Senior Investigators-Inside Knowledge

[Simon Wood]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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."

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[spyglass]

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 "

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

[Michael W Richards]

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?