E Petitions and Ripper Files and papers

[Monty]

well now for some reasons thios is making me wet my pants

That doesn't surprise me Cam.

Monty

[Sister Hyde]

That doesn't surprise me Cam.

Monty

well at least you're lucid.....^^....for a while....

[auspirograph]

E-Petitions and the Bureaucratic Mirage.

I was dissapointed to see comments on JTR forums from two respected researchers who in my opinion should have known better. Both poured water on this project, both went to great lengths to elablorate on how wonderful they were and that they had tried to get access etc, and highlighted how they had failed.

Trevor,

The two respected researchers you allude to are so because, unlike your good self, they sometimes make sense. You cannot misrepresent what was said and then claim victory in this unholy crusade mounted by no less than a retired police officer with an axe to grind. No-one "poured water on this project", which nothing will stop now after your high profile media flame war. On the contrary, past efforts were expressed on the real issues of gaining access to sensitive historical police records. You are flaming an internet message board.This is what was said:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=13523

That is, the researchers alluded to see quite clearly the importance of the records but with years of experience know better in the best ways of going about it. You forget that you are also not successful in this attempt and have, in my view, only managed to force the Metropolitan Police and National Archives to consider their statuary right to pulp the records.

Ease up man or you will only succeed in contributing to the destruction of any sensitive documents to the detriment of all interested researchers, not just for yourself as a new writer on heat like Butterworth did.

Take the advice of these two researchers, as most of us do, if you are really concerned with making progress in the preservation and study of these historic police documents.

In my brief discussions with Lindsey Clutterbuck and Andrew Brown historical archivist for the Metropolitan Police for research of my book, the general impression I got was that there was a concern with 'Ripperologists' making of the records something far more sinister than was warranted.

Already, your efforts as these recent socialist petition causes show, promote the average punter to ask, "but what are they hiding, I bet it has something to do with the Freemasons and Royalty". Do you get it Trevor? These misguided and extravagant press media displays are taking us back to Jack the Ripper of the 1970's. And that's why I venture to say, why the two researchers are responding and good on them for saying so because that Trevor, is not a cause you are prepared to champion.

So now these petitions may be the last chance to save these records etc. The Metropolitan Police are likley to destroy the originals of the registers and the ledgers so these petitions must be treated with urgency to try to save them.

See above:

If 100.000 signatures can be obtained there is a chance that this will force the British Government to discuss this in Parliament. So your vote would help the cause. Please feel free to pass these details onto any others who you may have on your e mail list who may wish to support this action.

This is what troubles me, these Stalinist anons who are promoting this cause do not appear to have any historical background to the Whitechapel murders, previous research or the workings of British Government. Discussion in Parliament is one thing but changing the law is another.

On 20 March 1889, Robert Anderson wrote a letter in his defense to The Times which he reprinted in his memoirs regarding the retention of sensitive police documents. It seems to me the Metropolitan Police are making the same argument still and this is a point your two researchers are also making. That there are two sides to an argument appears to be the point missed by those who crusade for a stock and blanket release of unspecified police documents, which of course will never happen like this or now. We already know the gist of what the Special Branch ledgers and associated files contained on the investigation of the Whitechapel murders due to the efforts of past reliable and effective researchers which you fail to acknowledge.

In my recent book, though there is already a thread to discuss it, a lengthy chapter is included that outlines in some detail the background and relevance of the Special Branch ledgers on the Whitechapel murders. Only Brian Porter's capable efforts in 1983 were not looked at in depth.

Anderson wrote:

"And this discussion [House of Commons] may do good if certain parties on both sides of the Atlantic should learn from it that they may give information to Her Majesty's Government, and receive remuneration for doing so, with the certainty that their secret will be kept as well as Le Caron's was..."

[K-453]

Whatever. I signed. Some will hate me now, I guess, but even if it is of no use, what damage can it do?

I'm glad I don't know what's going on here ...

