Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Secret Special Branch Ledgers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Be interesting to find some reference to good old Dr. Tumblety in there. Good luck on your efforts, Trevor!
    "We reach. We grasp. And what is left at the end? A shadow."
    Sherlock Holmes, The Retired Colourman

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Dr. John Watson View Post
      Be interesting to find some reference to good old Dr. Tumblety in there. Good luck on your efforts, Trevor!
      If there isnt then i would sugggest it will be goodbye Mr Tumblety from the list of likely suspects.

      I beleive it is equally important to try to prove who was "NOT" JTR than to prove who he was.
      But then again there are the Tumbletyites on here who will never give him up
      Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 06-12-2010, 07:38 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Hi Trevor,

        Well said. None of the suspects advanced thus far bear any close examination as to their complicity in the WM. I don't know about you, but I think it is reasonable to believe that in the final analysis we won't so much discover "who" was JtR, but rather "what" was JtR.

        Good hunting.

        Regards,

        Simon
        Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

        Comment


        • #19
          Good luck, Trevor...when did Clutterbuck die? Very recently, it must be--I was under the impression he was working for Rand now
          best,

          claire

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Stewart P Evans View Post
            Do I detect a hint of cynicism resulting from a distinct lack of interest in anything that is unlikely to involve Kosminski and Polish Jews, or which may be critical of Anderson?
            Not to detract from the topic of this thread, but Stewart I've never trusted much of what Anderson has written, nor have I ever believed that Aaron Kosminski was the Ripper.

            Comment


            • #21
              At the risk of injecting any kind of "politics" into this discussion, why in God's name would information pertaining to the use of government agents be suppressed on something that happened over 110 years ago! Good god! Even the Russians have largely opened up files of the former Soviet Union that are barely 50 years old!

              "I'm sorry, we can't release the files on secret Norman agents that prepared the way for William the Conqueror's crossing of the channel, as it might embarrass the descendants of these agents or stir up hostility towards the French..."

              Honestly, one would never know that England was the home country of George Orwell...

              Sorry, ignore my ranting. Continue with the discussion.
              Jeff

              Comment


              • #22
                good work

                Hello Simon, Phil, Stewart and Trevor. Good work lads. If we can eliminate a single big "suspect," we can reallocate our resources (ie, the Ripper brain trust) and make significant progress.

                Great pity about those redactions. To my feeble mind, ascertaining who those police informants were might be the single most significant item in the files.

                Keep us posted, will you?

                Cheers.
                LC

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                  What follows is covered by Section 21 paragraph 53 in a 29-page Freedom of Information Act 2000 [Section 50] Decision Notice dated 20th August 2008.
                  Thanks for a very interesting post.

                  If anyone wants a depressing read, the full text of the notice is available here:
                  http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documen...s_50106800.pdf

                  I am very puzzled by Trevor's post saying that the ledgers were subsequently made available in a heavily "redacted" form. It appears to me that the 2008 ruling required them to be made available with information removed only where it was reasonably accessible otherwise (i.e. through Clutterbuck's thesis). If they have removed all proper names, are they not in clear breach of the ruling?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Keep Digging

                    I agree with Chris, that the notice makes for strange reading. I went through it yesterday with a friend and was particularly struck by the claims of urgent "Health and Safety" concerns and the bizarre inclusion of "Fees" as another serious concern. The latter made me feel that they are scraping the bottom of the barrel for justifications to keep very old material secret, and the former just baffled me.

                    Section 38 – Health and safety


                    99. Information is exempt under this section if its disclosure would or would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or endanger the safety of any individual.


                    Who is going to have their mental health or physical safety endangered after 120 years???

                    This reason strikes me as preposterous. The only sense I can make of it is that is a roundabout way of claiming "official embarrassment"
                    (i.e. "Mental Health") as a reason to keep century-old information out of the public domain.

                    I say keep digging!

                    Best regards,
                    Archaic
                    Last edited by Archaic; 06-13-2010, 12:00 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Hi Chris,

                      The Metropolitan Police Service probably is in breach of the ruling, but try telling them that.

                      Thank goodness the late Dr Clutterbuck left us a few juicy leads to follow up.

                      Regards,

                      Simon
                      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Health and Safety

                        Hello Chris, Archaic, Simon, Trevor, Lynn, all,

                        When I first read that ruling, I was amazed at the lengths gone to to try and protect those documents seeing the light of day.

                        From paragraphs 113 onwards, under "The Decision" it was said...

                        "The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the procedural requirements of the Act, specifically in that it failed to issue a timely refusal notice thereby breaching section 17(1). Additionally, this refusal notice did not refer to the sub-section of each the exemptions claimed thereby breaching section 17(1)(b)."

                        Additionally,

                        "The Commissioner also finds that by failing to inform the complainant of its change in reliance on an exemption the public authority breached section 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) and, in failing to cite section 12, it breached section 17(5)."

                        Additionally

                        "As the public authority did not make the requested information available to the complainant within twenty working days it breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the Act."

