Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Senior Investigators-Inside Knowledge

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Senior Investigators-Inside Knowledge

    Was just thinking that the range of opinions given by the Senior Investigators,..from Monroe's "Hot Potato" to Andersons immigrant Jew convictions, to Abberlines Chapman comments post execution, to Warrens short list of supects….is there any reason to suspect that the Jack the Ripper crimes were known for what they really were by all these men, or most anyway, and they co-operatively and deliberately kept it from the press?

    I ask because these men practiced deceit and dealt with lies and misrepresetations as part of their daily routine in the usual roles. Spies, plots, double agents, there was lots of things going on that were not commonly known about. Even by the government in some cases...like the foiled Jubilee Plot for example.

    Is it possible they knew and mislead?
    Michael Richards

  • #2
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    Was just thinking that the range of opinions given by the Senior Investigators,..from Monroe's "Hot Potato" to Andersons immigrant Jew convictions, to Abberlines Chapman comments post execution, to Warrens short list of supects….is there any reason to suspect that the Jack the Ripper crimes were known for what they really were by all these men, or most anyway, and they co-operatively and deliberately kept it from the press?

    I ask because these men practiced deceit and dealt with lies and misrepresetations as part of their daily routine in the usual roles. Spies, plots, double agents, there was lots of things going on that were not commonly known about. Even by the government in some cases...like the foiled Jubilee Plot for example.

    Is it possible they knew and mislead?
    The plain and simple answer is that the identity of the killer or killers was never known, and will never be known now. All of those mentioned only thought they knew, and by putting their thoughts to paper in later years have misled researchers ever since, because there is not one scrap of hard evidence to point to anyone suspect to be able to say that suspect was JTR beyond a reasonable doubt, and with so many suspects on the list, they can't all have been JTR could they?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      The plain and simple answer is that the identity of the killer or killers was never known, and will never be known now. All of those mentioned only thought they knew, and by putting their thoughts to paper in later years have misled researchers ever since, because there is not one scrap of hard evidence to point to anyone suspect to be able to say that suspect was JTR beyond a reasonable doubt, and with so many suspects on the list, they can't all have been JTR could they?

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      My point to the thread Trevor is to see how many people might be influenced by the fact that these same men practiced deception as part of a regular days activities. Leaving each one to explain what they thought was going on in their own way might explain why so many did have an opinion about what the investigation revealed. Abberline was pretty adamant that he felt no-one knew the identity of the killer, until his comments about Chapman anyway, but many of these men suggested that the truth was known. "The Truth" seems to be different in most cases however, one mans is not necessarily anothers.

      So...are we seeing men whose egos cannot accept defeat and so they suggest that things were known but not disclosed, or are we seeing men who in each individual case gave "suspects" or suggestions that were just intended to misdirect?

      An example of how this might manifest itself is if the man responsible for the killings, some or all, was someone the government worked with in some capacity. Like a double agent...there was talk that Millen did these...or maybe someone connected with Parnell? Just interested in what people make of the many varied answers about these crimes and the likely criminal suggestions from the investigators.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
        Was just thinking that the range of opinions given by the Senior Investigators,..from Monroe's "Hot Potato" to Andersons immigrant Jew convictions, to Abberlines Chapman comments post execution, to Warrens short list of supects….is there any reason to suspect that the Jack the Ripper crimes were known for what they really were by all these men, or most anyway, and they co-operatively and deliberately kept it from the press?

        I ask because these men practiced deceit and dealt with lies and misrepresetations as part of their daily routine in the usual roles. Spies, plots, double agents, there was lots of things going on that were not commonly known about. Even by the government in some cases...like the foiled Jubilee Plot for example.

        Is it possible they knew and mislead?
        Ive had similar thoughts over the years, and not just the names you've mentioned, it seems every police official connected to the case had a different view years later.
        The fact that Abberline favoured Chapman ( apparently ) screams out " smoke Screen "

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

          My point to the thread Trevor is to see how many people might be influenced by the fact that these same men practiced deception as part of a regular days activities. Leaving each one to explain what they thought was going on in their own way might explain why so many did have an opinion about what the investigation revealed. Abberline was pretty adamant that he felt no-one knew the identity of the killer, until his comments about Chapman anyway, but many of these men suggested that the truth was known. "The Truth" seems to be different in most cases however, one mans is not necessarily anothers.

          So...are we seeing men whose egos cannot accept defeat and so they suggest that things were known but not disclosed, or are we seeing men who in each individual case gave "suspects" or suggestions that were just intended to misdirect?

