The probability of being fed disinformation

[DVV]

Hello Dave,
Hang on a minute my friend...it is fine for you and me and Mr. A.N.Other to "think we know" or "pretend to know"...that is, as you say, human nature.

But, here we are talking of in the first instances, police officers that were heavily involved either in the immediate investigation, the political connection to the Home Office, or those working in the aftermath of ther investigation. If the case files were not closed until 1896, then we have a problem, in the sense that the police working up to and including that time would have still been involved in the investigation.

These people aren't supposed to "pretend to know"...that really is very unprofessional. They are not supposed to "think they know" either. They either do or they do not. And here, Edmund Reid is being the most professional person of rank in the force from those times. He actually said, that the police had no idea...

Phil

Phil,

Reid was right, they had no idea.

All they had were theories and reasonings.
Just like what you call the public, and today's ripperologists.

Look : Abberline was influenced by Phillips. He thought the Ripper must have had some medical knowledge. Then when Godley caught Chapman, he said "why not ?"

Moore, on the contrary, thought he was a local dosser. (Then years later appeared to suspect a sailor.)

Again, Anderson's Jew is basically a theory. The reasoning precedes the individual suspect, I mean. He thought : "1 :somebody has to know something. 2 : there are many Jews in Whitechapel. 3 : Jews don't trust us and therefore a Jewish family must have protected one of its member whom they suspected to be the Ripper."

The more they differ, the less conspiraries are possible.

Cheers

[Phil Carter]

"When you get a bunch of people looking over the same data coming up with such disparate statements...." an ascertained fact"...."no-one knew"...."hot potato"....it would seem that some of the police either lied or some speculated without identifying their remarks as such."

You need to find where these quotes appear, and maybe assess why such sensational words were used.

Clearly some are so naïve that they take any word written as gospel without realising sensation sells, whereas others are so cynical that if any contradictory evidence seems to show these words as false they are accused of deliberately lying to us.


Monty

Dealing with this one highlighted line, and in accordance with asked for assessment area, "hot potato" was not said in sensationalism, nor to sell diddly squat. That is a quote from a descendant of Monro, quoting said man. "No-one knew", a referall to Edmund Reid, wasn't done for sensationalism either, nor did it earn him money in terms of large book sales. It was a newspaper quote. Only Anderson's "ascertained fact" was widely used both in newspaper and book form. His comment has been assesssed individually elsewhere. Littlechild's comments were also not for sensationl value, as they were written in a private letter, not for publication intention, to a journalist. His comments about Anderson only thinking he knew, and his mention of Tumblety, are not for the sake of monetary value either. Then you have those who did comment in books for sales purposes, yes. But the overall opinion changing is widespread for mostly non-sales and non-sensationalist reason. But they all, almost all, disagreed with each other.

I will also remind this poster that Stephen Knight, who is referred to and has been referred to previously, actually did some good things in his work. Had it not been for Knight, the discipline of research would not have been refined, for example. Ask Simon Wood. It was his refusal to accept what he was told that led him to uncover the Knight scenario.

That is exactly what Mr. Wood, amongst others, is still doing, refusing to believe what we have been handed down the years. Some of us agree with this. Some, apparently, do not. Horses for courses.



Phil

[Monty]

Nor was the hot potato line in any official comment, thus indicating personal opinion not Police/HO opinion.

There is no need to remind 'This Poster' of Stephen Knights work as he was bought up on it.

To state Knight refined research (I assume the above poster means indirectly, as Knights research methods and execution left a lot to be desired) confuses, what evidence is there of this?

It humours me that the above poster feels we believe what is being fed us rather than doing our own research and assessment, drawing our own conclusions as we do so. In fact this assumption smacks of the typical arrogance shown by some. They always know a little more than we do yet they never quite provide that link which turns a leap of blind faith in their bold statements into a step of certainty.

Much easier to talk and talk and brainwash than provide solid, that's solid not misinterpreted, evidence.

Yeah, horses and courses.....and Donkeys and beaches.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Nor was the hot potato line in any official comment, thus indicating personal opinion not Police/HO opinion.

There is no need to remind 'This Poster' of Stephen Knights work as he was bought up on it.

To state Knight refined research (I assume the above poster means indirectly, as Knights research methods and execution left a lot to be desired) confuses, what evidence is there of this?

It humours me that the above poster feels we believe what is being fed us rather than doing our own research and assessment, drawing our own conclusions as we do so. In fact this assumption smacks of the typical arrogance shown by some. They always know a little more than we do yet they never quite provide that link which turns a leap of blind faith in their bold statements into a step of certainty.

Much easier to talk and talk and brainwash than provide solid, that's solid not misinterpreted, evidence.

Yeah, horses and courses.....and Donkeys and beaches.

Monty

You are entitled to your opinion. I, however, am not going to use the word arrogance, nor any other word, nor describe any individual in any way. The request of the meaning of this thread was spelt out in the first posting. Let us try to stick to the non-personal opinions of other posters.
Thank you.



Phil

[Monty]

You are entitled to your opinion. I, however, am not going to use the word arrogance, nor any other word, nor describe any individual in any way. The request of the meaning of this thread was spelt out in the first posting. Let us try to stick to the non-personal opinions of other posters.
Thank you.



Phil

The opening post, and this thread, is all about personal opinion. No evidence has been laid

I'm merely following suit.

However, as you wish.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

The Reality

The reality is that we have eleven murders, in the official Whitechapel murders files, all of which were (and are) unsolved.

Ergo, no killer, or common killer, is known to have perpetrated any of these unsolved murders.

All else is speculation and personal opinion (and always will be).

[Monty]

Wise words Stewart.


