Why a Cover-Up could be possible...

[erobitha]

The question I am asking is a general one. Some people are quick to try and nail me to “how did it affect Maybrick?”, but that is not the point here.

The point is a cover-up does not have to be executed to protect the identity of individuals. Sometimes it is to protect the status quo. The establishment. The existing order of things. Subvert the things seen as being dangerous. Obviously Irish terrorism was an issue.

There was also the rise of socialism, anti-monarchy sentiment, workers rights and a general distrust of the ruling classes by the poor. Imagine what a socialist revolution led by the poor and disenfranchised would have done to the status quo. 1887 showed signs that there was some ground level support and appetite for such a thing. The threat was no longer just Irish. Who were bringing these ideas to the masses? Who was amongst the poor pushing this alternate view of the world?

If it was thought that an Englishman of the middle or upper classes had committed such atrocities against the poorest of society, would that help or hinder the socialist cause?

If xenophobia at best (Anti-Semite at worst) generated by the police and the press towards the rising Jewish population could help divide and conquer, would that not have value to the establishment? If Jack was believed to be an Eastern European / Russian Jew then the distrust towards that community by other groups would grow. Who were the men who would be blamed?

You can cover-up an idea as much as you can cover-up an individual.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The more wide-ranging the cover-up the less likely it would be IMO. This is one of the reasons that I’m an ‘Oswald alone’ person.

[erobitha]

The more wide-ranging the cover-up the less likely it would be IMO. This is one of the reasons that I’m an ‘Oswald alone’ person.

Why does it have to be wide-ranging? Why could it not just be limited to Swanson, Anderson, Monro and possibly Littlechild?

[c.d.]

Although by no means are they mutually exclusive taking advantage of a situation and deliberately causing the situation are two different things.

c.d.

[erobitha]

Although by no means are they mutually exclusive taking advantage of a situation and deliberately causing the situation are two different things.

c.d.

Still a cover-up.

If you deliberately misdirect an investigation or push a certain potential avenue for investigation ahead of others, is that not still a cover-up? You are deliberately mis-leading with an ulterior motive.

[Wickerman]

Agreed, deception is also cover-up.

I think it might be necessary to explain the cover-up as most posters are more used to a cover-up meaning to protect the killer, because he is 'among the highest in the land', or because he is a 'person of consequence'.
It was once theorised that the murders were intended to deflect from the Irish political question, though it was not a well thought out theory.

[Astatine211]

Macnaghten essentially did a cover-up when he destroyed the paper and evidence so the identity wouldn't be discovered by the public. In an ironic way it was a very public cover-up as he freely admitted it but the destruction of evidence to prevent the identity being know is still a cover-up.

[erobitha]

Agreed, deception is also cover-up.

I think it might be necessary to explain the cover-up as most posters are more used to a cover-up meaning to protect the killer, because he is 'among the highest in the land', or because he is a 'person of consequence'.
It was once theorised that the murders were intended to deflect from the Irish political question, though it was not a well thought out theory.

Bruce Robinson posed the question “what if the police didn’t actually want to solve the murders?”. Of course the question seems strange at first. They are the police, of course they did!

Really? How concerned was Anderson? How concerned was Monro? Warren only seemed to start to care when he made a rare cameo at Goulston Street. Anderson had disdain for the women. Monro was a career politician pulling strings. Swanson was Anderson’s lackey. Warren was just incompetent and not part of the gang. With Anderson and Swanson in his pocket Monro could operate freely outside of Charlie’s radar.

Intense press coverage and a pressing socialist problem seems like a good way to kill two birds with one stone.

The socialist movement and workers unions that were rapidly spawning and forming across London, and in the poorest locations in particular, where causing a bit of concern for those who protected Her Majesty’s best interests. 1887 ruffled a lot of feathers and it needed to be dealt with. Link these brutal murders to that of a working class Jewish immigrant and suddenly the locals get back in line and know their place once again. Distract, divide and conquer. It worked.

Freemasonry did not save Jack from being caught.

Self-interests of the empire probably did.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why does it have to be wide-ranging? Why could it not just be limited to Swanson, Anderson, Monro and possibly Littlechild?

I’m not saying that it has to be wide-ranging Erobitha. A cover-up could just involve limited people as you say. All I’m saying is that, in general, if someone proposes a theory that would have to have involved huge numbers (like many JFK theories for example) then they are less likely to have occurred IMO.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Bruce Robinson posed the question “what if the police didn’t actually want to solve the murders?”. Of course the question seems strange at first. They are the police, of course they did!

Really? How concerned was Anderson? How concerned was Monro? Warren only seemed to start to care when he made a rare cameo at Goulston Street. Anderson had disdain for the women. Monro was a career politician pulling strings. Swanson was Anderson’s lackey. Warren was just incompetent and not part of the gang. With Anderson and Swanson in his pocket Monro could operate freely outside of Charlie’s radar.

Intense press coverage and a pressing socialist problem seems like a good way to kill two birds with one stone.

The socialist movement and workers unions that were rapidly spawning and forming across London, and in the poorest locations in particular, where causing a bit of concern for those who protected Her Majesty’s best interests. 1887 ruffled a lot of feathers and it needed to be dealt with. Link these brutal murders to that of a working class Jewish immigrant and suddenly the locals get back in line and know their place once again. Distract, divide and conquer. It worked.