          An example of how this might manifest itself is if the man responsible for the killings, some or all, was someone the government worked with in some capacity. Like a double agent...there was talk that Millen did these...or maybe someone connected with Parnell? Just interested in what people make of the many varied answers about these crimes and the likely criminal suggestions from the investigators.
          Might I point out the following comments in later years from those officers from two police forces who were in overall charge of their forces when the crimes were being committed, and if there had been anything positive in the way of clues to identify the killer I would have expected them to have known? So that being said can we disregard all of those wild speculative opinions from the likes of Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten etc?

          James Monro following his resignation as Metropolitan Police Commissioner, November 1890 stated:

          “The police had nothing positive in the way of clues about the identity of the Ripper.”


          Major Henry Smith, retired City of London Police Commissioner 1910

          “The Ripper ...completely beat me and every Police officer in London." and that "...I have no more idea now where he lived than I had twenty years ago."

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by spyglass View Post

            Ive had similar thoughts over the years, and not just the names you've mentioned, it seems every police official connected to the case had a different view years later.
            The fact that Abberline favoured Chapman ( apparently ) screams out " smoke Screen "

            I also find that turnabout by Abberline curious spyglass. He is the one man who throughout the ensuing years suggested that no-one knew the answers, or who the culprit or culprits were. And yet here he is, many years after the fact, suggesting facts seem to "dovetail" into a likely Chapman guilt scenario? Seems to me this is an about face without a catalyst or new revelation.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post


              I also find that turnabout by Abberline curious spyglass. He is the one man who throughout the ensuing years suggested that no-one knew the answers, or who the culprit or culprits were. And yet here he is, many years after the fact, suggesting facts seem to "dovetail" into a likely Chapman guilt scenario? Seems to me this is an about face without a catalyst or new revelation.
              I think Abberline was merely suggesting Chapman as a likely suspect because of his murder of women in Whitechapel. Again we get back to the debate on how strong a likely suspect is? In the case of Chapman in the light of what he was convicted of they had the opportunity of going to interview him in prison before his execution, but there is no record of that taking place so we must assume that at the time of Chapmans murders and subsequent conviction there was no suspicion against him for being the Ripper.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • #8
                In the Toronto Daily Mail, 12th December 1888, Inspector Walter Andrews added to the mounting pile of BS characterizing the Whitechapel murders—

                “He said it was one of those things he did not like to talk about. He thought that the chances were that the perpetrator would never be caught unless he was caught in the act or dropped some clue, which he had not done so far. The reports published in the papers about the murders were very sensational. Only one of the bodies was badly mutilated, but the papers took it for granted that the rest were all served in a like manner. It was a great mystery.”

                And, with many further tweaks from Scotland Yard, the Whitechapel murders have remained a mystery.
                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Nice to see you Simon, appreciate you also weighing in here. I believe that part of the reason this has remained a mystery is because its not a linear record of history we study, its a path strewn with official opinion and assurances that make it impossible to find any true path. My interest, as this thread voices, is to wonder aloud whether we have been prevented from seeing what happened because the "facts" were never really available to us. Years of analysis by so many people...just GIGO, because there is something that was known that we wont know. Something that because of its sociopolitical ramifications or perhaps just the potential for ruining some careers of HM's finest. Some quite satisfactory pensions, promotions, honorary tributes.

                  After all.....they thought....who really cares about some Unfortunate women who were killed in the course of their plying an illegal trade in the slums. Surely this will die down and go away. I believe they misunderstood the power of curiosity and the human need for understanding. Even of the murders of some street women 130 plus years ago.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post


                    I also find that turnabout by Abberline curious spyglass. He is the one man who throughout the ensuing years suggested that no-one knew the answers, or who the culprit or culprits were. And yet here he is, many years after the fact, suggesting facts seem to "dovetail" into a likely Chapman guilt scenario? Seems to me this is an about face without a catalyst or new revelation.
                    That depends on what Abberline actually said or if it was taken out of context or exaggerated by the reporter. He might have simply been talking off the top of his head.

                    c.d.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hi c.d.,

                      The reporter was John Philip Collins, Literary Editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, and one of Abberline's lodgers at 313 Clapham Road.

                      Regards,

                      Simon
                      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by c.d. View Post

                        That depends on what Abberline actually said or if it was taken out of context or exaggerated by the reporter. He might have simply been talking off the top of his head.

