Conspiracy theories

[Herlock Sholmes]

In the Macnaughten Memorandum it refers to Thomas Cutbush as Superintendent Charles Cutbush's nephew. Modern day researchers on the forums think this wasn't actually the case as no hard evidence outside of the MM has proven this.

However for me if police mistakenly believed they were very close relatives at the time of the murders it would still give them the motive for a cover-up to avoid embarrassment. What probably added to this was the fact that Charles was practically insane and was obsessed with the idea someone was trying to poison him. Likewise I believe contemporary newspapers were already leveling accusations of relations and even a role of an accomplice against the Superintendent that he was helping Thomas with the murders, providing information and escape routes.

Fair point Astatine

[The Baron]

In the Macnaughten Memorandum it refers to Thomas Cutbush as Superintendent Charles Cutbush's nephew. Modern day researchers on the forums think this wasn't actually the case as no hard evidence outside of the MM has proven this.

Was there anything at all in the Macnaughten Memorandum that is not wrong?!

I even believe Cutbush is a better suspect than the other three suspects mentioned there.




The Baron

[Abby Normal]

Hi,
we now know about Police cover ups concerning Hillsborough, the Minors strike and now this week the Shrewsbury 24, which seems now also to involve the Government of that day right up to the PM Edward Heath.
surely its unwise to suggest Conspiracy at a high level is not likely or even possible....that includes the JTR case.

Regards.

all conspiracy theories involving the ripper are bullshit.

[Varqm]

I’m not debating with you that is what is written on the Warren-approved report from the Met (which was filed 5 weeks later). Does it tally with some newspaper reports or even the City of London police? There are variations of the text. That is a fact. As there are no photos we will never know what was actually written and in what way. Or even if there were other markings for example. Warren called the shots on this one from top the bottom. It was also the first site related to JTR he even bothered to visit. And it was not a murder scene. His passion for Anglo-Jewish relations should be rewarded and heralded. A man ahead of his time. So much so it was even he who sponged the chalk off the wall himself.

Got your point.Yes Warren only visited this time and it seems he was aware of a possible bigger catastrophe for the MET and the East End because of anti-Semitism and hatred for JTR. Wentworth Model Dwellings was mostly occupied by Jews.He partly miscalculated this time,that the text would cause a riot, but the meaning of the graffito itself was vague and even believed as as a deflection,something written to put the blame on the Jews,although it could also have been written by a Jew.I believe in Warren's version of the text which corresponded to PC Long's.1888 London was a different time and all this has to be understood in that context.

[spyglass]

all conspiracy theories involving the ripper are bullshit.

Very likely,
however my point being that some people cant believe that our Police and Government are capable of such things, and that Conspiracies do happen at higher levels.

[Varqm]

Very likely,
however my point being that some people cant believe that our Police and Government are capable of such things, and that Conspiracies do happen at higher levels.

Yes conspiracies could have occurred,many we do not know of unless one had private info about decisions in the highest level of gov't. JTR was in 1888,then a country like England,with lots of colonies,many people died/suffered there,any conspiracy involving JTR was mosquito bite.

[Losmandris]

I think that because there is so much hype around the case, so many unanswered questions and gaps in the evidence that conspiracy theories are bound to develop. I realise that cover ups have occurred but in this case I don't believe so. The truth is I suspect all too mundane.

[etenguy]

The ledgers being discarded was not significant and is not indicative of a cover-up.

A proces like that has two separate components:
1. the administration producing the documents decides whether the documents are still in use/relevant according to their internal policies and whether access can be given.

2. The archive receiving the documents after they leave use in the administration appraises the documents and determines if they have long-lasting value as historical documents. If not, they are discarded.

The two processes are independant and not reliant on each other, i.e. materials that are heavily used or sought after while in administrative use can be determined to be historically worthless - and vice versa.

I would normally agree with you on this point, Kattrup - that is certainly the type of exercise we go through at the archive where I have oversight responsibility. But such destruction on that basis is undermined by the actions of the police in defending them from view. They cannot be both of such significance no-one should be allowed to see them and then so insignificant they can be destroyed.

[Kattrup]

I would normally agree with you on this point, Kattrup - that is certainly the type of exercise we go through at the archive where I have oversight responsibility. But such destruction on that basis is undermined by the actions of the police in defending them from view. They cannot be both of such significance no-one should be allowed to see them and then so insignificant they can be destroyed.

I respectfully disagree, they can and archival materials generally often will be.Obviously I don't know the legislation where your archive operates.

but as an everyday example, in my archive we discard all paper files on individual citizens or employees after 2007 since the digital databases we archive will more than make up for the paper files.

So while the individual casefile will be kept confidential while active, once archived they are destroyed.

