Home office report

[Chris]

"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

Of course I shall be only too pleased if something significant does emerge, and I am certainly looking forward to learning what has been uncovered in due course. I just fear that the Ripper crimes would have been incidental to the interests of Special Branch, and that therefore the SB records are only likely to contain incidental information about the case. But if I'm proved wrong I shall be very happy.

[Trevor Marriott]

Of course I shall be only too pleased if something significant does emerge, and I am certainly looking forward to learning what has been uncovered in due course. I just fear that the Ripper crimes would have been incidental to the interests of Special Branch, and that therefore the SB records are only likely to contain incidental information about the case. But if I'm proved wrong I shall be very happy.

Perhaps they might not tell us who the killer or killers were but they might tell us who was not the killer or killers and that in my books would be a right royal result.

I can just picture the headlines now "Taxi for Kosminski,Tumblety and Druitt" thats got to be better than winning the lottery

Besides ff there is something in there then we can take it as being official not like Swanson,Anderson,Macnaghten and Abberline and Littlechild who took it in turns to draw a suspects name out of the "pays your money and you takes your choice bag"

Then they failed to tell poor old Major Smith there was a draw taking place !

[Chris]

Perhaps they might not tell us who the killer or killers were but they might tell us who was not the killer or killers and that in my books would be a right royal result.

I may be wrong, but it sounds as though you're getting ready to argue that "X isn't named as a Ripper suspect in the Special Branch records, so X cannot have been the Ripper." I don't think that would be a sound argument.

[Trevor Marriott]

I may be wrong, but it sounds as though you're getting ready to argue that "X isn't named as a Ripper suspect in the Special Branch records, so X cannot have been the Ripper." I don't think that would be a sound argument.

Well X X X X and X were not the ripper in any event and as has been said many times there isnt a a scrap of real evidence against them even before we know if there may or may not be anything shown on them in the registers.

So I dont expect there to be anything found on them so If that be the case I am one who wont be arguing

But I am confident that there are going to be some real gems to be found. TAXI.....................................

[Chris]

Well X X X X and X havent a scrap of real evidence against them even before we know if there may or may not be anything shown on them in the registers.

But I am confident that there are going to be some real gems to be found. TAXI.....................................

Well, we shall just have to await these revelations with interest. I believe you're going to wait for the Tribunal's decision before making public the information you were given last year. Is there any update on the likely date of that decision? I think you originally expected it a week or two ago.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, we shall just have to await these revelations with interest. I believe you're going to wait for the Tribunal's decision before making public the information you were given last year. Is there any update on the likely date of that decision? I think you originally expected it a week or two ago.

Within the next 7 days hopefully

I would just like to point out not only to you but to many others who have sought to rely on and without question the "evidence" from the memoirs and other letters of these senior police officers.

It is fact that police officers do not always tell the truth it is still the case today and was so way back in 1888. Just because they were so called respected senior officers it doesnt mean they were all shining lights. This is borne out by all the differnet suspect names they came out with.

I will cite a modern day example of a senior police officer lying in a statement and being caught out. This relates to a police officer who was out in uniform in the town centre when he tried to make an arrest of one man. This man wasnt compliant and a struggle ensued which resulted in the police officer sustaining a broken hand.

Within a short time after the arrest he made a witness statement where told lies about what had happened during the incident and how he had been assaulted. That statement a short time later was used in the interview of the suspect. There were no independent witnesses to the incident

However that suspect had a good legal adviser who knew the area was covered by CCTV and asked for it to be seized and when viewed it clearly showed a different picture to what the officer had put in his statement.

Now the moral in this story is that because there were no idependent witnesses and had there not been the CCTV without a doubt had the matter gone to court they would have beleived what the officer was saying no doubt taking the view that the officer was telling the truth because he is a police officer and the man arrested was a nobody.

So I fail to see how so many are prepared to accept without question what these senior police offficers say years later, especially as none of them came up with the same suspect.

[Chris]

I would just like to point out not only to you but to many others who have sought to rely on and without question the "evidence" from the memoirs and other letters of these senior police officers.

I have no idea how you've got the impression I've ever done any such thing.

[Trevor Marriott]

I have no idea how you've got the impression I've ever done any such thing.

Is Kosminski not you favoured suspect ?

[Phil Carter]

Within the next 7 days hopefully

I would just like to point out not only to you but to many others who have sought to rely on and without question the "evidence" from the memoirs and other letters of these senior police officers.

It is fact that police officers do not always tell the truth it is still the case today and was so way back in 1888. Just because they were so called respected senior officers it doesnt mean they were all shining lights. This is borne out by all the differnet suspect names they came out with.

I will cite a modern day example of a senior police officer lying in a statement and being caught out. This relates to a police officer who was out in uniform in the town centre when he tried to make an arrest of one man. This man wasnt compliant and a struggle ensued which resulted in the police officer sustaining a broken hand.

Within a short time after the arrest he made a witness statement where told lies about what had happened during the incident and how he had been assaulted. That statement a short time later was used in the interview of the suspect. There were no independent witnesses to the incident

However that suspect had a good legal adviser who knew the area was covered by CCTV and asked for it to be seized and when viewed it clearly showed a different picture to what the officer had put in his statement.

