E Petitions and Ripper Files and papers

[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).

[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

[Stewart P Evans]

At that time...

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."

At that time we presumed that the Special Branch files still existed but we have since found that they are claimed to have been destroyed leaving only the ledgers. But I thought that you knew this - so why do you say you are puzzled?

[Carol]

I agree with Phil and Simon Wood here, and I signed the petition. Didn't cost anything, and I'm one of these people who are willing to attempt things even if the chances of success are slim.

Hi Maria,

I was wondering what to write and I find you have said it even better than I would probably have come up with!

Carol

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

". . . there has been no 'unwarranted secrecy for over 120 years' concerning these murders . . ."

I'm going to have these words made into a needlework sampler to hang over my bed.

Regards,

Simon

[m_w_r]

Hi Simon,

I mean this quite genuinely - if you do manage to publish your book, I'll be the first one in the shop. You allude to a veil of secrecy, and presumably the book will be the place where the allegation is substantiated, if it can be. Hurry up with it, man!

Regards,

Mark

[lynn cates]

sweetness

Hello Mr. Begg. Most likely it is.

But perhaps someone could sweet talk the lads at the Yard into opening up MEPO 38? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Stewart P Evans]

Blissful

Hi Stewart,
". . . there has been no 'unwarranted secrecy for over 120 years' concerning these murders . . ."
I'm going to have these words made into a needlework sampler to hang over my bed.
Regards,
Simon

What a blissful image that conjures up. A cherubic Simon all tucked up in bed with a homely motto in framed needlework above him. At least you won't forget them and embark on some outrageous conspiracy theory or other.

[lynn cates]

good idea

Hello Maria. Sounds good to me.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

At that time we presumed that the Special Branch files still existed but we have since found that they are claimed to have been destroyed leaving only the ledgers. But I thought that you knew this - so why do you say you are puzzled?

Because you sounded so definite about the survival of Ripper-related material that I thought it must have been more than a presumption - particularly as the claim about the destruction of the material had been made long before you wrote (at least as early as the 1980s).

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

Methinks you're missing the irony here.

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Not Aware

Because you sounded so definite about the survival of Ripper-related material that I thought it must have been more than a presumption - particularly as the claim about the destruction of the material had been made long before you wrote (at least as early as the 1980s).

At that time I was not aware that the claim of destruction had been made, but I have since read chapter and verse on it. Our own enquiries in 2005 regarding possible access to Special Branch material resulted in us being told that there was so much trouble surrounding a certain lady and her accessing of Special Branch material that there would be no point in us trying. But, yes, I was sure at that time, for various reasons, that Special Branch files that might be relevant did exist. It was the summer of 1984 that New Scotland Yard stated that the Special Branch papers no longer existed and had probably been pulped during WWII.

[Stewart P Evans]

No...

Hi Stewart,
Methinks you're missing the irony here.
Regards,
Simon

No, I'm not, I just view things rather differently to you.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Mr. Begg. Most likely it is.

But perhaps someone could sweet talk the lads at the Yard into opening up MEPO 38? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Which comes back to the "it's not what you know but who you know" situation which is, I propose, totally untenable.

I am sure the MEPO 38 situation is being looked into as we write from some quarters.

However the likelyhood is that the Met Police will use the same "get out of jail free card" they used against Trevor, if an informant's name is within the documents somewhere. Meaning?..Stalemate.

NOT based on a common sense approach. (Note, a qualified judge said that)


best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

All of which gets us back to the main point of this dispute, any consideration of Trevor Marriott aside, and that is the wording of this petition - which is basically incorrect and flawed.

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? These points are germane to this petition.

So I would ask anyone who has signed up to please answer the above for me. If they can't they have signed agreement to something they either do not understand or they have signed mistakenly.

I agree with this, which is why I have not signed the petition. And yes, it's possible to agree with both Stewart and Phil C in this instance. It's fashionable at present to hate on Trevor Marriott and anything with his name associated. I was agreeing with Phil that this is wrong. It's even been stated by one poster that they don't care what new evidence Trevor turns up, which is remarkable to me, as I don't see how one's personal feelings towards a researcher should impact the importance or consideration of evidence they uncover. But so deep does hatred for Trevor go.

Stewart Evans, who I don't feel has become personal on this thread, is the sole voice of reason in pointing out the problems inherent in the petition itself, and he and Phil both seem to be saying that whether a person does or does not choose to sign the petition, it should be based on the merits of the petition itself, and not any personality associated with it. I agree with this.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott