E Petitions and Ripper Files and papers

[m_w_r]

Trevor is not behind this petition, as has been stated very clearly earlier.

Hi Phil,

Fair enough. I admit that I tend to think of it as Trevor's petition, but, for the record, it's not, and it was initiated by a lady named Tracey Hookway.

Regards,

Mark

[mariab]

Hello All. What if the focus were on MEPO 38 only and not the SB ledgers? What if "unwarranted secrecy" were emended so as not to contain the adjective?

It's not only the "unwarranted secrecy", Lynn, there are a few more unfortunate details in this petition.
Since MEPO 38 is partly at the National Archives, I was thinking that there might be a possibility for a subsequent campaign to get the rest of MEPO 38 or even the entire SB ledgers to the National Archives in the future, since this possibility has been envisaged before (sabotaged by the NA, who refused the materials). Personally, I would have rather attempted this than the petition. One only needs to convince a couple librarians and a head of department at the NA.

I'm dealing with a relatively similar problem in Paris, where a moronic newly introduced restriction has resulted in the French National Library refusing to give me access to autograph Meyerbeer sources I myself discovered this summer. Engaging in the exact opposite of the Butterworth approach, I urgently ordered a black and white, problematic microfilm which doesn't show the entire documents, so that we at least get partial access to the stuff, and I intend to use this as an argument with the department director, pushing to be allowed access to the originals for a few days next spring. Haven't even (yet) informed my boss about the situation, as I prefer the effort to be concentrated and coming from mainly one person (AKA myself).

[PaulB]

Hello All. What if the focus were on MEPO 38 only and not the SB ledgers? What if "unwarranted secrecy" were emended so as not to contain the adjective?

Cheers.
LC

I assume it is a bit late to amend the petition.

[Chris]

So, again, I say that the petition is wrong to state that there has been any 'unwarranted secrecy for over 120 years' concerning these murders and that there are 'hitherto unpublished files, documents and papers relating to these murders.' No secrecy has been proven nor has any evidence, or reference, for 'hitherto unpublished files, documents and papers relating to these murders' been given. Indeed, such 'hitherto unpublished files, documents and papers relating to these murders' are not known to exist.

I'm genuinely puzzled by this, because on p. 242 of Scotland Yard Investigates it says:
"It is also important to note that there are Special Branch files relating to the Whitechapel murders that are closed 'in perpetuity'. They are not likely to contain evidence that proves the identity of Jack the Ripper but they must include some very interesting and enlightening information."

[lynn cates]

emendation

Hello All. What if the focus were on MEPO 38 only and not the SB ledgers? What if "unwarranted secrecy" were emended so as not to contain the adjective?

Cheers.
LC

[Stewart P Evans]

Good Points

Actually, the MPS did allow people to view the documents, albeit subject to signing a non-disclosure agreement, which may not have been satisfactory but at least enabled people to see and evaluate what was there, but this was shown to be illegal, the MPS was chastised, and the privilege was withdrawn.
Well, it is so naively worded that it probably won't reflect well on Ripper researchers, but setting that aside, what one does is use the tools available to one as effectively as possible, which in this case is what hasn't been done and is the point Stewart and I and others have made. A petition may not have stood a cat in hell's chance, but a properly thought out one, precisely and clearly worded, specifically targeted, might have stood a better chance than one that's so ambiguous it'll get binned without a moment of thought. So what damage has it done? Well, it's thrown an opportunity away.

Good points Paul, I suspect that this petition is doomed to failure.

[PaulB]

No harm has been done Stewart..because there is absolutley no chance in frozen hell of the Met Police allowing any person to view any possible documents anyway.

Actually, the MPS did allow people to view the documents, albeit subject to signing a non-disclosure agreement, which may not have been satisfactory but at least enabled people to see and evaluate what was there, but this was shown to be illegal, the MPS was chastised, and the privilege was withdrawn.

So what else does one do when a brick wall is put up? Stand there and say.. shame.. never mind, we will just have to wait on the whim of a future Commissioner of the Met. Well, whether its a cats chance in hell or not, its better than the current situation.. which gets no one nowhere. It costs nothing, and does no harm at all. Unless you know of what possible harm it can do?

