The Secret Special Branch Ledgers

[Phil H]

belinda

This must involve more than the Ripper murders. To be so sensitive it surely has to be something else as well. If as is most likely the Ripper was a nobody the case may have been caught up in something bigger.

That would be my personal interpretation at this stage - that perhaps a victim (Eddowes) or someone related to her (Kelly) are listed as informants.

Alternatively, that an informant (a Fenian) was considered a suspect.

I suspect that a lot of things get destroyed without anybody ever knowing.

In UK Government routine papers and files are destroyed routinely - sent to archive storage for a time, and then got rid of, unless the subject or issue is of continuing interest for legal or administrative reasons. In recent years, pressure to reduce storage space and attempts to move to a "paperless" office have increased the pressure to get rid of non-essential papers. Destrucction is, however only done after a number of years have passed.

All this is laid down in established processes and procedures.

However, material on key decisions will be retained for the public record. To destroy that would be an offense (legally and morally). For individuals to sek to remove enclosures from official files to hide something (as against routine pruning) to destroy papers or e-mails to conceal information is equally an offense. To destroy an historical document would be heinous.

The difference is between authorised routine destruction of files as part of established procedures, and an individual chosing the destroy papers for reasons of cover-up, embarrassment, politics etc. That is specifically not allowed.

Remember that much oficial paperwork consists of drafts, duplicates, routine correspondence, which is then absorbed into higher level drafts (rather as routibne reports from Whitechapel would be used by Swanson to inform his reports up the line. Thus information will often continue to exist even though some versions of it may have been properly excised from the record as no longer required.

Phil

[mariab]

Oh, OK. Many thanks for clarifying, Chris. From the discussions in the past I was under the impression that the redactions in the ledgers entries pertained to CHANGED names in the entries, not blacking out specific entries.

PS.: Not to highjack the thread, but I just got a breakthrough to Lyon for the Lacassagne uncatalogued materials! (This with the library. The Museum archives I hope to be able to reach later this afternoon. I was hoping to go look at things there in July.)

[Chris]

A sample of about 40 pages from the Scotland Yard ledgers was released to last week’s tribunal, but with the names of informants and other key details blacked out.
These allegedly 40 “new“ pages sound to have been blacked out instead of redacted, as discussed in Clutterbuck's thesis.

I think "redaction" just refers to the blacking out of selected parts of the documents. From the earlier discussions, a heavily redacted version of the documents has already been made available to Trevor Marriott and Alex Butterworth (and I presume would be available to others). I can only assume that the 40-page sample was a less heavily redacted version produced for the tribunal, though evidently they still weren't allowed to see "other key details" apart from the names of informants, even though (if I understand correctly) the protection of informants' anonymity was the only basis for the previous ruling in favour of the Met.

[belinda]

This must involve more than the Ripper murders. To be so sensitive it surely has to be something else as well.
If as is most likely the Ripper was a nobody the case may have been caught up in something bigger.

I suspect that a lot of things get destroyed without anybody ever knowing.

[mariab]

Thank you so much for the fascinating (insider) information, Mr. Evans.

(...) A brief sight of some of the pages of the relevant ledger was given when a certain person who had been granted access posted them on the Internet. However, they quickly disappeared and, apparently, no permission had been granted to post these pages.

Most obviously a very unfortunate and harmful precedent. Another result thereof is that a bunch of Ripperologists (including even myself, as a newbie!) now own digital reproductions of some of these SB ledger pages.

Whilst making tentative enquiries about the ledgers a few years ago (...) after the talk I was approached by someone who informed me that the material would never be released and if it appeared that it was going to be accessed it would be destroyed.

I don't doubt that the words were spoken, but it sounds to me like hyperbole.

Mr. Evans, (and only if you find it appropriate to answer this question), how do you reconcile the old insinuation of “destroying the files if ever in danger of being accessed“ vs. the following recent press report?
Quote Montréal Gazette:
A sample of about 40 pages from the Scotland Yard ledgers was released to last week’s tribunal, but with the names of informants and other key details blacked out.
These allegedly 40 “new“ pages sound to have been blacked out instead of redacted, as discussed in Clutterbuck's thesis. (And I assume that Clutterbuck had a much earlier access to the ledgers than FL.)
I'm COMPLETELY aware of the fact that an internet forum is not the ideal platform to discuss this matter, thus I'd totally understand if you'd preferred to refrain from discussing this further.

[Phil H]

...that the material would never be released and if it appeared that it was going to be accessed it would be destroyed.

Which would, as I understand it be a criminal offence punishable (in a worst case) by imprisonment.

These registers are known to exist, are part of the public record, are known to be subject to public interest and thus destruction would be a deliberate act.

I have every sympathy with the authorities in wishing to protect sensitive information, and for them following procedures to do so. But acting outside and above the law would be foolish in this day and age. I do not think that the most senior levels would countenance such an act as it could prove a "pebble that starts an avalanche". The organisations conconerned (and I suspect it would involve the two security bodies as well as Special Branch/the Yard) could find this issue being taken up by a wider group than Ripperologists alone and its being linked to the "dodgy dossier", the "rendition" of political prisoners, use of torture etc.

Non-release and a refusal to release would be enough - destruction would not be required and I do not think any individual would willingly put himself/herself in that position. "Woe unto them" if they do.

