Home office report

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jeff,

And therein lies the rub. We know of the names mentioned by all.. most do. We know of those who have handled the ledgers too.

I haven't mentioned files by the Jeff.. do tell. since you know and we don't. Isn't that a case of put your money where your mojo is?... otherwise you are just playing games.. which is par for the course.

How's the boat btw? (thats a serious question)

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

Yes, I agree with you here. That Special were involved, is clear. Now Special have had, and still have a reputation that they go their own way.
The MM, we have presumed, was supposed to have been meant, possibly, for the Home Secretary. I would find it strange that given the nature of the synopsis (for want of a better word), that Mac didn't have a complete overview of the situation on the books, as it were.

best wishes

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff,

And therein lies the rub. We know of the names mentioned by all.. most do. We know of those who have handled the ledgers too.

I haven't mentioned files by the Jeff.. do tell. since you know and we don't. Isn't that a case of put your money where your mojo is?... otherwise you are just playing games.. which is par for the course.

How's the boat btw? (thats a serious question)

best wishes

Phil

The ledgers contain information about transfer of files...

I think what is being hinted at here is what if any relavence that will have to the Whitechapel murders. Especially as you have said people have seen these ledgers before...

The other worry of course is whether the names or information there contained will be recognised by people without broad historical understanding of the period...but thats is just speculation on my part..

But you Phil have been making hints that these files will blow away the key sources in the JtR case...which is probably why people who know more than you, have had a laugh at your expense.

lots of sub-agendas and hidden aces around here Phil...I'm a puppy.

Pirate

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jeff,

If you do not know that people have seen the ledgers before, I suggest you haven't read the appropriate thread pertaining to them, nor read a thesis and a book or two, etc etc, , and are not up to date.

No, I don't think it will be the answer and I do not hint at anything.... but I do think that it will open up Ripperology for many years to come. Which is something SPE tells of in Scotland Yard Investigates. That I DO believe.

Jeff, you have no idea what I know and I don't. Never assume. It makes an ASS out of U and ME.

'And as far as laughing at my expense.. have a chuckle on me by all means... Hidden agendas are par for the course in Ripperology too, as we both know.
Time for food now.

best wishes

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

Phil it never occured to me that it was....

But given that this thread is about Abberlines report about Druit, a subject that has long since wandered, its unlikely anyone can add anything not off topic..

Happy to continue chatting over the way

Jeff

[Chris]

No, I don't think it will be the answer and I do not hint at anything.... but I do think that it will open up Ripperology for many years to come. Which is something SPE tells of in Scotland Yard Investigates. That I DO believe.

As I read it, Stewart was referring to the files themselves rather than the register, though. We don't know whether the files have survived - of course, it's been claimed that they haven't.

[glyn]

But given that this thread is about Abberlines report about Druit, a subject that has long since wandered, its unlikely anyone can add anything not off topic..


Jeff

Indeed! Id say that of all the Home Office reports that may or may not still exist,or indeed have ever been written.The Druitt report would be the first port of call for me.But the whole issue regarding these Home office /Special Branch reports is intriguing.

[Chris]

Indeed! Id say that of all the Home Office reports that may or may not still exist,or indeed have ever been written.The Druitt report would be the first port of call for me.

As I said at the start of the thread, I don't think there can be any doubt that when Sims mentioned a "report to the Home Office ... made by the Commissioner of Police" he was referring to a version of the Macnaghten memorandum. Macnaghten had been appointed Assistant Commissioner two weeks before Sims wrote.

[Phil Carter]

As I read it, Stewart was referring to the files themselves rather than the register, though. We don't know whether the files have survived - of course, it's been claimed that they haven't.

Hello Chris,

Indeed, but can it not equally apply to the information in the ledgers, depending on the details? Stewart also mentions that these "files" are held in perpetuity, which indicate their existance, no?

best wishes

Phil

[glyn]

As I said at the start of the thread, I don't think there can be any doubt that when Sims mentioned a "report to the Home Office ... made by the Commissioner of Police" he was referring to a version of the Macnaghten memorandum. Macnaghten had been appointed Assistant Commissioner two weeks before Sims wrote.

But wasnt it Abberline,not Sims, who said a report was sent to the Home office?..at the time of the affair.
" And nothin g else was found to incriminate Druitt other than the suicide " Might be repeating myself here,if so I apologise,but to state "nothing else was found to incriminate etc " surely indicates there was some kind of investigation,without there being an investigation it seems odd to say nothing else was found. If so that might lead to other questions regarding exactly when Druitt first became a suspect whether minor or major .
Am I drifting off topic? ..probabley,maybe its best for me to just listen.

[Chris]

Indeed, but can it not equally apply to the information in the ledgers, depending on the details? Stewart also mentions that these "files" are held in perpetuity, which indicate their existance, no?

Well, personally I'm sceptical about any great revelations coming out of the Special Branch records, either register or files. But it was the files Stewart was referring to, and obviously the information in the register is much less detailed - just a short summary line for each document. But we'll see.

Apparently there are some Special Branch files from the 1880s still extant - they are listed on the National Archives catalogue - but it's also been claimed that the older archives in general were destroyed, in which case these would be stray survivals.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

Have you the file No's of the extant files? Or are these some of the MEPO 38 ones that are yet to be released to the public? (there are quite a few under various themes in that lot)

Personally, I don't think the one line references in the ledgers are the be all and end all, but how much can be garnered depends on the names, I suppose.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

But wasnt it Abberline,not Sims, who said a report was sent to the Home office?..at the time of the affair.

I think it was actually Sims who referred to the report first, on 29 March, 1903, in response to Abberline's earlier statements about Klosowski:
"Jack the Ripper" committed suicide after his last murder - a murder so maniacal that it was accepted at once as the deed of a furious madman. It is perfectly well know at Scotland Yard who "Jack" was, and the reasons for the police conclusions were given in the report to the Home Office, which was considered by the authorities to be final and conclusive.
How the ex-Inspector can say "We never believed 'Jack' was dead or a lunatic" in face of the report made by the Commissioner of Police is a mystery to me. ...

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/dagonet.html

Then Abberline responded, on 31 March:
Our representative called Mr. Abberline's attention to a statement made in a well-known Sunday paper, in which it was made out that the author was a young medical student who was found drowned in the Thames.
"Yes," said Mr. Abberline, "I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him. A report was made to the Home Office about the matter, but that it was 'considered final and conclusive' is going altogether beyond the truth.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/pall_mall_gazette/19030331.html

Am I drifting off topic? ..probabley,maybe its best for me to just listen.

No, I think you're the only one who's still on-topic ...

[Chris]

Have you the file No's of the extant files? Or are these some of the MEPO 38 ones that are yet to be released to the public? (there are quite a few under various themes in that lot)

It was the MEPO 38 ones I had in mind.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, personally I'm sceptical about any great revelations coming out of the Special Branch records, either register or files. But it was the files Stewart was referring to, and obviously the information in the register is much less detailed - just a short summary line for each document. But we'll see.

Apparently there are some Special Branch files from the 1880s still extant - they are listed on the National Archives catalogue - but it's also been claimed that the older archives in general were destroyed, in which case these would be stray survivals.

"Ye of little faith" I can safely say that win or lose what has been learnt and uncovered was well worth all the time effort and money spent over the past 3 years,and as they say "Its not over until the fat lady sings" well she is still looking through the song book