[mariab]

I signed too. Am very aware about the “me“ part here, but I like me access to information, and the “100 year rule“ has gone by anyway.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=auspirograph;193952]Trevor,

The two respected researchers you allude to are so because, unlike your good self, they sometimes make sense. You cannot misrepresent what was said and then claim victory in this unholy crusade mounted by no less than a retired police officer with an axe to grind. No-one "poured water on this project", which nothing will stop now after your high profile media flame war. On the contrary, past efforts were expressed on the real issues of gaining access to sensitive historical police records. You are flaming an internet message board.This is what was said:

I have no axe to grind but what a lot of what these so called expert have said is not correct and I am getting pissed off with people accepting what they say as being correct. With all due respect to them I have been involved with these registers and ledgers over the past 3 years so I think I ought to know all there is to know currently about them both from my perspective and also the police.

That is, the researchers alluded to see quite clearly the importance of the records but with years of experience know better in the best ways of going about it.

They tried and failed it was time for another approach by someone who knew a little bit more at the time than they did.

You forget that you are also not successful in this attempt and have, in my view, only managed to force the Metropolitan Police and National Archives to consider their statuary right to pulp the records.

If they were going to destroy them that decison would have been made and likely to have been carrried out as soon as the expiry date of any appeal process had ended, they have been a thorn in their side for some time now.

Butterworth didnt screw it all up as has been suggested he did nothing wrong they were going to allow him access provided he signed a written undertaking he was not prepared to sign that having regard to all Clutterbuck had used and published from them and what FL had published. I must agree with him. The police and the information commissioners screwed it up by not telling him when the appeal was being heard, and went ahead without him therebt convicing the tribunal on their objections to their release. You must not forget that in his case the Information commissioner upheld his request to have them made public.

Take the advice of these two researchers, as most of us do, if you are really concerned with making progress in the preservation and study of these historic police documents.

There is no more advice to give the story is almost at an end. The last chance is likely to be the petition or if i am able to win the case to gain access to MEPO 38

In my brief discussions with Lindsey Clutterbuck and Andrew Brown historical archivist for the Metropolitan Police for research of my book, the general impression I got was that there was a concern with 'Ripperologists' making of the records something far more sinister than was warranted.

Are any of these two experts on The Ripper case ?

As to Clutterbuck part of the police case was based on the fact that he didnt have the authority to access or to use anyhting form these records. I spoke to him and he declined to come to give evidence to clear his name as far as this slur on his character was concerned.

Well here you go speaking from an historians point of view, that may be the case but unless their are examined in their entirerty we will never know. So from an investigative perspective it is important that they be examined. After all we have some new names for them albeit surnames. How do we know that there may not be other entries in them which may lead to a positive identification of who they really are.

Already, your efforts as these recent socialist petition causes show, promote the average punter to ask, "but what are they hiding, I bet it has something to do with the Freemasons and Royalty". Do you get it Trevor? These misguided and extravagant press media displays are taking us back to Jack the Ripper of the 1970's. And that's why I venture to say, why the two researchers are responding and good on them for saying so because that Trevor, is not a cause you are prepared to champion.

[B]You are talking utter rubbish Stalinist anons. Does it matter how we now get access if we ever do at all. There is nothing to lose now and everything to gain. I will fight any cause I beleive in right to the bitter end.

The worldwide public at large now will speak if they speak loud enough someone wil have to sit up and listen and perhaps take note.

But of course if you or any others on here have any other ways of gaining access then feel free to enlighten us. I think you are like some of the others frigthened that if any new material did come to light it might damage the thinking and all the theories you and the others have all been ramming down peoples throats for many years.

[Monty]

Whatever. I signed. Some will hate me now, I guess, but even if it is of no use, what damage can it do?

I'm glad I don't know what's going on here ...

I certainly don't hate you.

You have followed your belief and took whatever action you deemed fit. And done so without attempting to ram it down the throat of others nor hurl personal abuse.

No, I don't hate you at all...I commend you.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Having just rec'd a phone call about this thread, I wish to make it clear that I am not one of the researchers who have set up this petition..apparently the jungle drums have hummed with a rumour. As my computer is down atm, I have borrowed another to post this. That should put the rumour to bed.