I don't doubt that the words were spoken, but it sounds to me like hyperbole.

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Bogus

...
...
Of course, the origins of the "conspiracy theory" can be detected back in the 1890s. While Macnaghten and Anderson peddled the line that the killer had been an individual acting alone (while differing on his identity) others, including Munro "hot potato" and Abberline appear to have dropped deliberate hints about the case being sensitive and involving "the highest in the land".
...
Phil

The Monro 'hot potato' story is merely family oral tradition (ergo hearsay) passed on to Keith Skinner in the 1980s. Abberline never did 'drop deliberate hints' about the case being sensitive and involving 'the highest in the land', that is a bogus tale.

[Stewart P Evans]

Files

The Metropolitan Police had resisted allowing the public access to the Special Branch files under section 3(4) of the Public Records Act, 1958, which allowed them to withhold documents for more than the stipulated period. In order to do this all they had to do was persuade the Lord Chancellor that they had a 'special reason' for doing so. Invariably access was then refused.

In 1984 Scotland Yard claimed that the papers that were being withheld had, in fact, been destroyed and no longer existed. All that is supposed to have survived are the index ledgers which give minimal information but which do disclose names. A brief sight of some of the pages of the relevant ledger was given when a certain person who had been granted access posted them on the Internet. However, they quickly disappeared and, apparently, no permission had been granted to post these pages.

Whilst making tentative enquiries about the ledgers a few years ago we were warned that it was a sensitive subject and was best steered clear of. I took part in a public debate about the Whitechapel murders and I mentioned the Special Branch material. After the talk I was approached by someone who informed me that the material would never be released and if it appeared that it was going to be accessed it would be destroyed.

[Phil H]

Spiro

I look forward to the book with keen anticipation.

Of course, the origins of the "conspiracy theory" can be detected back in the 1890s. While Macnaghten and Anderson peddled the line that the killer had been an individual acting alone (while differing on his identity) others, including Munro "hot potato" and Abberline appear to have dropped deliberate hints about the case being sensitive and involving "the highest in the land".

Munro, with his secret service background, would have been well-placed to know if the Ripper case had any connections, for instance, to Fenian activity. His actual words could have been hisheard or mis-reported to assume to was talking about high personalitie rather than high politics. Abberline equally, may have been making mental links between Whitechapel and Cleveland St, especially if he felt a strong political pressure in both cases.

So the registers could (names apart) throw light on the wisder concerns of the upper echelon in the Yard and at the Home Office.

Phil

[auspirograph]

Breaking News?

Hi all,

Yes, this is a breaking story on Jack the Ripper historical sources but it has been an on-going saga for some time with the UK Information Tribunal. The story is a bit more involved than the press are reporting, or as Trevor Marriot is describing. There are certainly some details of a Victorian Special Branch investigation of Jack the Ripper, however, because suspects are named, does not of course mean that they were the serial killer of 1888.

In fact it is impossible to prove the identity of Jack the Ripper now with the available sources which include these Special Branch ledgers that simply outline the police lines of inquiry. It has to be remembered that no-one was convicted of the crimes so any new information can at best give a better idea of the police investigation.

I am the author of a forthcoming non-fiction book which may interest you that puts this and other Jack the Ripper mythologies into a Victorian context and examines how and why these conspiracies emerged on these historic unsolved crimes. The title of the book is: "Jack the Ripper and Black Magic: Victorian Conspiracy Theories, Secret Societies and the Supernatural Mystique of the Whitechapel Murders". Further details can be found on my publisher's website: http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/book-2.p...-0-7864-4547-9

And no, the Royal/Masonic Conspiracy Theory has no basis in fact though it has grown as legend and been perhaps the most popular theory of all.

Thanks for your time and hope that if interested, the book will provide a comprehensive insight into the legends of Jack the Ripper, how the crimes were perceived and what really happened for both enthusiasts and Ripperologists alike.

Cheers
Spiro

[mariab]

Hello Phil. Yes, that's what I meant. That they failed to inform him, possibly. (Still, this is complete hearsay and I could be totally wrong here.)

[Phil Carter]

Hello Maria,

Transferred from the "Grassed" thread..

Actually, from what I understand, Alex Butterworth was not informed at all about the date of the appeal. Hence, he never appeared, and could not say anything in his case defence.

best wishes

Phil

[mariab]

Not that I believe for a moment that there's any conspiracy afoot. Butterworth's suggestion that "Special Branch simply [want] to keep control of what they clearly perceive as ‘our documents’" sounds plausible enough.

organisations are in my experience difficult to change culturally.

That's how I see it too.

What happened in Butterworth's case is that they cited several exemptions, lost the case, and then appealed by citing a different one, which they hadn't mentioned in the first place.

And then Butterworth got misinformed and missed the appointment for the appeal.

[Chris]

The likelihood is, in my experience, that several exemptions are being cited in parallel.

What happened in Butterworth's case is that they cited several exemptions, lost the case, and then appealed by citing a different one, which they hadn't mentioned in the first place.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

I agree. Judging from the original tribuneral records, all sorts of arguments and rather strange reasons were put forward by the Met to try to prevent this release. "Excuse after excuse" could be the term used, infact.

best wishes

Phil