Monty

[Phil Carter]

No answers, just thoughts-

The reality is that we have eleven murders, in the official Whitechapel murders files, all of which were (and are) unsolved.

Ergo, no killer, or common killer, is known to have perpetrated any of these unsolved murders.

All else is speculation and personal opinion (and always will be).

Hello Stewart,

Indeed. The point of this thread was discuss possibility/probability of disinformation, deliberate or otherwise. Of course such a discussion is speculatory, but in discussing the probability, one can, if one is forunate, see areas of assessment from contempories that may be worthy of individual consideration or not. It may not give answers, but may be thought provoking for some. Some will deem the possibility non-existant, which is fine. Some are not so dismissive. That is the meaning of the thread, to simply discuss the probability when looking at the overall picture presented.


Thanks for contributing. Appreciated.


Phil

[Jon Guy]

Hi Phil

For obvious reasons, as there has been no change from the "nothing to add" comment from any current Police source at any one time in the last 125 years, except via the keepers of the Met police Museum, then "offocoaø" sources refers to retired policemen of high rank commenting upon, either after involvement in the case at the time or afterwards, having studied the case and wrote of it.

All the official sources, I believe, are included in "The Ultimate Source Book", everything else that came after is not an official source, and everything in the files (apart from the newspaper cuttings) were not intended for the public so I can`t see how there was disinformation, unless they had planned a 100 years in advance.

Ther "written rules" of the case I refer to are, to show one example, the so-called C5, initially presented by a Dr, and accepted by Anderson, .

The C5 are not "written rules".
The only time I see the C5 mentioned nowadays is when posters are attacking the premise of the C5.

(although he seemed to change his list of victims) to Sir Melville MacNaghten, initially in the Memoranda, dated 1894 and refered to in part in his autobiography "Days of my Years". It is also noted that Anderson's own autobiography, The Lighter Side Of My Official Life, 1910, conflicts in the main, with the aforermentioned 1894 missive from Sir MM, which in turn conflicts with Anderson's TLSOMOL, mentioned above. Reid, mentioned by Simon Wood earlier, has views conflicting with both of these people. Then we have more comments from high ranking, and some of lower rtank, which conflict with the above three mentioned..

All these autobiographies are not official sources and we draw what we want from them. Did Reid know more about the case than Anderson?

The simple answer is that they cannot all be correct in their "knowledge". The question that one automatically asdks, is why there was seemingly so much conflict when the force itself is trying to present itself as a bonded unit.
..

I`m not sure about that Phil. Looking through the official reports in the "Ultimate" the Police are a bonded unit. They get a bit stick internally off the politicians, yes, but on a whole the Met and City police worked as a team.

Therefore, one can reasonably suggest the possibility of the spreading of misinformation. For what reason, is another matter. I only ask about the possibility/probability of this happening...

Again as the files were closed to the public for a 100 years I don`t see how there could have been any misinformation.

[Jonathan H]

In 1899, and for years afterwards Sims asserted that the police were fast closing on their chief suspect, the insane English doctor but discovered that he had drowned himself.

This was cheeky propaganda/disinformation because as Macnaghten, Sims' source, conceded in historical memoirs the real suspect was not known until years after he killed himself.

[spyglass]

Hi all,
The JTR case is full of smoke screens and red herrings in my mind when imfo it comes from the top, and before people shout " conspiracy theory's " just remember
the Hillsborough case quite recently... to name one.

[Rosey O'Ryan]

Hi all,
The JTR case is full of smoke screens and red herrings in my mind when imfo it comes from the top, and before people shout " conspiracy theory's " just remember
the Hillsborough case quite recently... to name one.

Hi Spy!

Yes, sadly there are instances of major misconduct instigated by/on behalf of governments and individual actors...of late. However, by its very nature, a conspiracy wih its nuts n'bolts laid out in the right order is difficult for the investigator to reconstruct.
As Ever,
Rosey :-)

[Rosey O'Ryan]

Hi all,
The JTR case is full of smoke screens and red herrings in my mind when imfo it comes from the top, and before people shout " conspiracy theory's " just remember
the Hillsborough case quite recently... to name one.

Hi Spy!

Yes, sadly there are instances of major misconduct instigated by/on behalf of governments and individual actors...of late. However, by its very nature, a conspiracy wih its nuts n'bolts laid out in the right order is difficult for the investigator to reconstruct.
As Ever,
Rosey :-)

[bolo]

Hello Lynn,

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

which year are you referring to, 1886?

I still have some catching-up to do on the dynamite outrages it seems. At the moment I'm reading Fenian Fire by Christy Campbell, very interesting book.

Best regards,

Boris

[Stewart P Evans]

Misinformation

The idea of conspiracies, personal agendas, misinformation, cover-ups etc., have been discussed ad infinitum. This thread is nothing new.

All are human traits or foibles and will, undoubtedly, be decided upon by individual posters' own theorizing, personal agendas, or bias. Thus some conclusions are bizarre, divisive and pointless and without supporting evidence. But, I guess, some people enjoy inflammatory debate.

The problem is, some passionately believe in their own conclusions and state them as ascertained fact. This may be very misleading for the tyro.

I have little doubt that some police officials misled, gilded the lily, boasted without foundation (on their own personal ideas), or tried to cast the police in a better light. Indeed I have often argued that such was the case.

That said, there is no evidence whatsoever that the proven identity of the culprit for any of the murders was known by any senior officer nor that hard evidence pointing to the killer's identity existed. The main pointer to this is the fact that so many police figures came up with conflicting ideas and conclusions and there was no consensus of opinion (or obvious 'party line').

I shall bow out - please argue on...