The Secret Special Branch Ledgers

[caz]

To Caz

I had thought that the reference to Browne about Macnaghte associating the Ripper with a plot against Balfour to be possibly some obscure reference to Tumblety, or somebody connected with the Irish, until I saw the context of this quote, eg. the full page.

Browne is writing about a few sources which are publicly available, not classified ones, and he makes the peculiar remark about Macnaghten because, I think, he is misunderstanding his 1914 memoirs.

Just as Leanard Matters did Browne is taking the last lines of Mac's chapter, 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' literally; that the fiend 'knocked out' a police commissioner and very 'nearly settled the hash' of a secretary of state. This actually refers to Warren and Matthews.

I think Browne has misread it, thought it referred to a real plot, knows that the only plot was against Balfour at the time of the Ripper murders, and thus put two and two together.

Further backing for my theory is that Browne never mentions that Macnaghten had written an internal 1894 Report which identified the Ripper with somebody else -- with three other minor suspects: Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog, but that he had earlier theorized an Irish suspect, and so on.

Browne seems wholly ignorant about Macnaghten's preference for the Drowned Doctor, or drowned 'Said to be a doctor'. I don't think he ever saw the 1894 version of this Report.

Of course this error is partly because of Macnaghten's chicanery; he never mentions that the suspect was drowned or a doctor in his cagey memoirs -- or explains how they got onto him? He does mention that it was 'some years after' 1888 which further pulls Mac's opinion away from some figure who was plotting against Balfour, which of course in no way resembles what little is known about Montie Druitt.

I’m sorry, Jonathan, I didn’t explain myself clearly enough. My thinking was indeed based on those rather dramatic words of Macnaghten about the ripper knocking out a police commissioner and very nearly settling the hash of a secretary of state. I wondered if Browne was in sarcastic mode and merely meant that when Mac fondly imagined that this wretched killer of a few ‘whores’ had held the political fate of Warren and Matthews in his hands, he appeared to be elevating the ripper - and the supposed impact of his deeds - to the level of political assassin.

When you appear to ‘identify’ someone ‘with’ someone else, you are not necessarily suggesting they are one and the same person. You can be likening one to the other in some way, eg the impact of their behaviour. That’s subtly different from identifying someone as someone else.

"A third head of the CID, Sir Melville Macnaghten, appears to identify the Ripper with the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr Balfour at the Irish Office."

I’m more than happy to be corrected if the context clearly doesn’t allow for any such interpretation in this instance.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jonathan H]

Dear Caz

You could be right, but I think the balance of probabilities is that since Macnaghten nowhere mentions Balfour [nobody does] that this is a mistaken element introduced by Browne, and because the latter seems to be wholly ignorant of Mac's preference for a chief suspect identified 'some years after' he killed himself. Which means Browne did not read the Mac Memoirs very carefully, but then nobody does that either ...

Love Jonathan X

[Phil Carter]

Names and games

Never take anything on face value !!!!!!!!

Hello Trevor,

I agree. On this basis, and given that a certain amount of names in those ledgers of the infortmants etc would be false, one can also question any name listed called a suspect or informant, as many of the known people in Whitechapel were known by more than one name. William McGrath, artist, may not actually be the suspect mentioned, but one known by that name. The ledgers do not give this suspect a title.

An indication of the above is the story of one "John Cleary". With thanks to Nick Connell and Stewart Evans, I quote from their excellent book "The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper" (Amberley edition, 2009).

A "John Cleary" entered the editorial offices of the New York Herald and appeared to indicate things about another murdered woman. The police tried in vain to trace "Cleary", who gave a false address, and he turned out to be a newspaper vendor, John Arnold, who then stated he gave the name "Kemp" to the New York Herald, and the address he gave was a former one.
This indicates that names becomes questionable.

So, if this thread, and this controversy about existing/non-existant ledgers tells us anything, I suggest, presumtion of what we are presented to be a certainty will leave us chasing our own tails again.

One thing though. Understandable or not, the false comments of what actually exists and what doesn't exist eminating from this public authority over the years, the never ending passing the buck and the deliberate misleading of genuine researches and historians down the garden path, over many years, must stop. These ledgers refer to Special Branch files, which we are told, are feared to have been lost and are no longer in existance....

I am sorry Scotland Yard, Special Branch. I don't believe a word of what you tell the public about these historical documents any more. The games of hiding things and saying they don't exist have worn thin. Why get rid of the written reports from Special Branch Officers and leave the ledgers they pertain to intact? If a clear out was going to happen, it would ALL have gone. Call me suspicious if you will. I don't believe a word of what this public authority tell us anymore about this stuff.

Therefore, I call their bluff. The ONLY way, in my opinion, for this public authority to regain the faith that researches and historians once had in them, is to come clean with EVERYTHING that they have tucked away. No more excuses, reasons and lies.

Otherwise we will no doubt risk hearing that suddenly, without anyone's knowledge, the whole of the Special Branch historical documents section was (by mistake) transferred to the Ascension Islands and the ship sank due to a very large hurricane. All totally unexpected of course...

