Senior Investigators-Inside Knowledge

[rjpalmer]

In 1910 he said that he had no more idea where the killer lived then than he did in 1888.

True enough, but I think Mr. Nelson is arguing that Major Smith's wording is odd. He refers to living quarters and being 'beat' by the Ripper, but doesn't specifically state that he didn't have a suspect.

Smith dances around the question, if ever so slightly, and the residence of a lunatic-at-large, picked up on suspicion, wouldn't necessarily be known or traceable.

[seecomber]

Of all the people associated with the Whitechapel killings perhaps the most informed was James Monro who seems to have been in a position to receive the views and opinions of all the officials asociated with the case.
Unfotunately we only know what Monro`s grandson Christopher allegedly overheard that Monro`s theory was a "hot potato",at least that was my understanding and that the relevent papers had been burned or disappeared.Recently reading Colin Kendell`s book Jack the Ripper published in 2012 I was surprised to find that Christopher Monro claimed to have received the full story and the details in James Monro`s papers from his father sometime in the 1930`s when his father believed he did not have long to live.
Briefly Monro is said to have been investigating the Apostles,not the ones who hung around with Jesus Christ but the group of self appointed intellectuals at Cambridge University which latterly included such persons as Blunt,Burgess,Long,Caircross ,Watson and goodness knows how many others of similar leanings. Such secret societies are naturally open to penetration by strange and unusual characters and allegedly J K Stephen was the prevailing High Preist at the time.Stephen was a noted misogynist(as indeed were many of his contempories like Dodgeson and Dowson) Druitt was inducted into the Apostles and we all know what followed.
What is really interesting in all this is that if true it tells us what Monro`s opinion was and how Druit`s name,otherwise apparently clutched from the air,came into the frame

[Trevor Marriott]

True enough, but I think Mr. Nelson is arguing that Major Smith's wording is odd. He refers to living quarters and being 'beat' by the Ripper, but doesn't specifically state that he didn't have a suspect.

Smith dances around the question, if ever so slightly, and the residence of a lunatic-at-large, picked up on suspicion, wouldn't necessarily be known or traceable.

But Smith doesn't say that does he, they are your words!

Monro on his retirement also stated the same that the identity of the killer was unknown. So the two most high ranking police officers in London all say the same doesn't that speak volumes to show that nobody had any real clues and that what was written in memoirs etc in later years was nothing more than wild speculative uncorroborated opinions

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Dupin]

quote: "Druitt was inducted into the Apostles and we all know what followed"

As they say in wikipedia "citation needed".
Given that Druitt was educated at "the other place", it is unlikely he would become an Apostle as an undergraduate, although conceivably he knew some members from his Wykehamist days.
BTW the apostles is one of those odd societies which are common in Cambridge where you have to be invited to join, and only find out about them later because you weren't! If it were a secret society we wouldn't know any names, such as for example the infamous Blunt, or one of my mathematical heroes, G H Hardy.
[OT: I don't think Hardy got on with ladies (or indeed anyone very closely) but he was far from being a misogynist or still less a serial killer - although his conversation about taxi numbers may have bored poor old Ramanujan to death!]

[seecomber]

I am merely basing my observations on the book mentioned above which covers the matter in considerably more detail and suggests Druitt came into contact with the Apostles through his legal studies at the bar.What was a surprise to me was to learn that Monro`s views i.e. his `hot potato` was known.Of course it may have been common knowledge for some years or dismissed as fiction by the cognoscenti but I can only say it is new to me.The possibility of it being true does make several statements more illuminating e.g."look higher in society" and"bring about the downfall of the monarchy".

[Scott Nelson]

The original point here is that due to the varied and contradictory opinions given over the years by some of the most intimately involved in the investigations, at the highest levels, is this representative of some misdirection or disinformation strategy by those officials?

Yes I think so, Michael. But how or where Anderson, Swanson and other police officials fit into the strategy, I don't know.

But I think Simon might.

[rjpalmer]

"I think Mr. Nelson is arguing that Major Smith's wording is odd. He refers to living quarters and being 'beat' by the Ripper, but doesn't specifically state that he didn't have a suspect." -- RJP, Post #151.

But Smith doesn't say that does he, they are your words!

Calm down, Old Boy. I'd say I gave a pretty fair paraphrase of what Major Smith did say; Martin Fido made a similar point many years ago. But let's have the Major speak:

“I must admit that, though within five minutes of the perpetrator one night, and with a very fair description of him besides, he completely beat me and every police officer in London ; and I have no more idea now where he lived than I had twenty years ago.”

Sir Henry Smith, From Constable to Commissioner, Chapter XVI.

As I say, the phrasing is slightly odd. He is referring to the residence of the suspect, without specifically saying that he hadn't been identified. I agree, however, that the interpretation is a bit of a stretch, unless Smith is being specifically coy, or, as Fido argued, there is something going on between Anderson and Smith that we do not fully comprehend. RP

[Trevor Marriott]

"I think Mr. Nelson is arguing that Major Smith's wording is odd. He refers to living quarters and being 'beat' by the Ripper, but doesn't specifically state that he didn't have a suspect." -- RJP, Post #151.

Calm down, Old Boy. I'd say I gave a pretty fair paraphrase of what Major Smith did say; Martin Fido made a similar point many years ago. But let's have the Major speak:

“I must admit that, though within five minutes of the perpetrator one night, and with a very fair description of him besides, he completely beat me and every police officer in London ; and I have no more idea now where he lived than I had twenty years ago.”

Sir Henry Smith, From Constable to Commissioner, Chapter XVI.

As I say, the phrasing is slightly odd. He is referring to the residence of the suspect, without specifically saying that he hadn't been identified. I agree, however, that the interpretation is a bit of a stretch, unless Smith is being specifically coy, or, as Fido argued, there is something going on between Anderson and Smith that we do not fully comprehend. RP

But Monro says almost the same and he wasn't being specific about any one incident!

But my point being is that the two most highly ranked police officers in London who you would expect to have known what went on as far as the investigation is concerned especially in relation to suspects, and were both directly answerable to government officials both say they did not have any clues as to the identity of the killer. That must count for something in the grand scheme of things. Officer of that ran should not be ignored.

Those statements they made years later can be corroborated by the fact that there is nothing from any government official to the contrary that I am aware of, surely tells us that the police did not have any clues, and all the suspect's researchers have been trying to pin the tail on the donkey for all of these years have been wasting their time chasing lost causes. Because if the police in 1888 couldn't identify the killer, there is no chance for anyone 132 years later to do what they could not.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Baron]

Because if the police in 1888 couldn't identify the killer, there is no chance for anyone 132 years later to do what they could not.

Agree!

Thats why we say Kosminski is the prime suspect of the case.


The Baron

[Michael W Richards]

But Monro says almost the same and he wasn't being specific about any one incident!

But my point being is that the two most highly ranked police officers in London who you would expect to have known what went on as far as the investigation is concerned especially in relation to suspects, and were both directly answerable to government officials both say they did not have any clues as to the identity of the killer. That must count for something in the grand scheme of things. Officer of that ran should not be ignored.

Those statements they made years later can be corroborated by the fact that there is nothing from any government official to the contrary that I am aware of, surely tells us that the police did not have any clues, and all the suspect's researchers have been trying to pin the tail on the donkey for all of these years have been wasting their time chasing lost causes. Because if the police in 1888 couldn't identify the killer, there is no chance for anyone 132 years later to do what they could not.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You know Trevor that's what Ive been facing down for some time now. Theres much less available documentation, that lack of specific knowledge that came from being there at the moment, data for scientific analysis is extremely limited...let alone forensics, it seems highly unlikely that the cases can be solved with what is available. That being said, doesn't Law enforcement allow for a Case to be made without a body present? You can try someone for Murder without ever obtaining the body. On that basis, is it possible that a Case could be made in any of these cases that can be supported by the evidence we do have? Perhaps bound with Reason and Logic to some extent.

Back on point here, as you say all this seems to tell us that there was no Suspect. No Profile. Nothing to use to filter suspects through. So yes, I think the Suspect driven research would be and has been and is Cart before the Horse. If one of these can be rationally reconstructed then met with a trial worthy premise, it would change the perspective on the entire "series". That's all that Im in the game for at this point, lets find agreement in just one case. Then stand back and lock at a whole new picture.

Why these investigators said what they said.....believing it or not, is still very curious to me. Senior men, who know very well not to be quoted giving anything remotely sensitive to the press, even casually going on record with such polar opposite opinions. Monro with his "hot potato", indicating to me this was something covered up. What was being covered up?

How about something like a suspect for one or more that was someone known to the Intelligence community intimately, perhaps under employment at one time or another, something that they could not make public. In particular with the parallel show of the Parnell Commission, the paranoia that would result from knowledge that the government paid terrorists who committed violent or disruptive acts at some point towards English citizens, sanctioned by high levels of Parliament...well, that would be a "hot potato". Maybe people associated with the Jubilee Plot. HMG Double agents maybe.

