Special Branch Register and Ledger-decison Notice

[Trevor Marriott]

Again, unless you want to keep the evidence about this under your hat pending a future publication, it would be interesting to know more. Registers like this would normally be kept chronogically as correspondence and documents were received. As I mentioned above, Clutterbuck's comments appear to imply that was the case with the Chief Constable' Register.

Well I have seen the regsiter and I can confirm that fact. It is also the case that although the entries in the register were not entered until after 1894 there are some references I saw which indicate files were entered in them which related to 1887.

Another gem you will be please to know which may stop you questioning everything I seem to have posted on this topic is that I have had it confirmed that the Churchill entry does exist and I will publish a copy of that entry later today

At least i am sharing all of this information with you just think if it had fallen into the hands of others !!!!!!! we would never have seen or heard anything ever again and if we had managed to find out what would they have told us ?

[Chris]

Yes we do

Again, unless you want to keep the evidence about this under your hat pending a future publication, it would be interesting to know more. Registers like this would normally be kept chronogically as correspondence and documents were received. As I mentioned above, Clutterbuck's comments appear to imply that was the case with the Chief Constable's Register.

[Trevor Marriott]

Ah!
Most indexes in that period were kept up in that manner – I presume the subdivision by vowel within each initial letter was necessary because there were so many entries (or it was anticipated that there would be a lot of entries).
Do we actually know that they were catalogued retrospectively?

Yes we do

[Lechmere]

Ah!
Most indexes in that period were kept up in that manner – I presume the subdivision by vowel within each initial letter was necessary because there were so many entries (or it was anticipated that there would be a lot of entries).
Do we actually know that they were catalogued retrospectively?

[mariab]

They are alphabetical in the sense of following every letter of the alphabet plus 5 subcategories of the vowels (A, E, I, O, U), in the sense that “Jackson“ comes before “Jenkins“, but then under subcategory “JE“ they are not strictly alphabetical anymore, but possibly chronological; as in “Jenkinson“ might come before “Jenkins“.

[Lechmere]

A quick question.
Are the entries stricly alphabetical or is there for example a page or two for each letter of the alaphabet?
In other words is there a page for J with 'Jack the Ripper' contained somewhere on it but not necessarily between Jack Smith and Jack Ullswater (in case you are wondering I made those up).

[mariab]

(Did Mr. Marriott just take a viagra or something?)
I'll find out about Neilson of Wealdstone anyway.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'll officially shut up now, if someone answers me on this:
Did anyone find a reference to a detective agency called “Neilson of Wealdstone“ inside of the SB ledgers??? Please?

I think they got itrong there was a reference to a company who went under the name of Freeman Hardy and Willis

[mariab]

I'll officially shut up now, if someone answers me on this:
Did anyone find a reference to a detective agency called “Neilson of Wealdstone“ inside of the SB ledgers??? Please?

[Trevor Marriott]

Nekked.


Nice to know.

Attack on all fronts then

Well I will launch a rear guard attack then if you are leading

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor.



Oh, I know. Logic and actual facts seem to play only a very little bit part in the arguments of Tumblety supporters.

As for Robert Churchill I only mention him as a "R Churchill" who is already part of Ripperology. Nothing more.

Wolf.

Your input is much appreciated

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Trevor.

Wolf
Your last para is probabaly spot on but the problem is that so many of those who favour Tumblety will not be disuaded, and will still seek to rely heavily on the letter to suport their beleifs.

Oh, I know. Logic and actual facts seem to play only a very little bit part in the arguments of Tumblety supporters.

As for Robert Churchill I only mention him as a "R Churchill" who is already part of Ripperology. Nothing more.

Wolf.

[mariab]

Maybe we should all march to 10 Downing St and hand in a petition to the prime minister

Nekked.

I think you are a a bit way out with Robert Chuchill he wasnt born unitl 1886

Nice to know.

[Trevor Marriott]

Regarding “R. Churchill.” This is highly unlikely to refer to Lord Randolph Churchill since he first appears as a “suspect" (and I use the term loosely) in Melvyn Fairclough’s 1991 book The Ripper and the Royals. Since Fairclough used Joseph Sickert and his vibrant imagination as a source, along with the fake “Abberline Diaries,” and as Fairclough has since distanced himself from his own theory I think we can take it that there never was any actual police suspicion against Lord Randolph.

There is at least one other “R” Churchill involved in the study of the Whitechapel Murders – Scotland Yard gunsmith Robert Churchill – a who was the partner of Hugh Pollard who gave the so-called Jack the Ripper’s knife to Dorothy Stroud who later passed it on to Don Rumbelow. Am I saying that Robert Churchill was a suspect? No, absolutely not. I’m just pointing this out and will let others with vibrant imaginations and a bent for conspiracy theory to run wild with it if they so choose.



Well, yes and no.

It has long been assumed that Littlechild, who probably had little or nothing to do with the Whitechapel Murders Investigation, was basing his speculation about Tumblety as a suspect on what he had been told by his friends and colleagues who had an active part in the investigation. He certainly didn’t know what had ultimately happened to the quack doctor stating that “it was believed he committed suicide,” which was obviously wrong. It has been others who have theorized, without any actual evidence, that Tumblety was a Fenian or supporter of the extreme Irish Nationalist cause and that Littlechild might have come in contact with him in the course of his duties and, therefore, had first hand knowledge of Tumblety as a suspect. But, as I say, there is no evidence that Tumblety was a Fenian or supporter of political extremism, quite the opposite as a matter of fact.

What the ledgers might help do, then, is show that Littlechild and Special Section D had no professional interest in, or knowledge of, Tumblety and that the suspicions against him contract back to Scotland Yard and the Whitechapel Murders Investigation. Littlechild’s speculations, then, become just that: his personal theory based on limited information told to him by his friends in CID. Friends who, regardless of whatever information they had on Tumblety, never mention the “doctor” and who went on to point the finger at other men.

Wolf.

Wolf
Your last para is probabaly spot on but the problem is that so many of those who favour Tumblety will not be disuaded, and will still seek to rely heavily on the letter to suport their beleifs.

I think you are a a bit way out with Robert Chuchill he wasnt born unitl 1886

[Trevor Marriott]

To Trevor Marriott:
I understand about the legal costs and about Butterworth. But wasn't there something of a missed date due to Butterworth having not been informed?


Careful! You might motivate Lynn Cates into researching those 3 Russian activists, and it's one of his special fields.


I wish someone would attempt this.

Maybe we should all march to 10 Downing St and hand in a petition to the prime minister