                        c.d.
                        Of all the investigators I hold a special place for Abberline, because Ive always felt that he more than any investigator would feel an obligation to the people in those districts to solve these crimes. He essentially made his reputation on those streets, its how he got where he was, and they were grateful to have him. But for the majority of the time from the murders on he is saying no-one knew the truth, and no-one was institutionalized for the crimes. Suddenly very late in the game, he feels sure that he now has an idea of how the circumstantial evidence points to Chapman. He mentions the geographical, Chapman lived in the action zone during the Ripper murders...like that is damning evidence of some kind. So did lots of men. Bad guys too. Why after all those years did he even say he thinks Chapman did it with nothing obviously new on the table to base that on? Needed conclusion, closure? Not sure myself.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                          Why after all those years did he even say he thinks Chapman did it with nothing obviously new on the table to base that on?
                          Well, I think the arrest and conviction of a serial killer known to have lived in Whitechapel in 1888 was, in fact, something obviously new.

                          He lays out his reasoning in the interview, one can agree or disagree, but it seems rather straightforward: a man killing women in Whitechapel/East End is arrested. He arrived in London about the time JtR killed and it appeared at a glance that he was abroad when JtR stopped. Plus there were reports of similar JtR-murders in the US during the period GC was there.
                          All of Abberline’s points can be questioned, of course, but it does not very mysterious why he theorized about GC - a known serial killer in Whitechapel.

                          As for your other questions about knowledge withheld by top officers etc., one needs empirical basis for a theory. Are there any credible sources pointing to a cover-up?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                            Well, I think the arrest and conviction of a serial killer known to have lived in Whitechapel in 1888 was, in fact, something obviously new.

                            He lays out his reasoning in the interview, one can agree or disagree, but it seems rather straightforward: a man killing women in Whitechapel/East End is arrested. He arrived in London about the time JtR killed and it appeared at a glance that he was abroad when JtR stopped. Plus there were reports of similar JtR-murders in the US during the period GC was there.
                            All of Abberline’s points can be questioned, of course, but it does not very mysterious why he theorized about GC - a known serial killer in Whitechapel.

                            As for your other questions about knowledge withheld by top officers etc., one needs empirical basis for a theory. Are there any credible sources pointing to a cover-up?
                            A poisoning conviction made him re-evaluate Chapman as a serial murderer-mutilator? Those 2 acts are very different with only one providing instant gratification. For me, that idea has no legs. the coverup suggestion is based on contradictory reports on what was known about these crimes from virtually every senior investigator...I wondering if this is an indication that the stories were intentionally misleading. Your "empirical evidence" are the contradictory reports by men who would have had the same knowledge basically.
                            Last edited by Michael W Richards; 03-10-2020, 03:57 PM.
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              From Arnold..."not more than four of these murders were committed by the same hand. They were the murders of Annie Champan in Hanbury Street, Mrs Nicholls in Buck's Row, Elizabeth Stride in Berner Street and Mary Kelly in Mitre Square."

                              Anderson....""...there was no doubt whatever as to the identity of the criminal...", "...he had been safely caged in an Asylum",...."In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact." (Isenschmidt/Kosminksi?)

                              Macnaughten…."I have a very clear idea who he was and how he committed suicide..." (Daily Mail) and "Although...the Whitechapel murderer, in all probability, put an end to himself soon after the Dorset Street affair in November 1888, certain facts pointing to this conclusion, were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer." (Druitt)


                              Abberline…."Nigel Morland recalled visiting Abberline when the Inspector was living in retirement in Dorset. Morland claimed that Abberline told him that the case was shut and that "I've given my word to keep my mouth permanently closed about it." Abberline went on to say that "I know and my superiors know certain facts."and that the Ripper "...wasn't a butcher, Yid or foreign skipper...you'd have to look for him not at the bottom of London society at the time but a long way up",....."In interviews with the Pall Mall Gazette in 1903 Abberline put forward the idea that George Chapman may have been the Ripper saying "...I cannot help feeling that this is the man we struggled so hard to capture fifteen years ago." However, he also said that "Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago."(Chapman or no-one known)

                              Littlechild considered Tumblety a "likely suspect".


                              Swanson..."...the suspect was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards - Kosminski was the suspect."

                              Monroe had only a theory that he referred to as a "very hot potato". He also told his grandson "Jack the Ripper should have been caught."

                              Warren I believe thought that the man involved in organizing the Balfour Assassination Plot was responsible, and I believe he mentions Millen.



                              There is a sampling by some senior investigators on the results of the Ripper investigations. Its obvious to me that if some of these were not intentionally misleading remarks then then people making these statements were oblivious to what went on in the actual investigations. The second notion isn't really viable...which leaves us with?.

                              I suppose my question here is actually rhetorical, the answer lies in the integrity of these, and others, comments.
                              Last edited by Michael W Richards; 03-14-2020, 11:22 AM.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X