Home office report

[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 ?

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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

[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.

[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 ...

[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]

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.

[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.

[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