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

I agree. On this basis, and given that a certain amount of names in those ledgers of the infortmants etc would be false, one can also question any name listed called a suspect or informant, as many of the known people in Whitechapel were known by more than one name. William McGrath, artist, may not actually be the suspect mentioned, but one known by that name. The ledgers do not give this suspect a title.

But the discussion above was about the interpretation of the address, 57 Bedford Gardens, and in particular whether instead of the known 57 Bedford Gardens in Kensington it might refer to a different Bedford Gardens in Lambeth, which appeared in the 1881 census but only contained 6 houses.

I realise men may adopt pseudonyms, but I never heard of a house adopting a pseudonumber!

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

Of course, but the address given to the police could be false as well, as in the example I gave above (Cleary), and therefore registered in the police ledgers as such, without knowing it to be false, could it not?

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

But the discussion above was about the interpretation of the address, 57 Bedford Gardens, and in particular whether instead of the known 57 Bedford Gardens in Kensington it might refer to a different Bedford Gardens in Lambeth, which appeared in the 1881 census but only contained 6 houses.

I realise men may adopt pseudonyms, but I never heard of a house adopting a pseudonumber!

I should point out that a lot of the entries i have seen in the ledgers clearly have been entered as a result of information given to police officers. The files that were then opened in relation to those entries would have contained the reasons why the info was given and by whom and anyhthing else relevant. I would guess that some info was even given to police officers verbally but the informant not divulging their details

So a lot may be hearsay and not to be relied upon without any corroboration.

I dont know why you are making such a big issue over what address it was. The truth and reality is that we have nothing to go on as far as McGrath is concerned at this point in time. His name may crop up again under other entries in the ledgers perhaps. So until we have more we can do nothing else other than be patient.:

[Chris]

Of course, but the address given to the police could be false as well, as in the example I gave above.(Cleary), and therefore registered in the police ledgers as such, without knowing it to be false, could it not?

Yes, but that's not what Trevor was suggesting - he was suggesting it might refer to a different Bedford Gardens.

[Trevor Marriott]

Evidently William Magrath was visiting England and Ireland in late 1888, as indicated by the advertisement below, which appeared in Lippincott's Monthly Magazine for December 1889 (available at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=F9HUAAAAMAAJ), under the title "J. B. Lippincott Company's Monthly Bulletin of New Publications":

[ATTACH]9448[/ATTACH]

This does not state where he was at the time of the murders so its pure conjecture for you to state he was in England during those times.

[Chris]

I dont know why you are making such a big issue over what address it was.

I'm not making any issue of it at all.

With respect, you are the one filling the thread with post after post pressing the rather peculiar notion that "57 Bedford Gardens" may refer not to the only recorded house in London with that address, but to another Bedford Gardens that only contained 6 houses. If you feel it shouldn't be made an issue, please feel free to stop doing so at any time.

[Chris]

This does not state where he was at the time of the murders so its pure conjecture for you to state he was in England during those times.

The advertisement, dated December 1889, says quite explicitly that he spent six months in England and Ireland, followed by a winter's studio-work, the results of which were then being published.

As I said, that obviously shows that visited England and Ireland in late 1888.

[Phil Carter]

The advertisement, dated December 1889, says quite explicitly that he spent six months in England and Ireland, followed by a winter's studio-work, the results of which were then being published.

As I said, that obviously shows that visited England and Ireland in late 1888.

Hello Chris,

The word "late" as in "late 1888" is the key here. I would respectfully suggest the 6 months could be from January to June 1888, could it not? Also, do we know that his winter studio sojourn was in London? Could he not have been in a studio in Ireland in the winter?
Without definitive dates or places, there are various options in reading that advertisment, I respectfully opine.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

The word "late" as in "late 1888" is the key here. I would respectfully suggest the 6 months could be from January to June 1888, could it not? Also, do we know that his winter studio sojourn was in London? Could he not have been in a studio in Ireland in the winter?

Well, obviously I think the natural interpretation of the advertisement is that he spent six months gathering material, and when he had gathered it he did the studio-work. That would imply he was in England and Ireland for roughly the second half of 1888, regardless of where the studio-work was done.

If for some reason there was a lengthy hiatus between gathering the material and doing the studio-work, the visit could have been earlier. But it doesn't read like that to me.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

None of what follows has any direct bearing on the Whitechapel murders, but it does illustrate that turn-of-the-century London was a hotbed of international intrigue and that there were many overlaps in police/intelligence/political duties, allegencies and responsibilities.

'Paris Okhrana 1885-1905'
CIA Historical Review Program, Approved for Release 22nd September 1993—

"Rachkovsky [see: "The Order of St Anne" thread, Post#1] assigned a formerly independent MVD agent, Wladislaw Milewski, to serve as case officer for all external, non-Russian agents. Milewski rented a new safe house, and as soon as it was ready for business and the new team was reporting he made a trip to London and hired two external agents there. One was a certain Murphy, a long-time acquaintance of his in Scotland Yard; the other he called "John." He gave them instructions to report directly to his address in Paris on the activities of Russian revolutionaries in England. The information was to be obtained from contacts in Scotland Yard and from their own observation. This was the informal beginning of the London outpost of the Paris Okhrana . . .