Well, it is so naively worded that it probably won't reflect well on Ripper researchers, but setting that aside, what one does is use the tools available to one as effectively as possible, which in this case is what hasn't been done and is the point Stewart and I and others have made. A petition may not have stood a cat in hell's chance, but a properly thought out one, precisely and clearly worded, specifically targeted, might have stood a better chance than one that's so ambiguous it'll get binned without a moment of thought. So what damage has it done? Well, it's thrown an opportunity away.

[Stewart P Evans]

Special Branch Secrecy

As regards Special Branch secrecy (not actually the subject of the petition we are discussing) a further point should be added.

There are, historically, serious doubts that the police were legally accountable to the Home Office for what they did with their records. They are not a government department and if it was a question of 'day-to-day' policing the Home Office had no power to interfere.

[PaulB]

We are discussing the petition, and its wording, here and not Trevor Marriott's failed attempt to gain access to a Special Branch Ledger (which is little more than an index). If the petition is supposed to address the matter of Trevor's failed efforts and the Special Branch material then that is what it should refer to - not to 'hitherto unpublished files, documents and papers relating to these murders'. If it refers to any Metropolian Police refusal to produce specific requested material, or to specific unreleased material then it should say so.

On the nail.

[Stewart P Evans]

As I indicated...

...
Therefore, when considering the wording of the petition, I saw an all encompassing possibility. Slim though it may be, to have an OPEN relationship with historical documents under the common sense rule of 100 years, and that applies to ANY documents that MAY be, and neither you nor I know of the NON existance of any further undiscovered material relating to the murders, a possibility based on a tribunmal decision I felt was wrong, unprovable and supposition, without proof of likelyhood, that this exact diocumentation would finally see the light of day and of ANY OTHER documentation to do the same. Neither do you or I know if the Met are actually witholding material that might embarrass the Met from the time.. chances are they are not.. but we do not know.
...
Phil.

As I indicated, such petitions should deal with specifics and not 'all encompassing' matters. Again you are chuntering on about the tribunal decision and the petition does not even mention that.

All known 'files, documents and papers relating to these murders' have long been in the public domain. Indeed, the main files were released early, in the 1970s on request to the Home Office. It's pointless to say 'Neither do you or I know if the Met are actually witholding material that might embarrass the Met from the time'. That is unlikely in the extreme and there is no reason, nor evidence, to believe that they are. Anyway, it's pointless to suggest such an unlikely thing, to a government department, with no evidence to support it.

[Stewart P Evans]

History

...
Given that, and given my personal involvement in the case, I carefully considered the implications of the decision. History.. MY history..as a Londoner, was being denied me. My family came from the area, and I would have indeed, along with many other people's families, have rejoiced in the open view of why things were what they were with all the surrounding facts on the table..however tenuous to the Whitechapel murders they were. It is my personal view that NO institution should be allowed after a fair period of time, and this is my opinion, 100 years, to withold things because they feel something MIGHT happen, without any evidence to support it COULD happen or any hint that it WOULD happen, or may have even been hinted at.
...
Phil.

I appreciate history and the need for the preservation and release of as much information as possible but I fail to see where this petition clearly relates to this. It is incorrect to state that there has been unwarranted secrecy for over 120 years surrounding the murders and it does not show that any 'hitherto unpublished files, documents and papers relating to these murders' even exist! (Sorry to keep repeating that but the point seems to have been missed).

I'm a bit worried at your use of the phrase 'MY history..as a Londoner', does that mean that you have more right to it 'as a Londoner' than others of us might have? You keep on about the withholding of documents but the petition does not specify any such document. The 100 year confidentiality rule on official material is merely to ensure that sensitive matters should be well out of living memory before release.

[Stewart P Evans]

