New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Tecs]

Without replying to any specific post, DSS said that he knew for certain the identity of JTR.

OK.

But didn't P.C. Spicer say the same with as much confidence?

regards,

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Just as a matter of interest, does anyone know if DSS owned a copy of Macnaghten's memoirs?

Regards,

Simon

[Phil H]

If you had any knowledge of, or discussions upon, the Whitechapel Murders during your career, would we know of them? Not details, of course, no names, etc, but whether the subject was at any level discussed and or acted upon?

If it had been a matter of confidentialty at the time and had not been made public, it would not be made public by me. I am still bound by the Official Secrets Act, of course.

How would Phil H, the private person with an avid interest in JTR, be able to remain quiet on the subject without letting a few hints here and there, without names or details, let slip?

When the subject is raised, your antennae become very sensitive. You either avoid being drawn into the discussion or make remarks that are well within what is public.

When the Freedom of information Act discussion re the SB ledgers was underway late in 2011, I tried to advise Trevor and others of the sort of issues with which I was familiar (in a different department) to provide understanding and background. I did not reveal anything of the detail of cases I had worked on. Had I been in the relevant department, i would not have entered the discussion at all.

Secondly, I refer to the Barlow and Watt series on JTR back in the middle of the 70's.

I remember watching it first time round.

We felt it odd that even after 85 years the DPP's office was not prepared to make the matter completely clear. We consider it proper to make the point in the programme."

This leads me to the question.

If there was any problem involving PAV and the Cleveland St Scandel in papers in the DPP, why would these papers today, 125 years later, should they exist after 1973, be unobtainable?

That was all before the FOI Act came into force, of course.

Then it would have been about the 30 year rule, and any remaining sensitivity that might have prolonged that. You will recall that the Bletchley Priory breaking of the Enigma code remained secret for decades.

The sort of issues usually invoked (and listed in the FOI Act) are, National Security, Special Forces, on-going investigations, Royal Family (there was a ruling recently re Prince Charles). In the case of the SB Registers it is possible that there were real concerns about the safety of descendents of informers, or of the setting of a precedent.

Even today under FOI legislation, sensitive or personal material can be withheld (Data Protection Act is the opposite of FOI) - either redacted (blacked out) in a released document; or removed from the file temprarily if the file is to be examined by the enquirer.

I have no idea whether, in the 60s/70s the medical/legal departments had any different rules. I am aware that, in some instances, things like medical papers, aylum records etc, could be withheld for 100 years - hence some now becoming available. Parliament ruled 10 years or so ago that Census records would continue to be withheld for 100 years given the commitments made to those filing out forms.

But there was a different climate in Government back then. I joined the civil service in 1974 and it was a different place culturally to what I left last year. I suspect that much more caution would have been shown over records still withheld.

I know Roy Jenkins (I think) as Home Secretary, gave permission for some researchers to view the JtR files early (in the early 70s?) so if they were being withheld for 100 years - which is implied - officials may have seen some papers as being much more sensitive than would be the case in today's more relaxed environment.

Today, believe me - and it was part of my day-to-day work in recent years - officials bend over backwards to be helpful. But the rules are complex and sometimes difficult to balance - say wishing to provide information but having to decline because personal details of individuals might be capable of being inferred, or to do so could lead to a risk to someone's safety. thus addresses, responses to correspondence etc might be withheld even today.

Hope what I have said helps. Come back if you want more or different.

phil H

[Phil H]

didn't P.C. Spicer say the same with as much confidence?

Spicer was not the case co-ordinator and in a position to know.

Phil H

[AdamNeilWood]

Hi All,

Just as a matter of interest, does anyone know if DSS owned a copy of Macnaghten's memoirs?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

If you mean Days of My Years, there wasn't a copy in DSS's small library of crime books which ended up with Nevill Swanson.

If you mean a copy of the Memorandum, it hasn't turned up yet but Nevill still has some sorting of papers to do!

Best wishes
Adam

[Tecs]

didn't P.C. Spicer say the same with as much confidence?

Spicer was not the case co-ordinator and in a position to know.

Phil H

True.

But people often make the mistake of thinking that the higher up you go, the more likely you are to know the truth. But think for a second. How much could Anderson know? he wasn't in the country for most of the murders and took all of his knowledge second hand. Yes, DSS is much more likely to be in a better position to know as he was in touch with the men on the ground, but I believe that DSS got most of his information (or a great deal of it) from Abberline and Abberline poo-poohed Anderson. Whatever, it is inconceivable that Abberline did not know what Swanson did and he, Abb, dismissed the theory.

Regarding Spicer I was, semi tongue in cheek, just pointing out that just because a police officer says they know who the ripper was doesn't for a moment mean it's true. i used Spicer as an example of somebody whose family could have gone around saying "Grandad Bob knows who the Ripper is" without it being true.

regards,

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil H,

THANK YOU for the very detailed reply. It is most appreciated.

What I am trying to get to is this.
Can we today say, in 2012, that The Whitechapel Murders are not a matter of confidentiality in any way with any certainty?

And in reference to the Cleveland Street Scandel, and the DPP, do files from the DPP get transferred to the NA? Because when I (not so very long ago) inquired at the NA to DPP files deposited with them re the CSS, I was told that they had no files in their posession that had come from the DPP on that particular case. The question remains therefore, would the DPP still be witholding files from 1890, as they apparently were (3 off) in 1973? Is there a record of files having been destroyed and when from that Dept?

My apologies to all with the sidetrack from the Swanson Marginalia, History of.. there is a faint connection behind my questions to Phil H. Thank you all for your patience.

best wishes

Phil

[AdamNeilWood]

Hi Phil,

If the intention of those supporting the "suspect" "Kosminski" feel that their "suspect" is somehow strengthened by the article of the History of the Marginalia in Ripperologist, then I find that it has done no such thing. That is my impression.

The History of the Marginalia has been, for me personally, a really fine eye opener. I suspect Jonathan, that some people didn't expect that sort of reaction from those not supporting the Kosminski campaign. I reckon they thought the strength of the suspect be reinforced by the article...not questioned in any way.

As you know, the purpose of the article was to record the history of the annotations and the book in which they were made. There was no intention to reinforce or weaken the case against Kosminski - in fact we didn't even discuss the meaning of the Marginalia.

However, the case for Kosminski has indirectly been slightly strengthened purely because we have shown the the Marginalia was written by Swanson. Because of that, it must now be accepted that Kosminski was a contemporary suspect.

I believe that the History of the Marginalia has been very helpful in telling us the disposition of DSS, his attitude and his character. I believe that the family's impression of the man strengthen's the view that DSS is commentating on Anderson's story only, as he was either told it or knew it.

You might be interested to hear that the family suspect that Anderson's comments were based on information supplied by DSS - "the eyes and ears" who would have known more about the case than anyone else. The Marginalia is therefore the 'full story' as reported to Anderson, edited for publication.

Best wishes
Adam

[Simon Wood]

Hi Adam,

It may be worth mentioning that Swanson's "eyes and ears" role appears to have ended in December 1888 on the appointment of James Monro as Commissioner.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil H]

At the risk of diverting the thread again!!

Can we today say, in 2012, that The Whitechapel Murders are not a matter of confidentiality in any way with any certainty?

I certainly could not. If officials believed that some papers contained information that might put at risk the lives to descendents today - for instance, informers on the Fenians - then they migth recommend that in the public interest there should be no release. There was a whiff of this around the SB Registers, to me.

Also if there was the risk of creating a precedent by releasing certain papers - though I cannot think what that would be.

And in reference to the Cleveland Street Scandel, and the DPP, do files from the DPP get transferred to the NA?

No idea, but you have a right to ask under FOI.

Because when I (not so very long ago) inquired at the NA to DPP files deposited with them re the CSS, I was told that they had no files in their posession that had come from the DPP on that particular case.

Ask the DPP or his responsible Department (Min of justice?).

The question remains therefore, would the DPP still be witholding files from 1890, as they apparently were (3 off) in 1973?

It is possible.

Is there a record of files having been destroyed and when from that Dept?

Records are destroyed routinely for all sorts of reasons, but items that form a part of the "public record" should not be.

Destroying a public record - or any information without authority, is (or could be) an offence.

In the old days we used to sign of old files for "indefinite retention", "routine destruction" (after about 5 years) ; "retention for 10 or 15 years" etc, as appropriate. It tends to be policy papers that are kept longest or indefinitely, or cases of note. I have no idea of practice in the DPP area.

It does appear that over the century or so since the files were closed, the JtR papers have been badly kept both at the yard and elsehwhere, indeed, material appears to have gone since transfer to the NA!! (I was reading the Ripperologist article about the photographs recently.)

Phil H

[PaulB]

Paul

You are much better versed in all this than I, but the discussion started from the marginalia where DSS underlines a point of Anderson's viz:

Scotland Yard can boast that not even the subordinate officers of the department will tell tales out of school, and it would ill become me to violate the unwritten rule of the service.

In an earlier post I gave my reasons (having dismissed irony) for believing the underlining to be an endorsement by DSS of his former chief's comment. the discussion progressed from there.

Phil H

Hi Phil,
Yes, I agree with your assessment, although noting the slight possibility that the underlining was DSS's way of saying "you've done it, matey". My question was in fact to Phil Carter who seems to have it in his head that DSS actually said wild horses wouldn't drag the Ripper's name from his lips.
Paul

[Phil Carter]

Hello Adam,

Thank you for your post.

The first reaction I had was posted before me by Simon, as I thought that the DSS "role" you refer to appears to end at the end of 1888?

Then, as we know that DSS was "the eyes and ears" of the case, and that every paper on all kinds had to pass through the hands of DSS, we must simply consider why DSS was still apparently chasing The Whitechapel Murderer, along with many of his colleagues, into 1895. It seems entirely logical and obvious to me that no policeman of authority would still be acting upon a case that was, in effect, by 1895, if Kosminski had already been "identified", "closed"...or at least closed down.
I therefore personally conclude that any person thereafter expressing such distinct knowledge of the alleged murderer, cannot be writing from the perspective of his personal role and involvement, which clearly extends well beyond the incarceration of Aaron Kosminski.

This is therefore, for me, another connected reason why I believe that DSS was filling in Anderson's story. His direct work clearly runs against the incarceration of Kosminski being the murderer, imho.

If DSS knew the identity of the murderer, or murderers, and expressly refused to talk shop about it to his family, I honestly believe he took the name or names to his grave. Just my opinion though.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,
Yes, I agree with your assessment, although noting the slight possibility that the underlining was DSS's way of saying "you've done it, matey". My question was in fact to Phil Carter who seems to have it in his head that DSS actually said wild horses wouldn't drag the Ripper's name from his lips.
Paul

Hello Paul,

For the umpteenth time, DSS did not say that. Jim Swanson used the words, I believe. So try reading what I have written Paul... I wrote in reply to your previous post.. DSS did not utter those words.

You seem to have problems reading a sentence clearly. So before casting aspertions as to my mindset, do please get the facts right. You know..the facts. A word you are used to using. See my previous post to you if in doubt with this one.

Thank you

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

At the risk of diverting the thread again!!

Can we today say, in 2012, that The Whitechapel Murders are not a matter of confidentiality in any way with any certainty?

I certainly could not. If officials believed that some papers contained information that might put at risk the lives to descendents today - for instance, informers on the Fenians - then they migth recommend that in the public interest there should be no release. There was a whiff of this around the SB Registers, to me.

Also if there was the risk of creating a precedent by releasing certain papers - though I cannot think what that would be.

And in reference to the Cleveland Street Scandel, and the DPP, do files from the DPP get transferred to the NA?

No idea, but you have a right to ask under FOI.

Because when I (not so very long ago) inquired at the NA to DPP files deposited with them re the CSS, I was told that they had no files in their posession that had come from the DPP on that particular case.

Ask the DPP or his responsible Department (Min of justice?).

The question remains therefore, would the DPP still be witholding files from 1890, as they apparently were (3 off) in 1973?

It is possible.

Is there a record of files having been destroyed and when from that Dept?

Records are destroyed routinely for all sorts of reasons, but items that form a part of the "public record" should not be.

Destroying a public record - or any information without authority, is (or could be) an offence.

In the old days we used to sign of old files for "indefinite retention", "routine destruction" (after about 5 years) ; "retention for 10 or 15 years" etc, as appropriate. It tends to be policy papers that are kept longest or indefinitely, or cases of note. I have no idea of practice in the DPP area.

It does appear that over the century or so since the files were closed, the JtR papers have been badly kept both at the yard and elsehwhere, indeed, material appears to have gone since transfer to the NA!! (I was reading the Ripperologist article about the photographs recently.)

Phil H

Hello Phil H,

Once again thank you kindly for your detailed answer. It has given me much food for thought.

best wishes

Phil

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

As you well know I'd wager, DSS doesn't make that statement.

best wishes

Phil

Well, yes, I am perfectly well aware that he never made that statement, but you appear to have been saying that DSS did tell his family that he wouldn't name the Ripper. To Chris you wrote the following (my italics):

"It is very easy to see that it would be hard to believe Chris..yes, IF one doesn't take into account, which I am doing, that DSS specifically said to his family that he would not reveal the name of the man he believed was the killer."

There is, as I am sure you appreciate, a big difference between DSS saying that he would not reveal the name and other people saying that he said he would not reveal the name. And what he said to children and grandchildren, might be different from what he said to his wife. And one must also take into account the fact that families very often didn't discuss such gruesome things, so Swanson might have been reluctant to discuss the case beyond saying the Ripper was identified. The bottom line is that Swanson didn't say he wouldn't divulge the name of the murderer, other people, remembering after some period of time had passed, said that he wouldn't.