The Secret Special Branch Ledgers

[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.

[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.)

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.)

[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

[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]

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