E Petitions and Ripper Files and papers

[Trevor Marriott]

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ask Her Majesty's Government to declassify and make available to the public at the UK National Archives all hitherto unpublished files, documents and papers relating to these murders in their entire and unredacted form.'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 petition 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 you should keep up with events there are no more appeals left as far as these registers and ledgers are concerned. That is why I now support the petitions.

I should point out yet again that the petitions have nothing to do with me It was not my idea. I certainly have no agenda behind them I personally believe that there is nothing to be lost by going ahead with the petitions and again I totally support the fine work done by these two enthusiasts.

A liitle bit more action and a little less talk from some on here might be the order of the day.

[Chris]

Going back to the photograph of the register that is already available on the Internet:

http://fjl-research.blogspot.com/2007/11/catharine-and-john-kelly.html

There are 17 entries shown in it.

One mentions "informant Dunn," so if the police argument were accepted there would be grounds for redacting the one word "Dunn."

Someone else is described as "giving information," so an argument could be made for the redaction of that name too.

If the police argument were pushed to the absolute limit there's one other name that might be redacted, of someone who has made a "statement," but there's no indication that this was an informant or that the statement was made on the understanding the information was confidential.

I can't see how any argument whatsoever could be made that any of the other 14 entries name informants. That's more than 80% of the entries visible in that photograph.

To rule that all personal names in this document must be redacted makes a travesty of the law that these bodies are meant to be upholding.

[Stewart P Evans]

Not Sure

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

I am not sure that you have understood our points.

[Trevor Marriott]

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"

I should add to this by saying that during the tribunal one of the police witnesses was less than truthful in their evidence. This was highlighted when I cross examined that paticular witness.

[Trevor Marriott]

Going back to the photograph of the register that is already available on the Internet:

http://fjl-research.blogspot.com/2007/11/catharine-and-john-kelly.html

There are 17 entries shown in it.

One mentions "informant Dunn," so if the police argument were accepted there would be grounds for redacting the one word "Dunn."

Someone else is described as "giving information," so an argument could be made for the redaction of that name too.

If the police argument were pushed to the absolute limit there's one other name that might be redacted, of someone who has made a "statement," but there's no indication that this was an informant or that the statement was made on the understanding the information was confidential.

I can't see how any argument whatsoever could be made that any of the other 14 entries name informants. That's more than 80% of the entries visible in that photograph.

To rule that all personal names in this document must be redacted makes a travesty of the law that these bodies are meant to be upholding.

All of this resulted came from The Butterworth tribunal fiasco where they didnt tell him when it was being held.

[Stewart P Evans]

More in Life

Stewart you should keep up with events there are no more appeals left as far as these registers and ledgers are concerned. That is why I now support the petitions.
I should point out yet again that the petitions have nothing to do with me It was not my idea. I certainly have no agenda behind them I personally believe that there is nothing to be lost by going ahead with the petitions and again I totally support the fine work done by these two enthusiasts.
A liitle bit more action and a little less talk from some on here might be the order of the day.

There is more in life to me than these boards. I don't read all the posts and I didn't realise that your appeal had failed, I thought you were continuing to take matters further.

The petition is both misguided and misleading, as both Paul and I have pointed out already. They will get nowhere. If people do not want sensible advice then that is up to them and they will, I don't doubt, ignore it. Personally I think that now is the time to let the matter rest before any other avenue of approach might be contemplated. Such nonsense as this petition can only cause further damage.

Where is my apology?

[Stewart P Evans]

Remarks

I should add to this by saying that during the tribunal one of the police witnesses was less than truthful in their evidence. This was highlighted when I cross examined that paticular witness.

Remarks like this in a public forum really are going to enhance your reputation and stand you in good stead for any other future requests you may make.

We have to take your word, with no supporting evidence, that a responsible person deliberately lied. Presumably, if they monitor your activities on these boards, they will know of this allegation.

Is this just your opinion? Did they make a mistake, rather than be 'less than truthful'? Were they actually correct? After all this is not the first time you have made derogatory remarks about others on these boards.

[Chris]

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?

Some of the language wouldn't have been my choice - I wouldn't have included the reference to "unwarranted secrecy" surrounding the murders myself, and I don't think declassification is the right word - but I'm entirely happy with the spirit of the request.

I interpret it as covering all documents containing information about the case that have not yet been released to public access. Obviously that includes the Chief Constable's Register. Whether it also includes any actual files in MEPO 38 I don't know. Actually, it's interesting that when I looked at the entries for MEPO 38 in the National Archives catalogue three years ago (http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...6&postcount=44) there were descriptions and dates for only 48 of the 182 files. Now there appear to be only a small number without descriptions and dates, though the ones with descriptions aren't necessarily open as I assumed then.

[Trevor Marriott]

There is more in life to me than these boards. I don't read all the posts and I didn't realise that your appeal had failed, I thought you were continuing to take matters further.

The petition is both misguided and misleading, as both Paul and I have pointed out already. They will get nowhere. If people do not want sensible advice then that is up to them and they will, I don't doubt, ignore it. Personally I think that now is the time to let the matter rest before any other avenue of approach might be contemplated. Such nonsense as this petition can only cause further damage.

Where is my apology?

