Special Branch Register and Ledger-decison Notice

[Chris]

Could I perhaps ask this again - at the risk of appearing "gladiatorial" - because I do think it's quite an important point?

Has the redacted version of the register been fully searched for references to Jack the Ripper/the Whitechapel Murders?

If it has, is it known why the "R. Churchill" reference didn't come to light?

[mariab]

LOL. I know I'm clutching at straws, but it was Littlechild HIMSELF who mentioned “Dr. T“ in a later letter, and I'm trying to make sense of this. Unless it was “Dr. D.“ and referred to Druitt via Macnaghten. Or maybe it referred to Dr. Dre. :-)

"Rissof", "Kissof", and "Pissanovich" are surely a joke, right?

PS.: I'm very interested in hearing the answer to Chris' question.

[Trevor Marriott]

Could I perhaps ask this again - at the risk of appearing "gladiatorial" - because I do think it's quite an important point?

Has the redacted version of the register been fully searched for references to Jack the Ripper/the Whitechapel Murders?

If it has, is it known why the "R. Churchill" reference didn't come to light?

All real and proper names that are not obvioulsy police officers have been redacted out.

[Chris]

All real and proper names that are not obvioulsy police officers have been redacted out.

First of all, let me just say that if you don't want to clarify the situation at present because you intend to do further research on these records, that's fair enough, and you should feel free to say so.

But the reason I'm asking this question is that (presumably) the phrase "Whitechapel Murders" hadn't been redacted in the O'Brien entry (or you wouldn't have been able to find it), and (presumably) the phrase "Jack the Ripper" hadn't been redacted in the Wilson/"Bushmills" entry (ditto), so if the redaction had been done consistently it would be possible to check the whole redacted register for all the explicit references to the case (though it would be a big job).

What I'm trying to clarify is whether that has already been done, or whether it has yet to be done. And if it has been done, is it known what went wrong with regard to the Churchill entry?

[mariab]

It appears to me that the “R. Churchill“ entry was redacted and unrecognizable, and that the information was communicated to Mr. Marriott privately.

I have the feeling that Mr. Marriott didn't yet have access to the entire ledgers?
But possibly I'm wrong about this...
At any rate, the best of lucks for a second, more extensive sighting.

[Trevor Marriott]

First of all, let me just say that if you don't want to clarify the situation at present because you intend to do further research on these records, that's fair enough, and you should feel free to say so.

But the reason I'm asking this question is that (presumably) the phrase "Whitechapel Murders" hadn't been redacted in the O'Brien entry (or you wouldn't have been able to find it), and (presumably) the phrase "Jack the Ripper" hadn't been redacted in the Wilson/"Bushmills" entry (ditto), so if the redaction had been done consistently it would be possible to check the whole redacted register for all the explicit references to the case (though it would be a big job).

What I'm trying to clarify is whether that has already been done, or whether it has yet to be done. And if it has been done, is it known what went wrong with regard to the Churchill entry?

Firstly I have no further plans to go an view the register in its current redcated form.

I spent two full days viewing the registers previoulsy that in itself is a problem as the police will not allow you to be on your own even with the redacted copies.

My first aim was to go through them with regards to the trying to identify any entries there may be with regards to police officers, suspects,victims etc etc.

During that process the entries which we now have were easily identifiable because "Whitechapel Murders" was not redacted out but the name accompanying it was. The same applied to the entry "Jack The Ripper both of these were under the names column in the register.

As I have stated the information on the Churchill entry given to me is from a reliable source.I did not come across this entry, but to be fair I did not check all 36.000 entries individually I merley ran a cursory eye over the rest of the register having concluded my initial investigations. To go through the 36.000 entries one by one would take the best part of a week.

Had the appeal been successful then we could have confirmed or denied the fact that entry does exist. I have spent a lot of time and money trying to gain full access to these records. I now have to look closely at the finacial implications of pursuing an appeal. There are grounds but whether I can afford to pursue this remains to be seen

In any event whether it does or doesnt having examined these new names in detail it brings us no nearer to solving the case.

However it does now cast a doubt about Tumblety.

[mariab]

I spent two full days viewing the registers previoulsy that in itself is a problem as the police will not allow you to be on your own even with the redacted copies.

My fullest sympathy for this. I've once been through a similar situation in Italy, with a librarian breathing down my neck while I was going through a Rossini autograph score. Don't ask how I managed to shoot pics when she briefly answered the phone, and we're definitely using them for the critical edition.