Freemasonry did not save Jack from being caught.

Self-interests of the empire probably did.

To be honest I really struggle to take Bruce Robinson seriously. His opinions appear to me to be less based on reality and more on his own anti-establishment political outlook. He seems far too quick to paint every senior policeman or politician as either a Blimpish buffoon or a moustache-twiddling Victorian pantomime villain. They were all ‘in on it.’ We have to remember that these men were being pilloried and branded as useless for not catching the ripper. On the other hand we shouldn’t look at them uncritically of course.

[Abby Normal]

there was huge pressure on the police to solve the case and the tensions among the top officials were creating a nightmare for all of them. it was partly resonsible for settling the hash of warren. they would want nothing more than to solve this case.

and the reason they couldnt frame someone up and be done with it, was because there was no conspiracy/cover up, they werent in control, and the if they tried to do anything nefarious, they wouldnt know if the real killer struck again and they would look like even bigger fools.

if there was a conspiracy and they were controlling everything this case would have been "solved" then. and yet they even all opt for different suspects.

it couldnt be less a conspiracy if you tried.

the simple fact is that they had an unknown post mortem type serial killer on their hands, and they never solved it, although they tried to save face later by saying they knew who it was(or had strong supicians) all along.

[erobitha]

there was huge pressure on the police to solve the case and the tensions among the top officials were creating a nightmare for all of them. it was partly resonsible for settling the hash of warren. they would want nothing more than to solve this case.

and the reason they couldnt frame someone up and be done with it, was because there was no conspiracy/cover up, they werent in control, and the if they tried to do anything nefarious, they wouldnt know if the real killer struck again and they would look like even bigger fools.

if there was a conspiracy and they were controlling everything this case would have been "solved" then. and yet they even all opt for different suspects.

It couldnt be less a conspiracy if you tried.

the simple fact is that they had an unknown post mortem type serial killer on their hands, and they never solved it, although they tried to save face later by saying they knew who it was(or had strong supicians) all along.

If you look only through the limited lens of “the police must solve these murders”, then logically all your points are valid. I cannot deny that.

Except ‘solving’ it was not the primary purpose of Anderson for example. He literally had to be dragged back from his hols. I’m aware it was on ‘doctors orders’. But we do know he had contempt towards the victims because of what they had to do to survive.

Monro was interested in his own self preservation. And was quite happy to let old Charlie make a fool of himself. Monro sat he in the Home Office awaiting reports from Swanson, and eventually Anderson. Have you ever worked in an organisation where ruthless careerists stamp on you to get where they want? To
me that was Monro. Meddler and Influencer. I wouldn’t be surprised if we eventually find evidence of him adding to the pressure on Warren.

Monro just needed the suspect to NOT be a middle class well-respected Englishman. Once the dust settled it didn’t matter who did it really. Sure, the police have to be seen to be trying, but I wonder ultimately how hard did some of those higher ranking officials really try.

Once the risk had passed, so did the murders. It was almost a perfect combination. Then it was all about saving face. “We actually knew all along it was A,B,C”. The only reason why Druitt’s name even came up was because of suicide, his medical training and an insinuation of his homosexuality. Not even his own family trusted him apparently. No loss, throw his name in to mix.

How many named English suspects as a % are there on any known named suspects by the police? How many were Jewish?

Out of interest, how many Jews lived in Whitechapel of the estimated 70,000 as a %?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Once the risk had passed, so did the murders. It was almost a perfect combination. Then it was all about saving face. “We actually knew all along it was A,B,C”. The only reason why Druitt’s name even came up was because of suicide, his medical training and an insinuation of his homosexuality. Not even his own family trusted him apparently. No loss, throw his name in to mix.

Druitt had no medical training as far as we know Erobitha. There’s a gap of a year before he started his training as a Barrister and Jon Hainsworth has suggested that he might have begun a medical course but dropped out but it’s only speculation of course. There was also no suggestion of homosexuality. This rumour has come about in recent years when people have suggested that he might have ‘crossed the line’ with one of the boys resulting in his sacking added to the fact that he wasn’t married or engaged. We just don’t know why he was sacked though. MacNaghten, as you know, said that he’d received private information about Druitt so I don’t think we can assume that MacNaghten didn’t feel that he had very good reason for naming Druitt.

[Abby Normal]

police, club, royal conspiracy. bah. its all a bunch of cockswabble.

we even have the unknown conspiracy theorists lol. something is amiss, just dont know what it is!

[erobitha]

Druitt had no medical training as far as we know Erobitha. There’s a gap of a year before he started his training as a Barrister and Jon Hainsworth has suggested that he might have begun a medical course but dropped out but it’s only speculation of course. There was also no suggestion of homosexuality. This rumour has come about in recent years when people have suggested that he might have ‘crossed the line’ with one of the boys resulting in his sacking added to the fact that he wasn’t married or engaged. We just don’t know why he was sacked though. MacNaghten, as you know, said that he’d received private information about Druitt so I don’t think we can assume that MacNaghten didn’t feel that he had very good reason for naming Druitt.

There was a reference by MacNaghten to Druitt being 'sexually insane' was there not? How would describe that innuendo? The medical training is yet to be proved I agree. Suicide back then was regarded as a social stigma for many families that had members who committed it. His name would not be of much value to use.