"During the Rachkovsky period [1885—1902] the Paris internal service came to include the following major penetration agents:

"Boleslaw Malankiewicz, among the Polish anarchists and terrorists in London.

"Casimir Pilenas [an Englishman, ex-Okhrana, real name Palmer], a spotter for Scotland Yard recruited to work among the Latvian terrorists." [my brackets]

'Okhrana: The Paris Operations of the Russian Imperial Police', Ben B. Fischer. Central Intelligence Agency, 1997—

"The [Okhrana] outpost in London . . . acquired agents [Francis] Powells [sic. should read Powell] and Michael Thorpe. Powells was a retired Scotland Yard detective recommended to the Okhrana by Thorpe [sic. should read Patrick Quinn, one of Littlechild's original 1887 Section D Inspectors], his former boss. Both had previous experience in operating against Russian revolutionaries in London." [my brackets]

When, in 1905, Arkadiy Harting took over the Paris-based Ohkrana, "In London there were only two agents—Michael Thorpe, who furnished transcripts of police records, and a certain Farce, who was engaged in surveillance tasks."

HIA, Okhrana, box 19 IIIe—

In a 13th August 1904 letter to Rachkovsky's Okhrana successor, Michael Thorpe noted that he began to assist Farce in 1894.

Old Bailey, 7th February 1898—

CID Sergeant Michael Thorpe and Inspector William Melville gave evidence at the trial of Vladimir Burtsev [Bourtzeff], charged wth "unlawfully publishing a pamphlet encouraging certain persons, whose names are unknown, to murder His Imperial Majesty Nicholas II, Emperor of the Russias."

HIA, Okhrana, box 19 IIIe—

"Michael Thorpe became a full-time employee of the Okhrana in 1901".

It's difficult to work out from all this exactly who was doing what and for whom—witness this report in The Times, 12th February 1901—

"Before leaving London the Grand Duke [Michael of Russia] presented a diamond pin to Sergeant Michael Thorpe of Scotland Yard, who has had the special duty of caring for his Imperial Highness's safety during his stay in England, and was for the purpose attached to his suite. The presentation was made in acknowledgement of the zeal and tact with which Sergeant Thorpe discharged his duty."

In 1909 Melville Macnaghten recommended Inspector Francis Powell for duty among the suffragettes on account of his unrivalled knowledge of them, and his "especially good physique". [Macnaghten to Gladstone, 9th September 1909: HJGP 46067, f. 15].

Okhrana archive vc/2 [Hoover Institution]—

"3rd June 1914: The Metropolitan Police CID held its annual dinner for chief officers and inspectors. After a meal of green pea soup, Scotch salmon, Saddle of mutton Niçoise, punch sorbet, roast Surrey fowl, orange souffle pudding, bombe Trocadero, and dessert, a toast was offered by Superintendent McCarthy of the Special Branch to Detective Inspector Francis Powell (who had joined the Russian Secret Service in 1912) . . ."

All this, plus Clutterbuck instancing Robert Anderson sanctioning the funeral expenses of some of his paid informers. Now there's food for thought.

Who knows what we may eventually discover if we keep mining this rich vein of bureaucratic intrigue.

Regards,

Simon

[Johnr]

The Mysterious Sergeant White....

And I will be most interested to see if Steve White emerges from these ledgers; and to see what light the literature casts on his activities amongst the Anarchist Clubs of the eastern vicinity of London

Incidentally, Professer Christopher Andrew writes acurate stuff on the security establishment, and he records Superintendent Melville wining and dining Rachkovsky at Simpson's Cigar Divan in the Strand. R. had nice things to say about the discreet Melville.

Never mind all the names in the ledgers being false; and all the files destroyed. I reckon our heads will be truly spinning at the end of it all!

After all, look at the poor emigre Jews in the East End, changing their surnames like ...and they weren't even working for Special Branch or the Ochrana.

Never mind Lewis Carroll being the Ripper, I think he would be the only mind that could sort this mess out.

Thanks for your kind remarks, Lynn.

JOHN RUFFELS.

[Debra A]

This does not state where he was at the time of the murders so its pure conjecture for you to state he was in England during those times.

The word "late" as in "late 1888" is the key here. I would respectfully suggest the 6 months could be from January to June 1888, could it not? Also, do we know that his winter studio sojourn was in London? Could he not have been in a studio in Ireland in the winter?
Without definitive dates or places, there are various options in reading that advertisment, I respectfully opine.

I found Chris's information on 57 Bedford Gardens, Kensington and the possible link to William Magrath, artist, born in Ireland very interesting and thank him for posting this information.
There appears to be a general concensus on this thread that the information Chris provided is not worth following up on for various reasons, but I felt I had to point out that Chris's assertion that William Magrath was in England in late 1888 looks like it was absolutely correct. Passenger ship records show that Magrath sailed home to the US from England in December of 1888. He was a frequent visitor to Ireland and England c 87-1892, spending long periods of time in both countries.