Senior Investigators-Inside Knowledge

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

The "long standing policy" stance isn't anything troublesome, its what can be hidden within that protective shell that is troublesome. In the course of their activities it appears that a large amount of data was collected about the Ripper cases, data we wont get to see...as per "policy". In this modern world, and with its desire for transparency from the bodies administrating their lives, secrets are like hives. Redact where needed, but they should allow access to that data at least for study by the Ripper Crimes alumni. Ban publication of specific names.

[Kattrup]

The "long standing policy" stance isn't anything troublesome, its what can be hidden within that protective shell that is troublesome. In the course of their activities it appears that a large amount of data was collected about the Ripper cases, data we wont get to see...as per "policy". In this modern world, and with its desire for transparency from the bodies administrating their lives, secrets are like hives. Redact where needed, but they should allow access to that data at least for study by the Ripper Crimes alumni. Ban publication of specific names.

As said, I generally agree. But let’s not get too far off topic.
No data about the Ripper cases is being withheld. All the still-existing case-files are available and have been published.

In fact, if one reads them, one learns exactly how much the police knew about the killer, since they actually wrote internal reports to each other and their superiors about it. So no need to theorize about whether they knew and suppressed the truth. They didn’t.

[Michael W Richards]

As said, I generally agree. But let’s not get too far off topic.
No data about the Ripper cases is being withheld. All the still-existing case-files are available and have been published.

In fact, if one reads them, one learns exactly how much the police knew about the killer, since they actually wrote internal reports to each other and their superiors about it. So no need to theorize about whether they knew and suppressed the truth. They didn’t.

Correct me if Im wrong, but wasn't Trevor denied access to those files?Oh...I see he mentions that they told him they were destroyed.

[Michael W Richards]

I just posted something on another thread, but its potential for discussion here made me want to post it here also..."

Is this Inquest just a figurative erasure of graffiti? Did they believe the club bore some responsibility for the murder but couldn't prove it, and wanted to suppress any suggestion of Jewish immigrant involvement in the crime for the same reasons they erased the grafitti? " The time dedicated to Mary Malcolm is astonishing when one considers that the men running the Inquest already knew she was wrong and they knew the true identity of the victim. Why on earth did they give her time? Why no key witnesses...Fanny, Israel,..?Why have Louis be allowed to establish his arrival time as 1 when they had multiple witnesses who said he was there at 12:45? Why let James Brown establish a possible Stride sighting at 12:45, when its clear he saw the young couple, and for the same reasons I already mentioned.

[mpriestnall]

"Why no key witnesses".

No Packer, no Schwartz, no Hutchinson (MJK).

Hhhhmmm let me think...

[Wickerman]

"Why no key witnesses".

No Packer, no Schwartz, no Hutchinson (MJK).

Hhhhmmm let me think...

Yes, but we also have no surviving paperwork from Scotland Yard that even deals with the subject.
A key witness is only of concern when a suspect is charged, no-one was ever charged.
Had the Duke St. suspect, BS-man, the Smith suspect or Astrachan been located and charged then presumably we would have our key witness.

[DJA]

No-one was charged because of a gigantic cover up.

Eddowes' murder was not investigated.

Frederick Brown was either completely incompetent or lied his head off.
Keep in mind his brother in law / partner,Stephen Appleford specialized in gynaecology.
Kate's uterus was removed and her lymph nodes operated on. She had cancer.
A kidney and adrenal gland was removed.
Her eyes showed unmistakable signs of xanthelasma and some had been surgically removed.

Sequeira was just as bad.

Don't get me started on Inspector Newcomen/Major Henry Smith who takes the kidney to Mr Hyde/Henry Gawen Sutton.

If the police,led by Abberline,were incapable of linking at least three of the women by then ..... after Mary Kelly's slaughter it was damn obvious.
Her Inquest,conducted at the Town Hall and grounds under the Vestry Board where Sutton and Thomas Stevenson (toxicologist in four major murder cases) held sway remains unbelievable.