[etenguy]

I respectfully disagree, they can and archival generally often will be.Obviously I don't know the legislation where your archive operates.

but as an everyday example, in my archive we discard all paper files on individual citizens or employees after 2007 since the digital databases we archive will more than make up for the paper files.

So while the individual casefile will be kept confidential while active, once archived they are destroyed.

Hi Kattrup

That makes complete sense to me - however, these files were kept confidential long past being archived and then destroyed way past their review date and not long after the defense of their confidentiality. It may all have been a coincidence of timing and the review process simply following its normal course, as you suggest, but in the context of files being kept for over 120 years and then after a request to see them (that was refused) being destroyed - the conclusion that people might draw is clear.

[erobitha]

Hi Kattrup

That makes complete sense to me - however, these files were kept confidential long past being archived and then destroyed way past their review date and not long after the defense of their confidentiality. It may all have been a coincidence of timing and the review process simply following its normal course, as you suggest, but in the context of files being kept for over 120 years and then after a request to see them (that was refused) being destroyed - the conclusion that people might draw is clear.

....therefore can raise a case for suspicion in my view.

[Kattrup]

Hi Kattrup

That makes complete sense to me - however, these files were kept confidential long past being archived and then destroyed way past their review date and not long after the defense of their confidentiality. It may all have been a coincidence of timing and the review process simply following its normal course, as you suggest, but in the context of files being kept for over 120 years and then after a request to see them (that was refused) being destroyed - the conclusion that people might draw is clear.

As I understand it, the lddgers were never archived, in the sense transferred from the administration to a specialised separate archive operating under archival guidelines, they were simply forgotten about in some special branch filing room.

A request was filed to access them
, probably under some freedom of information-type legislation.
Special branch reviewed the case and declined the request in accordance to their internal policy, which is to never grant access to materials revealing informants. Under that policy, the fact that the ledgers were already 120 years old is irrelevant.

After that request had run its course, (process 1) special branch decided to organize their filing room. They therefore offered the ledgers to the NA who appraised them (process 2).

the NA decided that the ledgers were mostly unintelligible notations of low-level cash transfers and not worthy of preservation. Therefore, they were destroyed.

The case happened some 5-8-10 years ago, so I'm sure there are particulars that I've misunderstood.

But overall I see nothing out if the ordinary in the case.

Obviously, one can and should question Special Branch's policy, which btw is also the policy of SIS and probably other British intelligence services.

The idea that revealing the identity of some Whitechapel street informant 120 years after the event would seriously impede or hamper modern day intelligence work is ridiculous. One notes that other countries intelligence services do not have such a policy.
Still, if one is trying to convince a senior Russian general to become a spy, it's probably best not to broadcast to the world that his greatgrandfather was one.
and as security concerns always trump historical research, I've no doubt MI6 will maintain their never-ever policy.

[etenguy]

As I understand it, the lddgers were never archived, in the sense transferred from the administration to a specialised separate archive operating under archival guidelines, they were simply forgotten about in some special branch filing room.

A request was filed to access them
, probably under some freedom of information-type legislation.
Special branch reviewed the case and declined the request in accordance to their internal policy, which is to never grant access to materials revealing informants. Under that policy, the fact that the ledgers were already 120 years old is irrelevant.

After that request had run its course, (process 1) special branch decided to organize their filing room. They therefore offered the ledgers to the NA who appraised them (process 2).

the NA decided that the ledgers were mostly unintelligible notations of low-level cash transfers and not worthy of preservation. Therefore, they were destroyed.

The case happened some 5-8-10 years ago, so I'm sure there are particulars that I've misunderstood.

But overall I see nothing out if the ordinary in the case.

Obviously, one can and should question Special Branch's policy, which btw is also the policy of SIS and probably other British intelligence services.

The idea that revealing the identity of some Whitechapel street informant 120 years after the event would seriously impede or hamper modern day intelligence work is ridiculous. One notes that other countries intelligence services do not have such a policy.
Still, if one is trying to convince a senior Russian general to become a spy, it's probably best not to broadcast to the world that his greatgrandfather was one.
and as security concerns always trump historical research, I've no doubt MI6 will maintain their never-ever policy.

Hi Kattrup

That all sounds entirely plausible to me - maybe I'm over thinking it and seeing intentions that don't exist.

[etenguy]

....therefore can raise a case for suspicion in my view.

I agree the timing of events appears a little suspicious, erobitha, but kattrup also suggests a very plausible process which provides an innocent explanation.

[erobitha]

I agree the timing of events appears a little suspicious, erobitha, but kattrup also suggests a very plausible process which provides an innocent explanation.

Absolutely, but my point is that without any form of public oversight or involvement it is very easy to leave the opportunity for suspicion wide open. The fact we are told it was done because it compromises the protection of future informants, feels somewhat at at odds with simply destroying non-relevant archives.