I have signed the peteition, after my own choice told me that I would like to see, if possible, a change in regard to certain documents from well before the tuen of the 1900's. That is my personal slant on this.


kindly


Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello all,

Having just rec'd a phone call about this thread, I wish to make it clear that I am not one of the researchers who have set up this petition..apparently the jungle drums have hummed with a rumour. As my computer is down atm, I have borrowed another to post this. That should put the rumour to bed.

I have signed the peteition, after my own choice told me that I would like to see, if possible, a change in regard to certain documents from well before the tuen of the 1900's. That is my personal slant on this.


kindly


Phil

Thanks for making that clear some seem to think that this is my idea and I am behind it. I was approached by the persons concerned for help and advice and I gave that help and advice. I am in totall agreement with their actions and i have voted accordingly

[Phil Carter]

Hello Trevor,

So you have been tagged as the man behind the petition too eh? Oh well, seems that there were others interested in seeing the material..not just you, Simon and I. hahaha

Hope to be online again soon.

kindly

Phil

[Chris]

I think these documents should be made available and I think the pretext on which access to them is being refused is about as flimsy as it could be. So I've signed the petition, though sadly I doubt there is any chance of the politicians intervening.

Incidentally, I have just looked at the ruling that refused Trevor Marriott the right to appeal (http://www.informationtribunal.gov.u...EA20100183.pdf ). Basically, it seems, the initial ruling was based on a crass misreading of the act. They have now retrospectively edited that ruling, so that it's not clear (to me) what it originally said. But it seems that it originally said that it wasn't clear that all the information came from confidential sources. It's now been pointed out to them that this would mean that not all the information would be exempt from disclosure, so they're now saying that because they think (on what evidence it's not clear) that most of it is exempt, and because it would be too much effort to check whether all of it is exempt, then their previous erroneous judgment should stand anyway.

Obviously that's a mockery of what the law says - which is that anything that cannot be shown to be exempt must be made available - but as they've taken it upon themselves to refuse permission to appeal, nothing more can be done through legal channels.

I think it's clear to anyone who has looked at this at all that only a proportion of the information in the ledger comes from informants. The "bottom line" is that unless there's some evidence that the entry does relate to information from an informant, then it is not exempt under the act and there is no legal basis for refusing to disclose it. But it is still not being disclosed. So much for "freedom of information."

[The Good Michael]

I too believe these documents should be made available. Having read Stewart;s and Paul's arguments, and having understood their points or general agreements, I think all documents that governments have should be made available because we fund the governments and we pay for the making of such documents. Why create documents that no one can read properly? If something is sensitive, why have documents? Why not just have secrets? The way I see it, the purpose of sensitive material is to have records of shady stuff that governments have done, and for what purpose? For leverage somewhere down the line? To show accountability? Well, the government is accountable to US. Why is it that they can come into our homes and demand all our documents and that guys like Bush had 24-hour access to court orders because of the wire-tapping BS that they pulled, and we are private citizens, but we can't see the garbage that they are doing? It's time to take back the government and make it accountable.


Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

I think these documents should be made available and I think the pretext on which access to them is being refused is about as flimsy as it could be. So I've signed the petition, though sadly I doubt there is any chance of the politicians intervening.

Incidentally, I have just looked at the ruling that refused Trevor Marriott the right to appeal (http://www.informationtribunal.gov.u...EA20100183.pdf ). Basically, it seems, the initial ruling was based on a crass misreading of the act. They have now retrospectively edited that ruling, so that it's not clear (to me) what it originally said. But it seems that it originally said that it wasn't clear that all the information came from confidential sources. It's now been pointed out to them that this would mean that not all the information would be exempt from disclosure, so they're now saying that because they think (on what evidence it's not clear) that most of it is exempt, and because it would be too much effort to check whether all of it is exempt, then their previous erroneous judgment should stand anyway.

