fence. Part of this is due to a monetary reward or provision, that the Ambassador in Vienna had been asked for by the person (who knew who the murderer was) on the inside of a "secret society", one member of which of the murderer was supposed to be.

Anderson had previously written to Warren, on the

12th Oct saying the following..

"....After giving this matter my most earnest and careful consideration, I cannot recommend compliance with the informant's proposal.... unless he give the name of the murderer with definitive details which can be tested....."

and further

".... the Austrian Police do not regard the informant as trustworthy..."

and further

"...I have had a series of similar proposals....in cases of political crime....and have occasionally interviewed informants who made representations of this kind and yet I have never known one single instance where I have found reason to doubt the wisdom of refusing compliance with the terms. I may add that that I handed the dispatch to Mr. Williamson without giving him the slightest hint at my opinion of the case, and he has expressed a similar opinion in even stronger terms."

On the

13th October, internal notes between Lushington and Matthews state...

"I do not like to commit you without a reference to you" (GL to HM)

"There is much force in your observations and those of Mr. Anderson. This informant, if he comes, will have to be most closely and vigilantly watched. But in view of the Ambassador's opinion I do not like to throw aside what may result ib some useful clue" (HM to GL)

He then tells GL to write to the Foreign Office about this situation (I have quoted some of this below)



On the

14th October 1888 Lushington writes to the Foreign Office with a letter on behalf of Henry Matthews, Home Secretary, saying...

"....insomuch as the Ambassador and Consul General (Nathan) ....are both inclined to believe his good faith..."

He(Matthews, through Lushington) then outlines proposals for a certain amount of money paid, a sort of half now, half later agreement, and that the gentleman from Vienna is to proceed to Sir Charles Warren straight away upon his arrival in London.

Later, another proposal to name the terrorist(s) comes from the same source, again for money returns. These men are apparently in Brussels ready to come to London.

Now this is a very much abridged version of lengthy texts compiled from the whole of Chapter 16 from the Ultimate sourebook. (pp 347-365)




The things that strike me very clearly are, imho,

1) The total and apparent knowledge of both Williamson and Warren (3 days before the Austrian affair) that the apprehension of the Whitechapel murderer is imminent.

2) The very large difference of official opinion between the Home Office and CID, (Anderson, Williamson, Lushington, Matthews) and Sir Charles Warren. Shown from the 12 Oct onwards and gathering pace all the way through until 7th November, by which time the correspondance is "seret and pressing")

3) The growing gap between the two departments, and the clear resentment against Warren by both Matthews and especially, Anderson.

I am suggesting with all of this that Warren was unwanted for a long time, and that the 9th of November seems to be a point of happening that has been preceeded by more and more pressure from within upon Warren. This all seems to have become very noticable AFTER the double murder, but most of all, after the Goulston St graffito, for which he recieved a lot of verbal accusations of incompetance in allowing the writing to be removed.

Politically, he was not liked at all by the Home Office nor the CID.

I have the honest opinion that Sir Charles Warren was forced to resign, not for the reasons publically stated, but because Anderson was the man pulling the strings in the Whitechapel case, and Warren was getting in the way of his plans for dealing with the situation. It also suggests to me, by the urgency being more and more piled on, the nearer 9th Novemeber came, that Anderson may well have known what was about to occur.

These comments may well be contentious, I know. But I have a very uneasy feeling about the urgency presented, the nearer and nearer the 9th of November came along.

I don't say this is the truth...but I do say it needs to be looked at seriously.

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil,

And here's me thinking it was Brian Rix who wrote all the Whitehall Farces.

With a few tits and bums "Pin the Tail on the Ripper" could run and run.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Simon,

that was funny...cheers!

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Simon,

Seriously though, this example of the combination of the top men, and of how the whole thing was being run, really does leave questions. The whole of that chapter in sourcebook seems to concentrate, when all is boiled down, to two things... namely Anderson, Williamson and Matthews putting down Warren's backing up of providing money for an informant... and showing who was really running the show... Matthews at the Home Office and Anderson at the CID. Not Warren. To me it is alarmingly clear. Any attempt by Warren to find an answer, is being squashed by others. That is how I percieve that chapter in sourcebook, imho that is.

best wishes

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil,

You couldn't invent the Scotland Yard Follies going on in late 1888. Frankly, it all beggars belief.

Here's an example. I have always understood that policemen are encouraged to write reports as soon as possible after an incident, whilst events are still fresh in their minds.

If true, it makes nonsense of the fact that Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Charles Warren, H Division Superintendent Thomas Arnold and A Division Police Constable Alfred Long all waited exactly five weeks and two days before writing their 6th November reports about the "double event" on 30th September 1888.

Regards,

Simon

[DirectorDave]

If Warren took the action to Rub out the GSG in fear of it causing a backlash on Jews....is it really all that much of a Skip and a jump to Keep quiet about the capture of the Ripper if he turned out to be a jew?.....especially if there was not enough evidence for a convicton?

[curious]

It also suggests to me, by the urgency being more and more piled on, the nearer 9th Novemeber came, that Anderson may well have known what was about to occur.
Phil

Good morning,

Phil how do you think that might have been possible?

