Senior Investigators-Inside Knowledge

[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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[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

[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.

[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".

[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!]

[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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[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

[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.

[Michael W Richards]

Smith never specifically said that he didn't know who the murderer was.

Then that would be misleading wouldn't it Scott. Precisely what Im asking in this thread...did they mislead. 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? Or, even though they had virtually the same information to access, their opinions on what to make of it still varied dramatically? From a failed suspect id that somehow confirms they had the right man in custody, to knowing absolutely nothing about any particular suspect to link with the crimes.

[Michael W Richards]

Trying to make an illusional point, aren't you

As if there was no Schwartz and no testimony of him

Or you may have full knowledge of the inquest and all other police papers related to it.

There WAS Scwartz, he testified.

There WAS a Witness-Suspect identification.

You don't know 1/100 of what Anderson and Swanson knew.

A +130 researcher who favours Druitt as a suspect want to wash an official identification of a prime suspect from the book!



The Baron

There is no physical evidence that Israel Schwartz had any connection to the Liz Stride Inquest, none that he "testified" at it. Unless of course you are in possession of some evidence which is unknown to everyone else on the planet now and who has been here over the past 132 years. No? Rhetorical anyway, of course.

[Wickerman]

Trying to make an illusional point, aren't you

As if there was no Schwartz and no testimony of him

Or you may have full knowledge of the inquest and all other police papers related to it.

There WAS Scwartz, he testified.

There WAS a Witness-Suspect identification.

You don't know 1/100 of what Anderson and Swanson knew.

A +130 researcher who favours Druitt as a suspect want to wash an official identification of a prime suspect from the book!



The Baron

I'd like to know what you think "Official" means.
As has been pointed out, everything about Anderson's "so-called" identification was unnofficial.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Baron,

Dream on.

Stay safe,

Simon

[The Baron]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And that dosen't mean there was no suspect, no watching day by night, no witness, no attempt of an identification to bring a suspect to the court.



The Baron

[Trevor Marriott]

Smith never specifically said that he didn't know who the murderer was.

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

A +130 researcher who favours Druitt as a suspect want to wash an official identification of a prime suspect from the book!

The Baron

Everything about the so-called identification goes against official police procedures regarding ID parades.

If the police had a stone wall witness why would they jeopardise their case by breaking rules and regulations?

The marginalia is unsafe to rely on, and why is it unsafe?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk