The probability of being fed disinformation

[C. F. Leon]

To be really analytical, we need to know just what OTHER murders occured during the Ripper period that were NEVER considered Ripper crimes by the Press/Public/Police and why not. Each of the gropus had their own conception/-s as to what was going on, and the Police would have had the best information in the modern sense. It's their purpose to do so.

[Errata]

I'm a big fan of accepting new ideas without buying into them.

Just as I accept that there are people out there who truly and wholeheartedly believe that the CIA killed JFK. I get it. I see the reasoning. I accept that theory. I just think that surly the CIA knew that he had a life threatening condition he was keeping secret, and a simple pill switch would kill him and look like natural causes.

But I get the CIA theory. It's a good theory. I just don't adopt it as my own.

[Rob Clack]

Worth reepeating.

The irony is Rob, that the majority isn't that new at all.

Its just Knights theory in a different dress.

Monty

Conspiracy by any other name.

[Monty]

That is unadulterated bullshit, Phil, and you know it!

The reality is that you and your friends, Messrs. Wood, Marriott, and Richards constitute a wave of upstarts that believe that contrarian thinking is by definition, enlightened thinking. It's not!

Worth reepeating.

The irony is Rob, that the majority isn't that new at all.

Its just Knights theory in a different dress.

Monty

[Rob Clack]

That is unadulterated bullshit, Phil, and you know it!

The reality is that you and your friends, Messrs. Wood, Marriott, and Richards constitute a wave of upstarts that believe that contrarian thinking is by definition, enlightened thinking. It's not!

Couldn't have put it better myself Colin.
It seems to me that if anyone doesn't except a new idea they are living in the past and won't adapt. Doesn't matter that the new idea is usually a load of codswallop in the first place. I'm open to new ideas if they are based in reality.

Rob

[Colin Roberts]

I note that there is a wave of people today reluctant to change one thing, or indeed, accept as a possibility any new idea that may change things.

That is unadulterated bullshit, Phil, and you know it!

The reality is that you and your friends, Messrs. Wood, Marriott, and Richards constitute a wave of upstarts that believe that contrarian thinking is by definition, enlightened thinking. It's not!

[Hunter]

Abberline was reassigned to other duties in March of '89 and may not have been privy to details of the investigation after that. However, your point is well taken. Instead of convoluted theories about deceit and conspiracy, it was simply a string of unsolved murders that some involved had to come up with what they thought was a solution in their own individual minds.

Too simple for some it seems. Not that other unsolved mysteries haven't followed the same pattern.

[Errata]

What I don't understand is why people believe that one of these men actually knew who the Ripper was, and did nothing about it. Clearly, not all cases are solved. And there are also ways of identifying the Ripper without a conviction. They never even arrested this man. They never brought him in for questioning. No one leaked his identity to the press, no one made an announcement that the guy was off the streets. No one acted as though the Ripper was under some kind of control. Despite the biographies and the interviews 15 years or so later, I don't think they had any idea who the Ripper was. Surely out of all of these public servants, one of them would have thought that the public deserved to know who this guy was, and damn the consequences. But what really doesn't make sense in the idea that someone like Anderson or McNaughton knew the identity of the Ripper, but never told the investigators they could stop looking. Certainly Abberline never really abandoned the case. Even if Anderson didn't tell someone like Abberline who the Ripper was, surely he would have told the man that they had him so he could sleep at night. Why waste resources? The identity of the Ripper may have had to remain a secret, but who is harmed by the knowledge that whoever the guy is, he won't be hurting anyone else? Isn't that what you do when you really believe you know the truth?

[Monty]

Hi Jeff,

The idea of disinformation is a giant and scary leap into the unknown for a lot of Ripperologists, mainly because over the past century they have been indoctrinated into believing that someone known as Jack the Ripper actually prowled the streets of Whitechapel.

Regards,

Simon

Yeah, it requires a massive leap of faith. As do most things which have little or no supporting evidence of worth.

