The Secret Special Branch Ledgers

[mariab]

Actually, checking what Clutterbuck says, I see that there are actually five sections per letter of the alphabet

5 sections arranged after the SECOND letter of the name, alphabetically?

Clutterbuck does seem to believe that the arrangement within each cut is chronological, as he speaks of "taking an archaeological approach" to estimating the dates of entries from nearby ones.

I'm not comtemplating for a minute that this isn't a basically chronological entry system, but I suspect that there might have been subsequent/additional entries, added out of order. I think that Debra Arif also sees it that way. (If I'm not mistaken.)

[Stewart P Evans]

Impossible

...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.
...
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

Yes, the words were spoken and I don't even know who the gentleman was who made the statement.

If the ledgers were simply to disappear how would anyone be able to prove they had been destroyed? You need evidence to prove just who was responsible for the items going missing and I don't think you would find too many witnesses behind those closed doors. And if the hierarchy were sympathetic to the non-production of the material then I should think the task would be impossible.

[Chris]

Actually, checking what Clutterbuck says, I see that there are actually five sections per letter of the alphabet, so what we have is an image of part of a page covering essentially surnames beginning Ke, which obviously changes the calculation. Not that I'm convinced that's the right Kennedy anyway, considering that there does seem to have been a fairly prominent nationalist with the right initials.

Clutterbuck does seem to believe that the arrangement within each cut is chronological, as he speaks of "taking an archaeological approach" to estimating the dates of entries from nearby ones.

[mariab]

But if this is entry were to be dated c. 20 December 1888, that would suggest that the entry mentioning a Catherine Kelly, only seven lines earlier, would be later than the date of Eddowes's murder.

Very astute, IF there were NO subsequent additions in the ledgers (i.e., and the Kellys were a subsequent addition).

Quote Lynn Cates:
My understanding is that the ledgers are not in chronological order.

I'd be very surprised if they weren't. The reason for arranging records like this by the first letter of the surname was that you could have the convenience of adding entries in chronological order, but could later find entries for a particular surname without having to search through the whole document.

It makes sense that the ledgers are basically chronological, but that subesequently additions could have been made? (And when I say “additions“, I mean for commodity, NOT conspiracy.)

[Chris]

Another possibility may be that the entry, "Dr Tanner referring to his case in the House of Commons," relates to questions asked by Tanner on 20 December 1888 about the prosecution of two police officers, Sergeant Kennedy and Constable Booth, by the (Nationalist) Mayor of Cork on charges of assault and obstruction. It had been reported in the Cork newspapers that the magistrate had said "That, taking into consideration the serious consequences of a criminal conviction to Sergeant Kennedy, &c., the Bench had determined to dismiss the case;"

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1888/dec/20/riots-c-ireland-the-mayor-of-cork

Unfortunately I can't find any mention of Sergeant Kennedy's initials to confirm this.

And, on the other hand, online sources refer to a J. E. Kennedy who was a member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood from Cork, who was active in the 1880s. But I can't find any reference to Tanner having mentioned him in Parliament.

[jason_c]

Its assumed these Special Branch Ledgers deal with Fenians. Whats the likelihood they deal with continental security instead? Russia, Poland or Germany perhaps?

Im viewing this from a Kosminski angle and have no idea if im way off the mark..

[Chris]

My understanding is that the ledgers are not in chronological order.

I'd be very surprised if they weren't. The reason for arranging records like this by the first letter of the surname was that you could have the convenience of adding entries in chronological order, but could later find entries for a particular surname without having to search through the whole document.

[lynn cates]

it's not about time

Hello Chris.

"But if this is entry were to be dated c. 20 December 1888, that would suggest that the entry mentioning a Catherine Kelly, only seven lines earlier, would be later than the date of Eddowes's murder."

My understanding is that the ledgers are not in chronological order.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

dude?

Hello Phil. Perhaps, but just try adapting to the contemporary, "Awesome dude!" It's enough to give one the vapours.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

The "J. E. Kennedy" whose police observation Dr. Tanner was complaining about in the Chief Constables's Register may have been a clerical error. In June 1888 Mr E. J. Kennedy, MP for Sligo South, announced his resignation and applied for and received stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds.

Another possibility may be that the entry, "Dr Tanner referring to his case in the House of Commons," relates to questions asked by Tanner on 20 December 1888 about the prosecution of two police officers, Sergeant Kennedy and Constable Booth, by the (Nationalist) Mayor of Cork on charges of assault and obstruction. It had been reported in the Cork newspapers that the magistrate had said "That, taking into consideration the serious consequences of a criminal conviction to Sergeant Kennedy, &c., the Bench had determined to dismiss the case;"

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1888/dec/20/riots-c-ireland-the-mayor-of-cork

Unfortunately I can't find any mention of Sergeant Kennedy's initials to confirm this.

But if this is entry were to be dated c. 20 December 1888, that would suggest that the entry mentioning a Catherine Kelly, only seven lines earlier, would be later than the date of Eddowes's murder.

[Chris]

That phrasing suggested to me that you disagree with the approach the authorities are taking.

Obviously. So what?

I don't think I can state it any more simply than I have done already, so all I can do is repeat what I said before:
What I am saying is that I think the risk is being outlandishly exaggerated by some people. That's entirely different from saying that the risk shouldn't be properly assessed, or that "I don't care" what the risk is.

[Phil H]

Surely that distinction is not hard to grasp?

It was to me from the way you phrased your previous post!

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?

That phrasing suggested to me that you disagree with the approach the authorities are taking. I gave you a straight answer.

[ChrisGeorge]

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

Hi Lynn, Phil, Chris et al.

The answer to the possibility that the Whitechapel murders involved some type of conspiracy is probably the fact that the police keep the case open for several years after the canonical murders had ceased, so that it appeared that the killer had left the area, died, or been incarcerated and when, indeed, many police officials and other observers (e.g., writer George R. Sims) began to think the man had died or committed suicide. The evident curiosity that continued to be shown by the police who had worked on the case in the opinions they shared either in their own books or in interviews would appear to show that they did not believe a conspiracy was involved.

All the best

Chris

[Chris]

Phil

Kindly don't misrepresent what I've said, and don't put words I haven't said into my mouth.

What I am saying is that I think the risk is being outlandishly exaggerated by some people. That's entirely different from saying that the risk shouldn't be properly assessed, or that "I don't care" what the risk is.

Surely that distinction is not hard to grasp?

[Phil H]

Chris

I can't believe you're serious.

Well you should.

What we are talking about here (at least what I am talking about) is the assessment of risk.

You can take judgements without accountability or responsibility for their impact. Officials cannot - they are answerable.

demonstrably there are very strange people out there who will use information to harm others - animal rights activists, anti-fox-hunting activists, nationalists, all sorts.

Northern ireland is again seeing sectarian murders by extreme nationalist groups - how can anyone say how information might be used. Judgement has to be given to the release of information. As we don't know precisely what that information is, how it is laid out,or its context, we cannot make that judgement - but someone has to.

Hence the process being gone through.

I hate to think what would follow if your "I don't care" approach. was adopted.

Freedom of information is one thing, irresponsibility in its use and application is quite another - but that is, of course my opinion.

Phil