The Secret Special Branch Ledgers

[Chris]

Maybe someone can explain what harm could be done by publishing a name, if no one could tell that it was the name of an informant.

Because if there are known to be informants in the list of names there are those who won't, or are not capable of making that distinction.
...
They might well be seen as a list of traitors with the concomitant that vengeance should be taken on their descendants.

You're really suggesting that if this document were released with the names of those identifiable as informants redacted, then someone would start taking other names from it - names of people for which there was no indication that they were informants - tracing their descendants and murdering them?

I can't believe you're serious.

[Phil H]

...I try to avoid popular usage every chance I get. My life is a campaign for clarity and precision of language.

Oddly, I know, I always thought that communication was all about being understood. hence the "plain english" campaign.

Doesn't that also mean though that one has to understand how others use language in a contemporary way? How others will interpret what we say, and what they mean by their use of words?

That was what my post was trying to get at.

I'm all for elitism, but NOT if it gets in the way of clear communication.

Phil

[lynn cates]

language

Hello Phil. Thanks. I try to avoid popular usage every chance I get. My life is a campaign for clarity and precision of language. Comes with my curious occupation.

Sadly, "conspiracy" seems to have only one function vis-a-vis the WCM--and that is to end discussion.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

But conspiracy - in it's modern usage - is often used as an all-encompassing term to include cover-ups of the "Watergate" sort, as well as a "plot".

I an sense all the definitions given are of pro-active conspiracy, similar to those to assassinate Caesar, or the July Plot against Hitler.

In the case of JFK a consoiracy is alleged but remains unproven (though to my mind likely). But the JFK conspiracy theorists usually include in their ambit the post-assassination cover-up.

Interestingly, and supporting your definitions, the House assassinations committee in the 70s ruled the JFK shooting a "conspiracy" because they believed that the evidence demonstrated that at least one other person had participated in the crime.

With "Jack", I would suggest that many of those who use the term conspiracy, mean that there has been a cover-up after the event, as much as that more than one man committed the crimes.

Knight's now-exploded theory was a conspiracy, as was the one put forward by Gorman/Sickert involving Lord Randolph Churchill and others. But all these have been moonshine to my mind.

But I sense a wider acceptance of the possibility of a cover-up after the murders for a reason unknown - and this it seems to me is sometimes expressed as a conspiracy.

Phil

[lynn cates]

definition

Hello Maria. this is not the OED, but should suffice.

con·spir·a·cy
   /kənˈspɪrəsi/
–noun, plural -cies.
1.
the act of conspiring.
2.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3.
a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

Notice that, all it takes are 2.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Maybe someone can explain what harm could be done by publishing a name, if no one could tell that it was the name of an informant.

Because if there are known to be informants in the list of names there are those who won't, or are not capable of making that distinction.

Interviews (vox pops) ion the news this morning ahead of the Queen's visit, indicate that not all those in Ireland have forgotten the troubles, "British tyranny" or history. It appears all this is still recent history in the Republic. (I acknowledge, of course, that the majority of Irish people will welcome the visit.)

However, don't forget the mix-up a few years back when people in the Portsmouth area seriously harrassed a paediatrician in the belief that that meant paedophile!!Some members of society are not very discriminating.

Further, were the registers released, WE on casebook might see them as a valuable resource on JtR - others might not perceive them in that way. They might well be seen as a list of traitors with the concomitant that vengeance should be taken on their descendants. The title of the volume does not relate to the former but to the latter.

I suppose I have to reaffirm my aspiration that these volumes will be released as openly as possible, but I do understand the dilemma that faces the authorities.

Phil

[mariab]

Technically, any crime committed by more than one, or with one consenting, is a conspiracy.

Oh come on, Lynn, you know that this isn't accurate.

I fully agree with the rest of your post, thank you so much for the well-wishes (I'll need all the luck I can get), and we should really try to research the Soames connection together. (Wish I could come up with another idea to research this apart from newspapers.)