My first aim was to go through them with regards to the trying to identify any entries there may be with regards to police officers, suspects,victims etc etc.
During that process the entries which we now have were easily identifiable because "Whitechapel Murders" was not redacted out but the name accompanying it was. The same applied to the entry "Jack The Ripper both of these were under the names column in the register.
{...} but to be fair I did not check all 36.000 entries individually I merley ran a cursory eye over the rest of the register having concluded my initial investigations. To go through the 36.000 entries one by one would take the best part of a week.

If I understand it right, you went through the ledgers alphabetically, checking for names such as the Ripper victims, Littlechild, “MacGrath“, Tumblety, Kozminsky, perhaps Le Grand and all his con names? (Probably not the latter.)
Still, can it be that due to the limited time and stressful situation you might have missed any ADDITIONAL references to "the Whitechapel murders“ and “JTR“ among the 36.000 entries? Not implying that it happened, I'm just saying.
A real shame that the appeal didn't go through...

PS.: Probably a really stupid idea, but if you decided to pursue this further, would it help at all if you attempted an appeal together with Butterworth, since he had legal rights and missed the date for his own appeal due to not having been informed?
(Just clutching at straws again.)

[Trevor Marriott]

My fullest sympathy for this. I've once been through a similar situation in Italy, with a librarian breathing down my neck while I was going through a Rossini autograph score. Don't ask how I managed to shoot pics when she briefly answered the phone, and we're definitely using them for the critical edition.


If I understand it right, you went through the ledgers alphabetically, checking for names such as the Ripper victims, Littlechild, “MacGrath“, Tumblety, Kozminsky, perhaps Le Grand and all his con names? (Probably not the latter.)
Still, can it be that due to the limited time and stressful situation you might have missed any ADDITIONAL references to "the Whitechapel murders“ and “JTR“ among the 36.000 entries? Not implying that it happened, I'm just saying.
A real shame that the appeal didn't go through...

PS.: Probably a really stupid idea, but if you decided to pursue this further, would it help at all if you attempted an appeal together with Butterworth, since he had legal rights and missed the date for his own appeal due to not having been informed?
(Just clutching at straws again.)

You have to remember the register entries are in alphabetical order so its easy to go through them that way,

Butterworth did not have legal rights they offered him access providing he signed a written underatking not to publish anything from them. he refused to sign. They never offered me that facilty.

A full appeal is likely to run into several thousands of pounds to engage the services of a barrister. To pay for a barristers advice only at this stage would not obvioulsy cost much less.

I can say i didnt miss any other entries entered under Whitechapel Murders or Jack The Ripper

How is your research going into those three russian activists ?

[Chris]

As I have stated the information on the Churchill entry given to me is from a reliable source.I did not come across this entry, but to be fair I did not check all 36.000 entries individually I merley ran a cursory eye over the rest of the register having concluded my initial investigations. To go through the 36.000 entries one by one would take the best part of a week.

Thanks. That was really what I was asking.

So if someone does have the time and stamina, there may be more entries relating to the case that can be identified in the redacted version of the register. And if they can be identified, it may be possible to persuade the authority to provide copies of those entries in their unredacted state.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

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.

However it does now cast a doubt about Tumblety.

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.

[mariab]

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?

How is your research going into those three russian activists?

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

So if someone does have the time and stamina, there may be more entries relating to the case that can be identified in the redacted version of the register. And if they can be identified, it may be possible to persuade the authority to provide copies of those entries in their unredacted state.

I wish someone would attempt this.

PS.: Wolf Vanderlinden's idea about SY's Robert Churchill certainly makes more sense than a supposition that Joseph Gorman/Sickert might have had a contact within the Scotland Yard archive and was fed some names, with which he concocted his story, as discussed in the JTRForums.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks. That was really what I was asking.

So if someone does have the time and stamina, there may be more entries relating to the case that can be identified in the redacted version of the register. And if they can be identified, it may be possible to persuade the authority to provide copies of those entries in their unredacted state.

That could be the case but you have to remember Clutterbuck went through them in very great detail for his thesis he makes mention of several ripper related entries. Although my recent new finds would indicate that he perhap he even missed things.

Then we have Felicity Lowde who also had unlimited access waht did she bring to the table ?

Then during the course of my appeals process I find that Andrew Cook also viewed them in unredcated form in part. He has never made any mention of anyhting he saw in them but to be fair he had his owne agenda at that time which was not ripper related.

So is there anyhting more to be found well you pays your money and you takes your choice

[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

[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

[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.