                        Additionally,

                        "The Commissioner further finds that by not responding to the complainant’s further information requests, identified at paragraph 14 above, the public authority breached sections 1(1)(a) and (b) of the Act and section 10(1)."

                        Additionally,

                        "The Commissioner finds that section 12 was misapplied."

                        Additionally

                        "...the Commissioner has concluded that the public interest arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption at section 30(2) do not outweigh those in favour of disclosure."

                        Additionally,

                        "Section 24 does not apply as exemption from the duty to provide information in section 1(1)(b) is not required for the purpose of safeguarding national security."

                        Additionally,

                        "Section 38(1)(a) and (b) are not engaged as the public authority has not demonstrated a real and significant likelihood of endangerment to the health or safety of an individual if the information were released."

                        And to top the lot, much earlier, the public authority also claimed the complainant to pay 2364.00 claimed by the public authority to cover, and I quote the reasons given in paragraph 45,....

                        "Due to the age and size of the ledgers as well as the condition, it would require a great deal of care when handling, this would make the job of copying almost impossible due to the impact of time and resources – bringing us into the fees consideration. To read, redact and copy an estimated 550 pages working on the figure of inspection time alone without preparation … would take us to an estimated cost of 2,364.”

                        The Commissioner found that taking photocopies would in no way come near that figure, and that

                        "It is unclear to the Commissioner why fees have been introduced."

                        "The Commissioner considers that the estimated cost of 2,364 is inaccurate and that the appropriate limit is not applicable."

                        Just about everything possible has been put forward over the years, in one instance or another, pertaining to all sorts of historical documents, not just Ripper related, in order to delay, dissuade and deny. Remember also that we are told of the fact that many historical documents have been either "bombed out" "burnt" "destroyed" "lost" "misplaced" "missing" "purloined" "pulped for the war effort" "stolen" ...yet miraculously, somehow turn up out of nowhere having suffered these terrible injuries in their "history" years later. One excuse after another.

                        It does make one seriously wonder who tells the truth about what. Truth, you know, the thing the POLICE themselves encourage the public to do!!

                        People call me suspicious. Take a long hard look at that document and the history surrounding other historical documantation ladies and gentlemen, and tell me that someone (I use the term loosely and over many years), really hasn't been denying everything that can possibly be denied to stop anyone seeing what Special Branch anno ca.1888-1894 were really up to in Whitechapel and elsewhere in East London. There is seemingly no limit to it, going back many decades. For those who think I am still being suspicious...welcome to the real world.

                        Simon, I repeat, this posting of yours, and Trevor's efforts, are very important. I thank you both, sincerely.

                        best wishes

                        Phil
                        Last edited by Phil Carter; 06-13-2010, 12:33 AM.
                        Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


                        Justice for the 96 = achieved
                        Accountability? ....

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          redaction

                          With regards to the redaction. The met police have carried out the redaction in accordance with the tribunal ruling. i have already challenged this point.

                          The main argument I have put forward is the fact that the tribunal gave their judgment based mainly on what special branch officers told them.

                          They went to great lenghts to suggest the bulk of the information contained in these ledgers related to informants. Even examining the ledgers in redacted form clearly that is not correct. As an ex police officer i was quickly able to asses and evaluate the contents despite the heavy redaction. That is why I am able to make that statement.

                          As far as their argument and the reference to Clutterbcuks thesis which was then freely available is concerned the contents on this were played down. I have read the thesis and i am able to say that there are 80 pages in the thesis which contain extracts from the ledgers. Informants are named with details of what information they gave and how much they were paid as well as other references regarding the workings of special branch.

                          In view of this their argument about wanting to protect the name of informants is vrey weak.

                          As far as the Ripper is concerned as Clutterbuck states there are only minor references to the ripper documented. One has to remember his reserach was into the workings of Special Branch. He would not have been fully au fait with the Ripper mystery and the many names of persons connected to the mystery, and therefore i hope there will be other references to The Ripper found when I hopefully get to view them in unredcated form.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            [QUOTE=Phil Carter;136729]Hello Chris, Archaic, Simon, Trevor, Lynn, all,


                            "Due to the age and size of the ledgers as well as the condition, it would require a great deal of care when handling, this would make the job of copying almost impossible due to the impact of time and resources – bringing us into the fees consideration. To read, redact and copy an estimated 550 pages working on the figure of inspection time alone without preparation … would take us to an estimated cost of 2,364.”

                            The ledgers have been photocopied and new ledgers made up from these copies.

                            It is ironic that these ledgers in unredcated form when found were offered to the national archives who declined them stating they were of no worthwhile interest.
                            Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 06-13-2010, 12:59 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              good luck

                              Hello Trevor. Good luck, then.

                              The best.
                              LC

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Hello Trevor,

                                Bang goes the financial argument then!. I think you have a fairly strong case Trevor. Well played that man.

                                best wishes

                                Phil
                                Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


                                Justice for the 96 = achieved
                                Accountability? ....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X