(And, if you don't mind, I'm taking your Rocker along to Iceland, it's already packed.)

[lynn cates]

conspiracy

Hello Maria. Thanks.

Of course, my main point is that a theory cannot be dismissed simply because it involves the notion of conspiracy. Technically, any crime committed by more than one, or with one consenting, is a conspiracy.

Any murder theory, WHATSOEVER, must be judged according to the appropriate criteria--first and foremost being motive and opportunity. But if we dismiss it on grounds of "conspiracy," we merely "poison the well."

Good luck with your pursuits.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Hence, the PAV theories fell, (...) but the theory about Brutus and Cassius stood, again, not because it was a conspiracy theory (which it was), but because it was correct, fully describing the historical event.

Please don't ever think I'd ever compare your theory with the ridiculousness of the PAV, Lynn. I'll be following your research with great interest.

PS.: By the by, highjacking again, the Lyon research trip's all planned and arranged (in combination with a sponsored trip to Les 2 Alpes where I was supposed to go anyway). In typical French fashion, it was harder to get access to the info of where on earth they are located than to their catalogues for Lacassagne manuscripts. :-)

[lynn cates]

flavours, etc

Hello Maria.

"A little too much of a conspiracy theory for me."

Well, de gustibus non disputandum. The flavour of a theory cannot be helped.

But please to notice that a conspiracy theory, like anything else, must stand or fall by its own merit. Hence, the PAV theories fell, not because they were involved with conspiracy, but simply because the chap had an iron tight alibi. On the other hand, the theory about Brutus and Cassius stood, again, not because it was a conspiracy theory (which it was), but because it was correct, fully describing the historical event.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Is it utterly impossible that 1 or 2 of the victims of the WCM WERE informants?

Yes, we all have copies of the entry in question, Lynn. (AKA John and Cathy and Mr. D..)

Sir Edward argued that if he were sacked (as he eventually was) his network of informants would be in grave danger.

A little too much of a conspiracy theory for me.

[mariab]

Many, many thanks, Chris. I'll read that notice as soon as I manage.

One aspect that I hadn't grasped previously is that Special Branch claim that they can't tell from the records who is an informant and who isn't, so it's impossible for them to redact only the names of informants. Maybe someone can explain what harm could be done by publishing a name, if no one could tell that it was the name of an informant.

Well, the usual, same old rhetoric: repressailles and whatnot.

[From] the Chief Constable's CID register 'Special Branch' (1888-1892)
i Entry under the heading 'Jack the Ripper' which names a suspect.
ii Entry under Chief Inspector Littlechild's reference which again names [a] suspect in the Jack the Ripper case.

Fascinating! Littlechild, eh? Could that be Tumblety? And related somehow to the “William McGrath“ well-known entry?

[lynn cates]

informants

Hello Chris. I think you are quite right that it is easy to conflate an informant with a suspect. From the unredacted pages I have seen, they are indiscriminately thrown together.

There is a question that has, so far, NOT been discussed in conjunction with the ledgers. It is this. Is it utterly impossible that 1 or 2 of the victims of the WCM WERE informants? Sir Edward argued that if he were sacked (as he eventually was) his network of informants would be in grave danger.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

And one other interesting bit of information from that notice is that after the intervention of the Information Commissioner two entries in the ledgers naming Ripper suspects were made available to the complainant last year:

[From] the Chief Constable's CID register 'Special Branch' (1888-1892)

i Entry under the heading 'Jack the Ripper' which names a suspect.

ii Entry under Chief Inspector Littlechild's reference which again names [a] suspect in the Jack the Ripper case.

[Chris]

Here's a Decision Notice from 1 November last year relating to Trevor Marriott's efforts to get access to this material:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50293249.ashx

One aspect that I hadn't grasped previously is that Special Branch claim that they can't tell from the records who is an informant and who isn't, so it's impossible for them to redact only the names of informants.

Maybe someone can explain what harm could be done by publishing a name, if no one could tell that it was the name of an informant.