Special Branch Ledger

...
There comes a time when any institution should be open with their own history. A compromise COULD have been made about these documents, and time and again, I believe at least 4 times, that compromise was proposed to the institution involved. They refused at every given point. The Metropoliotan police are accountable to its public. And not least, public opinion.
This is connected in an odd, interpretational manner, of the attitude of the Met Police who gave a list, and I use that word deliberately, of reasons PREVIOUSLY given in the original tribunal case for why ther documents could not be seen... that were shot down by the Freedom of Information Commissionerr himself. I believe the Met Police used 27 differing reasons for the documents to be kept hidden away from public viewing. 27!!!!!
It included the cost of taking a photo copy of the documents as too great for Lord's sake! Talk about scratching the bottom of the barrel.
Now common sense tells me that when all but ONE of those reasons are presented as reasons, and fail, they start to look suspiciously like excuses, not reasons. That's general common sense Stewart, how most normal, common all garden people would percieve things. Not how a policeman sees things.. but WE, the public, whom the Met police are answerable in their actions to.
Travelling alone down the line, during Trevor Marriott's appeal he REPEATEDLY asked for any DIRECT evidence of any situation, deed or action against or having happened to the knowledge of the ANY of the witnesses if at any time any person related to any person involved in pre 20thC passing on information to the police from within the Irish Community attached to the then Irish Nationalist movement, the answer provided by ALL of the witnesses was that they failed to provide ANY evidence of their claims that it could happen. Absolutely nothing. It was sheer interpretation of a chance possibility. The outcome, although eventually going against Mr. Marriott, when published, SPECIFICALLY said that it did NOT matter what rank or length of time any of the Met Police witnesses who attended the tribuna had acquired, because no person had produced any evidence at all to support their fears.
...
Phil.

We are discussing the petition, and its wording, here and not Trevor Marriott's failed attempt to gain access to a Special Branch Ledger (which is little more than an index). If the petition is supposed to address the matter of Trevor's failed efforts and the Special Branch material then that is what it should refer to - not to 'hitherto unpublished files, documents and papers relating to these murders'. If it refers to any Metropolian Police refusal to produce specific requested material, or to specific unreleased material then it should say so.

[Stewart P Evans]

But...

...
The background of the petition came about as I see it, because of Trevor Marriot's valiant yet failed attempt to gain access to, on behalf of the common person, witheld documents that had, tenuous or not, been restricted, and selective in its non restriction. The history of the documents themselves are an essential part of the history of policing and its methodology within the Metropolis.
Parts of these documents were, according to the qualified judge who presided at the above mentioned appeal, NOT likely to have been a realistic danger to any living person. He also used the wording "common sense".
...
Phil.

But, surely, the petition says nothing about Trevor Marriott's attempt to gain access to the Special Branch ledger (note - not 'hitherto unpublished files, documents and papers' relating to the Whitechapel murders of 1888. Or will the government employee addressing this petition require a crystal ball to devine what it's about?

[Stewart P Evans]

Does not answer...

...
Yes, I will answer..for myself..alone. Thank you for asking. And thank you for saying the word please. Means a lot to some of us old fashioned fuddy duddies that word. Its respectful. In the same manner, I will answer. My way.
But it will be my understanding of the petition's goals, and my personal family history that is also involved as to why I signed. It may not be in exact agreement with your interpretation of this, nor your understanding, and it may even be that you consider it, to quote you, something "I do not understand" or have signed "mistakenly"...both of which I would deny. However, whether you agree with MY understanding or not, MY interpretation or not, the fact of the matter is that the petition was obviously started for a specific, and yet perhaps all covering purpose.
From my sense of direction, and in conceding the wording of the petition could have been formulated in (opinion only) another way, with perhaps more direct and with more exact phrasiology, I see the point in the petition itself. But I do concede the point you make.
...
Phil.

This very lengthy reply still does not anwer the valid points that I make and I detect a lack of understanding of bureaucratic processes. Government departments deal in specifics, not generalisations.

So, again, I say that the petition is wrong to state that there has been any 'unwarranted secrecy for over 120 years' concerning these murders and that there are 'hitherto unpublished files, documents and papers relating to these murders.' No secrecy has been proven nor has any evidence, or reference, for 'hitherto unpublished files, documents and papers relating to these murders' been given. Indeed, such 'hitherto unpublished files, documents and papers relating to these murders' are not known to exist.

Your own, personal, interpretation and understanding does not come into the matter. It is not a case of seeing the 'point' of the petition. The petition should be specific and contain an accurate reference to what it refers.

[Monty]

Stewart Evans - "As Paul and I have already pointed out, there has been no 'unwarranted secrecy for over 120 years' concerning these murders and exactly what 'hitherto unpublished files, documents and papers relating to the murders' are involved?"

Relating to the murders.

THAT was Stewarts question. It was a question raised by myself andf Rob House a while ago, put more succinctly by Stewart and Paul.

Monty, who won't get that 5 minutes back.