Now the moral in this story is that because there were no idependent witnesses and had there not been the CCTV without a doubt had the matter gone to court they would have beleived what the officer was saying no doubt taking the view that the officer was telling the truth because he is a police officer and the man arrested was a nobody.

So I fail to see how so many are prepared to accept without question what these senior police offficers say years later, especially as none of them came up with the same suspect.

Hello Trevor,

Indeed, together with the point that Special Branch did have, have always had, and still have a reputation for getting the job done their way. Like Anderson himself said, not always within the boundaries of the law. So the possibility that senior policemen lied, or even with-held information, facts and truths, cannot be ruled out. Deny and confuse was the order of the day for some, it seems.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

Is Kosminski not you favoured suspect ?

No, he isn't. And in any case I can't think of anyone who relies on police memoirs "without question." I wish you would give people credit for a bit more intelligence.

[Phil H]

So the possibility that senior policemen lied, or even with-held information, facts and truths, cannot be ruled out. Deny and confuse was the order of the day for some, it seems.

There is I think an important perceptual point here, that it is crucial to understand. This relates to both conventions and responsibilities, as well as to the period concerned (1880/90s).

Public servants have a number of responsibilities, but key among them is to serve and "protect" the Government of the day and Ministers in particular in so far as official business is concerned. By "protect", I do not mean anything underhand or improper - but that what is issued must reflect what Ministers, in their official capacity wish to see in terms of arguments, lines taken, material issued etc. (Thus "impartial" officials - who have to serve administrations of any complexion - would not release documents contrary to Government policy of the day, seek to undermine the legitimate decision-making process, or breach confidentiality or security considerations.

In recent years, innovations such as Freedom of Information, Human Rights as well as certain commitments made by Governments etc have somewhat changed this approach. But in 1888 and after public servants would have been very much caught up in the ethos I described above.

It is important also to understand what is meant when the words "lie" or "lying" are concerned.

If a Minister lied to, or deliberately misled the House of Commons, he would be expected to, or be forced to, resign. This happened to John Profumo in the 1960s. So, in terms of public adminsitration it would be HIGHLY UNLIKELY that Ministers or civil servents (or their ilk) would lie in any way that attached to the public record.

In Victorian times, even more than today, these principles would have been reinforced by the contemporary mores on gentlemanly behaviour - so social ostracism would be a threat to those who breached the conventional wisdoms - in a phrase, absolute disgrace.

However, and that said, there will always be circumstances when it would be inconvenient for Government to be entirely frank, open or thruthful - these might relate to personal, legal, international, security or commercial concerns. Thus, even to admit an interest in something, or that papers exist on a subject, might alert others to what Government was doing prematurely, or in a timescale that might allow that interest group to thwart Government policy.

Hence carefully worded denials, pharses that appear to mean one thing but can be interpreted in another, are the stock in trade of all senior administrators and many junior ones. But the wording used will never be untruthful, and the wording would be justifiable in the event that it was challenged.

A skilled administrator can often spot such phrasing, even if it would not be possible to determine what the underlying issue was.

Anderson, Macnaghten, Swanson, those supporting the Home Secretary in his Private Office etc would have been masters of these skills, and trained in them.

Talking of such men lying, in my view, is disrespectful of them (Anderson gave a lifetime of loyal service to the public) and misunderstands the pressures and responses of the day.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Talking of such men lying, in my view, is disrespectful of them (Anderson gave a lifetime of loyal service to the public) and misunderstands the pressures and responses of the day.

Well, we all view Anderson in different ways. Some say he couldn't lie. Some say he wouldn't lie. Some say he may have lied. Some say he did lie.

I personally have grave doubts as to this man (Anderson) and his beliefs of what is acceptable for a public servant to be allowed to do. You can dress it up and hide behind whatever you wish, some policemen DO lie. Some policemen have been corrupt too. It matters not one iota how long they served their country.

I DO have great respect for the police and their difficult job in general.

Historically speaking, there are many men who have reached the top of their profession and have mis-used their position.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil H]

I don't think you WANT to hear Phil C.

I'll leave you with your anachronistic prejudices and shut up. No more me in this thread.

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

No, he isn't. And in any case I can't think of anyone who relies on police memoirs "without question." I wish you would give people credit for a bit more intelligence.

Sadly common sense and intelligent rational thinking is sadly lacking in some quarters

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, we all view Anderson in different ways. Some say he couldn't lie. Some say he wouldn't lie. Some say he may have lied. Some say he did lie.

I personally have grave doubts as to this man (Anderson) and his beliefs of what is acceptable for a public servant to be allowed to do. You can dress it up and hide behind whatever you wish, some policemen DO lie. Some policemen have been corrupt too. It matters not one iota how long they served their country.

I DO have great respect for the police and their difficult job in general.

Historically speaking, there are many men who have reached the top of their profession and have mis-used their position.

best wishes

Phil

I can also say that during the tribunal hearing one police witness even told lies so dont anyone try to say that Anderson and all of the others couldnt or didnt lie clearly by the different suspects they named that clearly show one some or all were lying.

As you quite rightly stated Phil it doesnt matter a a rats a..se whether or how they served their country. Even today politician lie it goes with the job.