Obviously that's a mockery of what the law says - which is that anything that cannot be shown to be exempt must be made available - but as they've taken it upon themselves to refuse permission to appeal, nothing more can be done through legal channels.

I think it's clear to anyone who has looked at this at all that only a proportion of the information in the ledger comes from informants. The "bottom line" is that unless there's some evidence that the entry does relate to information from an informant, then it is not exempt under the act and there is no legal basis for refusing to disclose it. But it is still not being disclosed. So much for "freedom of information."

Chris
Just to carry on from where you left off. You are correct as far as direct entries relating to informants are concerned I can say that out of 36.000 entries there are only 85 names of informants mentioned in both sets of documents. Some of those names are re occuring so that number is in reality much less.

The names shown are either surnames only or pseudonyms so there is no likelihood of any of them being positivley identified. Clutterbuck in his thesis did in fact go so far as to attempt to disclose specific information about six high profile ones from ther records.

As part of my case an excercise was carried out to see if any descendants or living family members could be traced back to today, as part of the police case was fear of livinf family members of descendants being targeted by moderen day terrorist groups.

It was an impossible task. The first stumbling block is the 1921 census where part of that census was destroyed by water damage.

The 1931 census was destroyed by fire during WW 2.

There was no 1941 census due to WW 2

The 1951 census will not be released until 2051.

I argued that in fact I or any experienced police officer could go through the registers and ledgers and could identify the entries which specifically related to informants.

Despite specific entries appearing in the registers the police argued that this could not safeley be carried out.

It should be noted that since 2000 over 4000 MI5 files some containing the names of informant have been released to The national Archives.

Finally as far as the original tribunals decsion is concerned I lost on a 2-1 marjority. It now transpires that the one person from the tribunal who supported my appeal was The Judge himself. The other two members of the panel were laymembers. Who it would seem took the view that many juries seem to take in criminal trials about police evidence and that is "The police must be right because they are the police"

[Stewart P Evans]

Which Planet

...
I was dissapointed to see comments on JTR forums from two respected researchers who in my opinion should have known better. Both poured water on this project, both went to great lengths to elablorate on how wonderful they were and that they had tried to get access etc, and highlighted how they had failed.
...
[/B]

I am not sure which planet you occupy Trevor. Both Paul and I merely 'poured' common sense on the petition as described. I fully agreed with the remarks already made by Paul on this subject. Far from 'elaborating on how wonderful I was' (I resent that remark and would like an apology and retraction please) I gave the past history of unsuccessful attempts to access certain Special Branch files, notably by Professor Bernard Porter.

If you check the referenced page for the petition it states, apropos of 'all documents relating to the 1888 Whitechapel/Jack the Ripper case', 'The unwarranted secrecy surrounding this historically important series of unsolved murders has prevailed for over 120 years. We the undersigned therefore ask Her Majesty's Government to declassify and make available to the public at the UK National Archives all hitherto unpublished files, documents and papers relating to these murders in their entire and unredacted form.'

Both Paul and I pointed out the fact that all known extant files on the Whitechapel murders have already entered the public domain and that the petitioners would need to be specific as to what they refer to, there is no evidence of 'unwarranted secrecy' surrounding the Whitechapel murders, and there are no known files relating to the murders to be 'declassified'.

As regards the Special Branch legers I pointed out that you were already dealing with that by way of appeal against the decision. Such a petition would serve only to cloud the issue but, I guess, you would see good press mileage in it.

[Stewart P Evans]

But...

I think these documents should be made available and I think the pretext on which access to them is being refused is about as flimsy as it could be. So I've signed the petition, though sadly I doubt there is any chance of the politicians intervening.
...

But, surely the petition is not specifically about the legers? It refers to 'unwarranted secrecy' surrounding the Whitechapel murders and calls for the declassification of 'all hitherto unpublished files, documents and papers relating to these murders'.

The first question is, 'What unwarranted secrecy?' and the second is 'All what files, documents and papers relating to these murders?' If these questions cannot be answered, and I don't see how they can, the petition falls at the first hurdle. Are you happy with what you have signed?