Stewart
Thats just your opinion which you are entitled to give it is not necessarily the opinion of the marjority and the viability of the petitions will be judged on the number who actually sign the petitions and any reaction back from the government.

There are no further avenues of approach they have all been exhausted time for positive action, not time sit and talk about it.

You should no that crimes are not solved by sitting behind a desk talking about them.

Apology hmmmmmmmmmmm in your dreams my friend nothing to apologise for.

[Stewart P Evans]

Agreement

Some of the language wouldn't have been my choice - I wouldn't have included the reference to "unwarranted secrecy" surrounding the murders myself, and I don't think declassification is the right word - but I'm entirely happy with the spirit of the request.
I interpret it as covering all documents containing information about the case that have not yet been released to public access. Obviously that includes the Chief Constable's Register. Whether it also includes any actual files in MEPO 38 I don't know. Actually, it's interesting that when I looked at the entries for MEPO 38 in the National Archives catalogue three years ago (http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...6&postcount=44) there were descriptions and dates for only 48 of the 182 files. Now there appear to be only a small number without descriptions and dates, though the ones with descriptions aren't necessarily open as I assumed then.

In a practical world of accuracy and specifics I'm afraid that being 'happy with the spirit' of a request does not cut it. For by signing it you are in agreement with what it says.

The petition does not relate to the specific files to which you have referred, and the catalogue entries for those files do not mention the Whitechapel murders. If full disclosure of the files you have specified is requested then they should be listed as the ones in question in the petition. The wording of the petition is nebulous.

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes...

Stewart
Thats just your opinion which you are entitled to give it is not necessarily the opinion of the marjority and the viability of the petitions will be judged on the number who actually sign the petitions and any reaction back from the government.
There are no further avenues of approach they have all been exhausted time for positive action, not time sit and talk about it.
You should no that crimes are not solved by sitting behind a desk talking about them.
Apology hmmmmmmmmmmm in your dreams my friend nothing to apologise for.

Yes, it is my opinion. I am sure that most of the 'majority' are not as well informed as I am in this matter.

Your 'bull in a china shop' avenue of approach might be exhausted. Time for a change of approach perhaps. I do not merely 'sit and talk' about matters. Yes, I do know how crimes are solved. I have an arrest record that would prove that.

You stated, of Paul and me, 'both went to great lengths to elaborate on how wonderful they were...' That statement is untrue, misleading and unwarranted. It smacks of childishness and jealousy.

A man is often judged on his ability to apologise if such a course is justified. I think that most have reached their conclusions about you.

[Chris]

In a practical world of accuracy and specifics I'm afraid that being 'happy with the spirit' of a request does not cut it. For by signing it you are in agreement with what it says.

On the contrary, in the practical world perfection is too much to hope for, and we have to decide all the time whether to support things we're not 100% happy with. Obviously that's a personal decision we all have to make for ourselves.

[Stewart P Evans]

Sign

On the contrary, in the practical world perfection is too much to hope for, and we have to decide all the time whether to support things we're not 100% happy with. Obviously that's a personal decision we all have to make for ourselves.

When you sign a petition your signature indicates that you are in agreement with what it says. Patently you do not agree with what it says. I did not mention 'perfection', I did, however, mention 'accuracy and specifics'.

The petition is not about the files that you wish to access, it is about 'all hitherto unpublished files, documents and papers relating to these murders', concerning which there has been 'unwarranted secrecy surrounding, for over 120 years'.

The decision to sign certainly is a personal one, and I am pleased for you that you feel happy to sign it.

[Chris]

The petition is not about the files that you wish to access, it is about 'all hitherto unpublished files, documents and papers relating to these murders', concerning which there has been 'unwarranted secrecy surrounding, for over 120 years'.

There aren't any particular files that I wish to access. In fact, apart from completing one or two bits of collaborative work that I am committed to, I don't envisage doing any more Ripper research at all in the foreseeable future.

The petition is calling for all related documents to be made available. That's what I'm supporting.

[Stewart P Evans]

Files

There aren't any particular files that I wish to access. In fact, apart from completing one or two bits of collaborative work that I am committed to, I don't envisage doing any more Ripper research at all in the foreseeable future.
The petition is calling for all related documents to be made available. That's what I'm supporting.

If there are no particular files that you wish to access then you obviously do not have a problem in this regard. If you do not envisage doing any more Ripper research that would be Ripperology's loss and, I suspect, your gain.

The petition is calling for the 'declassification' and 'availability' of (as I have already shown) 'all hitherto unpublished files, documents and papers relating to these murders'. As is well known all the files relating, specifically, to the Whitechapel murders were released to the public many years ago. The reference to 'documents and papers' is rather more nebulous and could be deemed to cover any document at all filed under different categories, and with a material relating to other matters, but which contains mention of the murders.

Now put yourself in the position of a civil servant receiving this petition to deal with. What does he do? Obviously he checks all the recorded Whitechapel murders files and finds that they have been released to the public in the 1970s, earlier than their 100 years release date. He does not know which closed or confidential files may contain references to the murders. And on checking he will find no evidence of 'unwarranted secrecy' in relation to the Whitechapel murders. He will report such as his finding.

So unless you can define what you have put in your post as 'all related documents' then how on earth can an uninformed civil servant begin to devine what this petition relates to? Which is why I have said that accuracy and specifics are required. Do you not understand that?