Thanks,

curious

[Phil Carter]

Hello Dave, Simon, all,

I will look into that 6th November phenomenom later today, but my goodness, that is one heck of a coincidence that all those statements were all written on the same day, 5 weeks and 2 days AFTER it happened... makes you wonder if they sat down together in the same room at the same time to write it....
I know one thing for certain.. if a police constable has reported something THAT important, his superior always, without fail, says, "I want your report on my desk first thing in the morning lad..."

37 days!!!!! (and no more murders occured in those 37 days either)

Totally normal behaviour. NOT. MIND BOGGLING transparency I call it.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

more for the grinder to consider...

Yet ANOTHER consideration in relation to the treatment of Warren, is the at times incredible, but certainly obstinate refusal of Home Secretary Henry Mattews refusal to offer a reward, whereas again, Sir Charles Warren the whole time approves of one.

So that it isn't seen that it is just me seeing things this way, The Star newspaper even commented upon this, saying on the 10th November...

"....We have heard the wildest stories as to the reason which popular opinion in Whitechapel assigns for Mr. Matthew's obstinate refusal to offer a reward. It is believed by people who pass among their neighbours as sensible folk that the Government do not want the murderer to be convicted, as they are interested in concealing his identity, that, in fact, they know it, and will not divulge it. Of course this is rank nonsense...."

(Sourcebook, pp322, 323. Evans and Skinner)

Rank nonsense?....
All of those on these boards who think that the idea that some sort of smokescreen, initiated by Anderson and Matthews, is just a "new, fashionable " view, and sensationalization following on from "Royalty, Diary, Cornwell etc" should start to realise by now... Serious questions were being asked at the time, because the behaviour of those running the show is remarkable, to say the least. And it cannot be ignored.

best wishes

Phil

[c.d.]

If Warren took the action to Rub out the GSG in fear of it causing a backlash on Jews....is it really all that much of a Skip and a jump to Keep quiet about the capture of the Ripper if he turned out to be a jew?.....especially if there was not enough evidence for a convicton?

Hi Dave,

What are the chances of something like that being covered up given the nature of...uh...well, human nature?

c.d.

P.S. I don't recall you posting before but welcome to the boards.

[Phil Carter]

Good morning,

Phil how do you think that might have been possible?

Thanks,

curious

Good morning curious,

Thanks for the question.

By carefully going through the events going on behind the scenes, date by date, it becomes more and more obvious to me that something was about to happen. The way the letters were written becoming more and more in urgency. All this in a 6 week lull. The last few days before 9th November seems almost manic. (see above, 6th Nov for example)

best wishes

Phil

[curious]

Good morning curious,

Thanks for the question.

By carefully going through the events going on behind the scenes, date by date, it becomes more and more obvious to me that something was about to happen. The way the letters were written becoming more and more in urgency. All this in a 6 week lull. The last few days before 9th November seems almost manic. (see above, 6th Nov for example)

best wishes

Phil

So, if the authorities knew SOMETHING was going to happen, do you think they knew WHAT?

And if so, HOW could they have possibly have known?

curious

[curious]

I also think they knew the night Eddowes was killed.

Perhaps they knew what -- the post office robbery.

With all the policemen in the area, it seems to me they knew the where, even if they did not know exactly what.

but interesting that you believe they knew something was going on the night Mary Jane Kelly was killed.

curious

[Sox]

Public opinion, and political in-fighting, need have had little to do with the events going on in the East End though. I think it would be fair to say that, after Monro went, CID was not a happy place to be....oh and..

I know one thing for certain.. if a police constable has reported something THAT important, his superior always, without fail, says, "I want your report on my desk first thing in the morning lad..."

....important to remember, the inquest dates, not just the murder dates. It would be more accurate to asses this, based off when the inquests ended.

[Phil Carter]

Public opinion, and political in-fighting, need have had little to do with the events going on in the East End though. I think it would be fair to say that, after Monro went, CID was not a happy place to be....oh and..

I know one thing for certain.. if a police constable has reported something THAT important, his superior always, without fail, says, "I want your report on my desk first thing in the morning lad..."

....important to remember, the inquest dates, not just the murder dates. It would be more accurate to asses this, based off when the inquests ended.

Hello Sox,
Thank you for your comments, above.

First of all, the 37 day gap between the occurrance (The GS Graffito) and the supplying of the reports from the policemen IS important, and even if one counts in the Eddowes Inquest dates, the 4th and 11th October 1888, that still leaves a gap of 26 days between the last day of the inquest and the writing of the reports... NOT including the days inbetween the two inquest days.

Surely, even if we stretch the imagination to the limit, police reports of an incident would have been written well inside 26 days!

Also, the fact that there WAS political infighting surely WOULD have something to do with what was going on in the East End, by it's very nature, if the top of the tree is not in alliance, the roots don't know where they stand, or in which direction to grow. That is normal and natural to assume that. Bad leadership causes bad decisions and poor policing. It follows down through the ranks.

best wishes

Phil