The probability of being fed disinformation

[Paddy]

The probability of being fed disinformation

I have always thought that the public were fed misinformation. Many reports appear to have a few elements of different cases. It seems sometimes the press were fed information to confuse.
If as I think, police had a good idea but could not prove it, they could not divulge that information publicly if the person was still alive, for fear of being sued.
I think public were drip fed, a bit here, a bit there, mixed in with false info.
Swanson's marginalia is interesting though, as it was not written for the public.

Pat.............................

[Monty]

I think misinterpretation is more apt.

Monty

[Jon Guy]

Hi Phil

Are you counting "retired" high ranking policemen's views as Official sources?

What are the "written rules" of the WM series?

[DGB]

Hi Phil

I think that many people could believe that there were only four crimes committed by the same hand (or six, or more, or fewer). Even if they subscribe to the Macnaghten Five hypothesis, it isn't a giant leap for them to accept other numbers of victims may be possible.

However, I think the belief in a conspiracy of lies (rather than plain human error) being behind the garbled information we have, requires a larger leap in imagination.

Just because people don't accept that there is a conspiracy behind the WMs, doesn't mean that they're slavishly allied to the accepted doctrine, but rather they find that too big a leap to make.

For example, I don't believe in the 'accepted' Macnaghten Five hypothesis; however, I don't believe there was a conspiracy on behalf of the powers-that-be, I think there's has been elements of human error, amplified by the passage of time.

[Errata]

I really can't speculate on the theory of disinformation, because I'm not sure there is a compelling case to be made.

Which is not to say that some people didn't seize of some detail or theory and run with it, despite the detail's debatable worth.

I see disinformation as a plot to deliberately conceal the truth in order to conceal mistakes. Or alternatively, as a plot in order to drive the killer out in the open. And while both may have happened, I don't think we have the records to prove it happened.

But most of the ideas coming out of police officials after retirement are based on assumptions that we now know have no basis in fact. The idea that Jack was a raving maniac is simply not supported. It's not out of the question, but there is no evidence. Nor is there evidence that Jack was a Jew. He could have been, but nothing supports it. There's no reason to assume that he committed suicide, that there were as many as five victims, that there were only five victims... statistics say he was likely a local, but there is nothing to prove that he wasn't a toff. And even some of the "evidence" that we have is not useful enough to be evidence. We have an identification of a suspect, but we know so little about it and what we do know is patently false on somebodies part that we can't even take it as fact. There is no reason for any of these guys to be sure they knew who Jack was.

So why were they? Is it a conspiracy? Maybe. Is it some guy who knows it "in his bones" but can't prove it? Possibly. Is it some guy jumping on a bandwagon to prove he wasn't ignorant? Possibly. Is it a bunch of guys who were desperate to save their reputation and that of the Police force? Likely. Of course it would have worked better if they had all gotten together and agreed on someone, but whatever. Is that disinformation? Maybe technically... but mostly it's just human.

[The Good Michael]

Hi Phil,

Special Branch seems to have been involved in a small way and perhaps as a result of it being connected to Monro, Anderson, and Macnaghten. Anyone that had resources of intelligence would have been foolish not to have used them and I see nothing shady here. Today the FBI often works with local police, and it's normal if sometimes unwanted by local authorities. Had Special Branch taken over the investigation of the Ripper murders, you might have something with that.

I don't think there were any coverups.

Mike

[Jon Guy]

Hi Phil

No, I don`t believe there is a case for disinformation from official sources.

Yes, perhaps Leman Street may have given dubious information to the likes of The Star when they came knocking, as in the case of Schwartz and that his story was not wholly believed.

[Phil Carter]

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.

Combining this with the possibility, indeed, we have knowledge of SB involvement in the case, of official sources deflecting attention away from anything that may point towards any other theory other than the (non-existant) "official view", other than the case has remained insolved.

I note with some trepidation the words of the Met Police regarding suspects and theories and whom are included on that list, and for what reason. I note the involvement of the Met police museum in declaring a known suspect as being the Ripper.

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. However, on a board post on JTR forums some 3 months ago, I asked for opinions as to whether any individual thought that the murders were the work of more than one person, in asking how many victioms any individual thought should be attributed to "JTR". I was surprised that there were indeed few who said 5 or more. Which actually means that there are many who DIO NOT actually agree with the "written rules" of the WM series.

I welcome all sensible and balanced opinions, and look forward to the disussion, hopefully held in the spirit of friendliness and contemplation, rather than barbed comment and rancour. Thank you for your considerations in all of the above matters.



Phil