Monty

[lynn cates]

dynamite

Hello Boris.

"most of the high-ranking people like Warren, Anderson or Monro who were involved in the murder investigation were also involved in SB in one way or another. I think their positions would have enabled them to filter or alter the facts by using the SB infrastructure for their own purposes. However, who would have benefited from such a misuse of power?"

Don't forget the dynamite business from the previous year. An investigation would have revealed some unsavoury details.

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Simon.

Two things then I'm going to cease interrupting this thread. 1.Similarities in the murders. 2. Similarities in the victims. Those alone are enough to suggest a singular killer might have been at work. Simply similar type of victims killed in a similar type way just might mean the same killer. It's ludicrous I know. Especially when compared to... Oh wait, not sure cause you won't be forthcoming.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Digalittledeeperwatson,

I do not of course realise any such thing.

Kindly explain why one killer per victim is less likely than a single killer of at least a few.

Regards,

Simon

[bolo]

Hello Phil, all,

my question is, what was so important about the murder cases of 1888/89 that higher-ups like Anderson saw fit to change the story a little a then a little more (IF they did it, that is)?

The only answer I have is that the higher-ups came up with story twists of their own because of injured pride. It bugged them that there were several unsolved cases that fell within their active years, so they went with the conclusions that fit them best, not necessarily the ones that made the most sense.

I'm still unsure about how the Special Branch fits into the picture. As far as I know, it was founded in the wake of Fenian activity in the UK and USA, and most of the high-ranking people like Warren, Anderson or Monro who were involved in the murder investigation were also involved in SB in one way or another. I think their positions would have enabled them to filter or alter the facts by using the SB infrastructure for their own purposes. However, who would have benefitted from such a misuse of power?

Maybe the answer lies in the political struggles of the era.

Best regards,

Boris

[Wickerman]

Hello all,

I wanted to start a thread that discussed the probability of we, the general public, have been fed disinformation down the years from official sources, in other words The Home Office, The Met Police, The City Police, etc.

Here I am talking from 1888 onwards, and many will have noted with some dfegree of surprise the constant "changing" of "retired" high ranking policemen's views down the years, some claiming the truth, some claiming that the truth will never be known, some claiming that previous high ranking policemen did not tell the truth, etc etc etc.

Hi Phil.
I think I'm not too clear on what is meant by "we the public" being fed misinformation.
The police as a rule did not talk directly to the public, except by way of an occasional interview (you are talking post 1888?), and even then, they gave us nothing important about the case beyond their own personal opinion on who the killer may have been.

At the time of the murders the press often worded some of their news releases in such a way as to make the public think the press knew what was going on behind closed doors at Scotland Yard, they of course did not. So I wonder if this source of misinformation is what you may be alluding to. This though would not be a case of the authorities releasing misinformation, but the press in their continuous endeavour to publish a case-related story which had a degree of appeal for their readers.

I have no doubt that a variety of police officials adopted a particular "type" for who the killer may be, but this only demonstrates that no firm opinion existed at the time. I wouldn't call this "misinformation" though, as in most cases these opinions were only expressed years later.

Aside from an occasional comment by a PC to a reporter which was intended to either embarrass the man, or send him off on a wild goose chase, I don't think anything accurate was shared between the police and the press about the ongoing investigation.
There were exceptions, such as when a particular line of inquiry had been concluded, the police would share the details of the extent of the search with the press, I'm thinking about the house-to-house enquiries, typically because, they had found nothing, so there was no harm in telling the press all about it.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Simon. Give and take.

Hi Digalittledeeperwatson,

Great stuff. Now you're cooking with gas.

Except for the fact that the person who murdered Polly did not necessarily murder Annie.

Turn up the gas.

Regards,

Simon

You of course realise that one killer per victim for each murder is less likely than a single killer of at least a few? Don't want to derail thread. If you wish we can move over to the 4 or more unreasonable thread. I started it and nothing is off topic there. Just a hop and a rip over there.