I think if this is something like that, then why not just offer any suspect with motives that have nothing to do with that. Which "Suspect" doesn't really matter, the point would be to misdirect the attention of the public. Isnt that what these guys did every day at work anyway?

[Trevor Marriott]

Agree!

Thats why we say Kosminski is the prime suspect of the case.


The Baron

You cant say that there is no evidence other than what these officers wrote, and that is unsafe to rely on. If Kosminski was the prime suspect and this ID parade had taken place do you not think more people would have known about it because it was potentially a groundbreaking achievement for the police. Whereas the only two people who knew and wrote about this were Anderson and Swanson

read what Insp Reid says after Anderson's book was published in 1910

“I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence of any kind against anyone. The earth has been raked over, and the seas have been swept, to find this criminal 'Jack the Ripper’, always without success. It still amuses me to read the writings of such men as Dr Anderson, Dr Forbes Winslow, Major Arthur. Griffiths, and many others, all holding different theories, but all of them wrong. I have answered many of them in print, and would only add here that I was on the scene and ought to know.”

You need to forget Kosminksi as a suspect

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

You know Trevor that's what Ive been facing down for some time now. Theres much less available documentation, that lack of specific knowledge that came from being there at the moment, data for scientific analysis is extremely limited...let alone forensics, it seems highly unlikely that the cases can be solved with what is available. That being said, doesn't Law enforcement allow for a Case to be made without a body present? You can try someone for Murder without ever obtaining the body. On that basis, is it possible that a Case could be made in any of these cases that can be supported by the evidence we do have? Perhaps bound with Reason and Logic to some extent.

Back on point here, as you say all this seems to tell us that there was no Suspect. No Profile. Nothing to use to filter suspects through. So yes, I think the Suspect driven research would be and has been and is Cart before the Horse. If one of these can be rationally reconstructed then met with a trial worthy premise, it would change the perspective on the entire "series". That's all that Im in the game for at this point, lets find agreement in just one case. Then stand back and lock at a whole new picture.

Why these investigators said what they said.....believing it or not, is still very curious to me. Senior men, who know very well not to be quoted giving anything remotely sensitive to the press, even casually going on record with such polar opposite opinions. Monro with his "hot potato", indicating to me this was something covered up. What was being covered up?

How about something like a suspect for one or more that was someone known to the Intelligence community intimately, perhaps under employment at one time or another, something that they could not make public. In particular with the parallel show of the Parnell Commission, the paranoia that would result from knowledge that the government paid terrorists who committed violent or disruptive acts at some point towards English citizens, sanctioned by high levels of Parliament...well, that would be a "hot potato". Maybe people associated with the Jubilee Plot. HMG Double agents maybe.

I think if this is something like that, then why not just offer any suspect with motives that have nothing to do with that. Which "Suspect" doesn't really matter, the point would be to misdirect the attention of the public. Isnt that what these guys did every day at work anyway?

I think you need to forget about all this secret squirrel angle. No one had any clues whether they were from Special Branch or the Girl Guides. The Special Branch files do not contain any smoking guns.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

I think you need to forget about all this secret squirrel angle. No one had any clues whether they were from Special Branch or the Girl Guides. The Special Branch files do not contain any smoking guns.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Perhaps not, but we cannot deduce that based upon quoted opinions from some men most intimately involved with the crimes. As for the SB,... and I know your personal efforts to obtain information there, absence of memos or documents that would reveal what I suggest is what one would expect. There would be no paper trail.

[Trevor Marriott]

Perhaps not, but we cannot deduce that based upon quoted opinions from some men most intimately involved with the crimes. As for the SB,... and I know your personal efforts to obtain information there, absence of memos or documents that would reveal what I suggest is what one would expect. There would be no paper trail.

It is inconceivable to think that what you postulate would result in no paper trail or the fact that with the number of people involved no one would have talked or made some reference in later years.

the hot hot potato you seemingly seek to rely on could be anything or nothing and not necessarily ripper related

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

It is inconceivable to think that what you postulate would result in no paper trail or the fact that with the number of people involved no one would have talked or made some reference in later years.

the hot hot potato you seemingly seek to rely on could be anything or nothing and not necessarily ripper related

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I rely on almost nothing Trevor. Certainly no one investigator. I just suggested that in the same way as Black Ops operates today, there is almost no hard copy that exists on what they do. They don't even exist in administration records. I was just saying that if there was indeed a "hot potato" I would expect nothing in writing on that from anyone that was involved. No records on something doesn't mean no cover-up, in fact it may well indicate that there was.

And about nobody ever leaking that kind of info, all I can say is that its a matter of record that secret operations in the US have been maintained silently for years by many individuals before. Even death bed confessions are rare.