Access to Scotland Yard Files

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty View Post
    As you state, that's not Special Branch, who would not have conducted such a watch in relation to that offence.

    Special Brannch interest in Tumblety is built around the Fenians, everything else comes under Sus law, and an excuse (rightly) to monitor him.

    Monty
    I stand to be corrected here but off the top of my head I cant recall anything other than Littlechilds letter which shows SB had an interest in Tumblety

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Au contraire mon ami and I still wait for you to answer my questions but I wont hold my breath

    As the saying goes "The truth is out there " but when it is found oh boy some just can bear to live with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • El White Chap
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Dont you worry your little cotton socks about me I will not be staying.

    You should spend your time working out and explaining how a killer can remove a uterus and a kidney with a long bladed knife with some medical precision from a blood filled abdomen in almost total darkness in 5 minutes.

    If you brain will not allow for excercise then I would be happy to tell you in two words "He didnt"

    If that still is not enough for you might I suggest you purchase a copy of my DVD which will show you not only in words but pictures what really happened



    I rest my case



    Nah you're alright Trev.

    After seeing you spout such hilariously deluded theories on all things Whitechapel (especially the non-removal of organs theory), I think I'll take a miss on your book/DVD if it's all the same.

    Your indepth time spend researching the case is thoroughly commendable, however your conclusions are the polar opposite.

    I wouldn't rest your case too much if I was you, little if anything has been proven by your efforts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    I think you will find the surveillance was in connection with his activities in male brothels hence the fact that they were able to build up case against him and when they finally,made a decision to arrest him they already had their evidence in place to charge him.

    The formulation of the charges suggest the police (not SB) had him under surveillance between June and Nov 7th when they finally arrested him charged him, and kept him in custody for court and then had him remanded in custody for a week, in which time he was able to come up with suitable sureties for bail to be granted.

    This is where Littlechilds reference to a large file on him has been misconstrued the large file he reffered to was not on the ripper nor on Fenians.
    As you state, that's not Special Branch, who would not have conducted such a watch in relation to that offence.

    Special Brannch interest in Tumblety is built around the Fenians, everything else comes under Sus law, and an excuse (rightly) to monitor him.

    Monty

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Although they are freely available in copy form to view the redactors black marker pen has made them all but worthless all names have been removed. The reason the name Jack the Ripper was not removed was because the redactor clearly didn't believe that to be a proper name
    Obviously, the point is that because the name Jack the Ripper hasn't been redacted, at least some of the Ripper-related entries are identifiable, and in these cases it's possible that the full (unredacted) versions will be released, in the same way that the ones you identified were released to you.

    There's nothing at all conceptually difficult here (at least by most people's standards).

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty
    replied
    Originally posted by spyglass View Post
    Yes...surviellance indeed ( no spell check on this phone ) But as Littlechild later stated, " Tumblety was a likely suspect".
    True, this is what I mean by the differentiation between Littlechild and Special Branch.

    Monty

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by El White Chap View Post
    Oh lookie lookie, Trev's back on the boards with his wacky 'no organs were removed from the victims' spiel.

    With all due respect, I'll take the word of the doctors who examined the actual bodies.

    So much for you leaving eh Trev...
    Dont you worry your little cotton socks about me I will not be staying.

    You should spend your time working out and explaining how a killer can remove a uterus and a kidney with a long bladed knife with some medical precision from a blood filled abdomen in almost total darkness in 5 minutes.

    If you brain will not allow for excercise then I would be happy to tell you in two words "He didnt"

    If that still is not enough for you might I suggest you purchase a copy of my DVD which will show you not only in words but pictures what really happened






    I rest my case

    Leave a comment:


  • spyglass
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    If here was anything else on the ripper in those files Clutterbuck would have found it he had them for some considerable time in un redcated form
    Was it not the case that Clutterbuck wasnt looking for or even intrested in the JTR entries, He only mentions it in passing because who saw the links to the case.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris View Post
    Trevor, if you would only read properly what people write, you would save yourself a lot of trouble.

    I don't believe for a moment that there is anything "startling" about the Ripper crimes in these records. What I said was that there "just might be something of some interest there".

    Presumably you thought the same, or you would not have tried to get access to these records in the first place. What baffles me is why - having gone to that trouble - not only can you not be bothered to look thoroughly at what has been released, but also it seems you wish to discourage anyone else from doing so.
    I am on record as saying that the registers are some of the most important victorian police records that I had ever come across that is one of the reasons I attempted to get them made public not just for the ripper aspect. They give such an insight into the activities and the workings of special branch and their intelligence gathering process way back then.

    Although they are freely available in copy form to view the redactors black marker pen has made them all but worthless all names have been removed. The reason the name Jack the Ripper was not removed was because the redactor clearly didn't believe that to be a proper name
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • El White Chap
    replied
    Oh lookie lookie, Trev's back on the boards with his wacky 'no organs were removed from the victims' spiel.

    With all due respect, I'll take the word of the doctors who examined the actual bodies.

    So much for you leaving eh Trev...

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Well he takes time to mention what he did find in his thesis on the Ripper case. Would you not have thought that had there been anything startling he would have included it in his thesis, or made it public by other means or is that to logical for you to comprehend ?
    Trevor, if you would only read properly what people write, you would save yourself a lot of trouble.

    I don't believe for a moment that there is anything "startling" about the Ripper crimes in these records. What I said was that there "just might be something of some interest there".

    Presumably you thought the same, or you would not have tried to get access to these records in the first place. What baffles me is why - having gone to that trouble - not only can you not be bothered to look thoroughly at what has been released, but also it seems you wish to discourage anyone else from doing so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris View Post
    Perhaps. But as we don't have access to everything Clutterbuck found, that's rather irrelevant.
    Well he takes time to mention what he did find in his thesis on the Ripper case. Would you not have thought that had there been anything startling he would have included it in his thesis, or made it public by other means or is that to logical for you to comprehend ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    If here was anything else on the ripper in those files Clutterbuck would have found it he had them for some considerable time in un redcated form
    Perhaps. But as we don't have access to everything Clutterbuck found, that's rather irrelevant.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris View Post
    The interesting thing about these records is that - if I understand correctly - the redacted version of the register released previously has not been fully searched for Ripper-related entries. If further entries were found, presumably there would be a good chance that the full versions would be released on the same basis as before.

    I'm surprised that no one has taken the opportunity to do this (unless someone has and I've missed it). There just might be something of some interest there.
    If here was anything else on the ripper in those files Clutterbuck would have found it he had them for some considerable time in un redcated form

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty View Post
    This was surviellance, on Tumblety, in connection to Fenian activities and not the Whitechapel murders.

    Monty
    I think you will find the surveillance was in connection with his activities in male brothels hence the fact that they were able to build up case against him and when they finally,made a decision to arrest him they already had their evidence in place to charge him.

    The formulation of the charges suggest the police (not SB) had him under surveillance between June and Nov 7th when they finally arrested him charged him, and kept him in custody for court and then had him remanded in custody for a week, in which time he was able to come up with suitable sureties for bail to be granted.

    This is where Littlechilds reference to a large file on him has been misconstrued the large file he reffered to was not on the ripper nor on Fenians.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X