Senior Investigators-Inside Knowledge

[Kattrup]

130 years after the fact?

Yes, as far as I know, their interpretation of never is literal.
I’m not saying I agree but just pointed out that refusing access had nothing to do with Jack the Ripper. They just said no because they have a long-standing policy of not revealing agents or informants. So not a cover-up.

I think it’s exaggerated to keep a lid on after say 100 years, after all, other countries’ intelligence services are more relaxed and seem to continue unimpeded.

but personally I’ve never tried to recruit an afghan tribal chief, a Chinese officer or a Kremlin advisor to the cause of democracy. And the people who have claim their efforts are hindered if they cannot guarantee total anonymity.

If we’re trying to recruit Putin’s closest advisor and some historian publishes how his great grand father was a british spy, it could damage his career, lessening his value as an informant, and make him more reluctant to cooperate. Theoretical yes, but that’s the argument, as I understand it.

[erobitha]

The grounds are not tenuous, but should of course be questioned: the British intelligence services, including the Special Branch from whom I believe the ledgers originated take the view that they will never reveal the name of an agent or informant. Their reasoning is that doing so makes it harder to recruit potential informants.

130 years after the fact?

[Michael W Richards]

It might be obvious to you that they were either lying or incompetent, but does that mean that it's obvious to everyone else?

Since JtR was never caught and his identity remained unknown, perhaps it is not surprising that a group of people guessing about his identity - and guessing over a period of what, 30 years? 80 if you really want to include Morland - would have different suspects as their best guess?

Their guesses would depend on factors like: what they actually remembered, who they personally encountered, which suspects they themselves favoured originally, the context of their guess (e.g. self-aggrandizement in autobiography could make it more likely to claim certain insight and knowledge than they actually had), later information that might inform their guess (e.g. Chapman being caught) etc.

The reason I asked for a corroborative source to sustain a theory of conspiracy is that without it, there is no reason to assume a conspiracy.

The fact that different investigators made different claims over a period of 30 years is not proof of anything. It really just shows that they didn't know who JtR was.

Kattrup, what I was attempting to illustrate is that by virtue of the very different opinions of the men most intimately involved with the Investigations....(men who would essentially be looking over the same data,... looking at the same interviews, suspect suggestions, getting input from their peers and subordinates),...it would seem that they had many people they considered to be suspects, and that they could agree on none of them as a group. That seems unlikely. Surely the evidence is either inconclusive or it points towards a person or people, if its inconclusive, then what right do they have naming someone, anyone.. and if it points towards a person or people, why cant 2 or more of them seem to agree on those people?

The suspects suggested, or the ones that were apparently dead or institutionalized, all have quite different profiles as individuals. So, can we then conclude that there really was no hard evidence against any person or persons? Which raises the question of integrity....is it fair, or even legal, to name someone without any evidence whatsoever as being the likely murderer in these cases?

And who is giving these opinions anyway......oh yeah, the highest ranking men within the most secretive and sneaky departments in the government at that time.

[Kattrup]

The grounds for which Scotland Yard keeps these files classified seems very tenious at the very least, and definitely makes people wonder was there a cover-up, still being protected to this very day?

The grounds are not tenuous, but should of course be questioned: the British intelligence services, including the Special Branch from whom I believe the ledgers originated take the view that they will never reveal the name of an agent or informant. Their reasoning is that doing so makes it harder to recruit potential informants.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott I read somewhere that you attempted to liberate some classified documents in possession of Scotland Yard a few years back, but it seemed it was not successful due apaprent reprucussions of such information being released? Does that remain the case? The grounds for which Scotland Yard keeps these files classified seems very tenious at the very least, and definitely makes people wonder was there a cover-up, still being protected to this very day?

You are correct the request to gain access to the files was refused. It was a line of enquiry that had to be pursued. That being said from other enquiries I made I do not believe these files contained any smoking guns or the identity of the Ripper. In fact, from what I know there was very little on the Ripper crimes in them.

We may never fully know as I am told that these records have now been destroyed!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[erobitha]

Trevor Marriott I read somewhere that you attempted to liberate some classified documents in possession of Scotland Yard a few years back, but it seemed it was not successful due apaprent reprucussions of such information being released? Does that remain the case? The grounds for which Scotland Yard keeps these files classified seems very tenious at the very least, and definitely makes people wonder was there a cover-up, still being protected to this very day?

[Kattrup]

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.

It might be obvious to you that they were either lying or incompetent, but does that mean that it's obvious to everyone else?

Since JtR was never caught and his identity remained unknown, perhaps it is not surprising that a group of people guessing about his identity - and guessing over a period of what, 30 years? 80 if you really want to include Morland - would have different suspects as their best guess?

Their guesses would depend on factors like: what they actually remembered, who they personally encountered, which suspects they themselves favoured originally, the context of their guess (e.g. self-aggrandizement in autobiography could make it more likely to claim certain insight and knowledge than they actually had), later information that might inform their guess (e.g. Chapman being caught) etc.

The reason I asked for a corroborative source to sustain a theory of conspiracy is that without it, there is no reason to assume a conspiracy.

The fact that different investigators made different claims over a period of 30 years is not proof of anything. It really just shows that they didn't know who JtR was.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Michael,

Fair post. If anything it seems to show that the senior men at the time were really not that different from us today. In the absence of answers, they each picked their preferred horse and backed it.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Kattrup]

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?

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Simon Wood]

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

[c.d.]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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.